Sourcebook (4th Edition)

World and Europe I: Sourcebook
Primary and Secondary Sources
Harvard-Westlake Middle School
Department of History and Social Studies
(Fourth Edition)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Source Analysis Sheet ……………………05
Arthur Marwick, The Fundamentals of History ……………………07
Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History ……………………09
Herodotus, Histories ……………………10
Plato, Allegory of the Cave ……………………13
Plato, The Republic ...…………………16
Livy, From the Founding of the City .…………………..19
XII Tables .…………………..23
Plutarch, Life of Tiberius Gracchus .…………………..27
Julius Caesar, Gallic Wars .…………………..29
Plutarch, Life of Julius Caesar .…………………..30
Res Gestae Divi Augusti .…………………..32
Augusto Fraschetti, Roman Women .…………………..37
Slavery in Antiquity .…………………..38
Exodus 20, The Ten Commandments …………………...42
Book of Acts .…………………..43
Tacitus, Annals .…………………..44
Pliny and Trajan, Letters .…………………..45
Minucius Felix, Octavius .…………………..47
Persecutions of Diocletian and Maximinus .…………………..48
Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine .…………………..49
Edict of Milan .…………………..50
Nicene Creed .…………………..51
St Augustine, City of God .…………………..52
2
St. Benedict of Nursia, Benedictine Rule .…………………..54
St. Jerome, Epistle .…………………..56
Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire . ………….………..57
Procopius of Caesarea, Secret History and History of the War .…………………..58
Beowulf .…………………..62
Charlemagne and Pope Leo III .…………………..65
Strasbourg Oaths .…………………..66
Concordat of Worms .…………………..67
Fiefs and Vassals .…………………..68
The Crusades .…………………..70
York Civic Ordinances, 1301 .…………………..76
Peter Abelard, Sic et Non .…………………..77
Geoffrey Chaucer, Canterbury Tales .…………………..78
Domesday Book .…………………..81
Alixe Bovey, Women in Medieval Society .…………………..82
Peter of Blois, Letter to Eleanor of Aquitaine .…………………..84
Constitutions of Clarendon .…………………..86
Gervase of Canterbury, History of the Archbishops of Canterbury .…………………..88
Magna Carta .…………………..89
Parliamentary Summons, 1295 .…………………..93
C. Warren Hollister, Philip II Augustus and the Extension of Royal Power .…………………..95
Jean de Joinville, Life of Saint Louis …………………...97
Clifford R. Backman, Mysticism ………………….. 99
Unam Sanctam ………….……… 101
Catherine of Siena, Letter to Pope Gregory XI ………………… .102
3
C. Warren Hollister, Iberian States: Consolidation through Homogenization ………………….103
Expulsion of the Jews from Spain, 1492 ………………….105
Giovanni Boccaccio, Decameron ………….………108
Jean Froissart, Chronicles ………….………110
Joan of Arc’s Trial of Condemnation ………….………111
Charles Ross, The Wars of the Roses in Historical Tradition ………….………113
Christine de Pizan, The Book of the City of Ladies ………….………114
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince ………….………117
Martin Luther, Ninety-Five Theses ………….………120
4
Document Analysis Sheet
When reading primary and secondary sources, it is important that you read with a critical eye. To do this, you need to
ask the right questions. Students, however, are often unsure of which questions to ask? So to help you, we have
created a “Document Analysis Sheet” (see over the page). This sheet contains critical analysis questions that you
should ask before and while you are reading any primary or secondary source. These questions will help you to better
evaluate the sources in this sourcebook. Make asking these questions part of your reading routine.
For more information about how to critically analyze primary and secondary sources, see those corresponding sections
in The Essentials and Research and Writing History.
5
Part A: Complete before you read the source.
Author’s Name? Author’s Place in Society?
Title of Source? Historical Context?
Publication Information?
Date of Source? Intended Audience?
Primary Source or Secondary Source (Circle One)?
Type of Source? Problems/Issues with the Source?

(Letter, Narrative Account, Government Record,
etc.)
Part B: Complete as you read (or after you have read) the source.
Point of View? Explanation:
What in the source can be considered historical “fact”?
What in the source can be considered the author’s interpretation or argument?
What inferences can we make from this document?
What type of arguments might this source support?
6
Arthur Marwick The Fundamentals of History
Arthur Marwick (1936-2006) was a professor in history. Born in Edinburgh, he held visiting professorships at the State University of New York
at Buffalo and Stanford University, among other places. He was a left-wing social and cultural historian but critical of Marxism and other
approaches to history that he believed stressed the importance of a grand narrative over research. He was also a critic of postmodernism, seeing it as a
“menace to serious historical study”. It was also the methodology of the postmodernists to which he was opposed, “the techniques to deconstruction or
discourse analysis have little value compared with the sophisticated methods historians have been developing over years”. The following passage is
taken from an article written by Arthur Marwick entitled “The Fundamentals of History”.
Source Citation: Arthur Marwick, “The Fundamentals of History,” History in Focus, last modified May 15, 2015.
http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Whatishistory/marwick1.html
Definition of History
Historians do not…“reconstruct” the past. What historians do is produce knowledge about the past, or, with respect to each
individual, fallible historian, produce contributions to knowledge about the past. Thus the best and most concise definition of
history is:
“The bodies of knowledge about the past produced by historians, together with everything that is involved in the
production, communication of, and teaching about that knowledge.”….
The Necessity of History
Knowledge of the past is essential to society. What happens in the present, and what will happen in the future, is very much
governed by what happened in the past. It is obvious that knowledge of the past has not brought easy solutions to problems
in, say, Northern Ireland, the Balkans, or Palestine. But without a thorough knowledge of past events and circumstances, we
could not even attempt to grapple with these problems. Without knowledge of the past we would be without identity, we
would be lost in an endless sea of time. The simplest answer to the questions “Why do history?” or “What is the use of
history?” is: “Try to imagine what it would be like to live in a society where there was absolutely no knowledge of the past.”
The mind boggles. Of course, if history has this vital importance for society, then it must be as accurate as possible, it must
be based on evidence and logical thought, not on specious theory or political ideology...
Training in history is training in analysing, evaluating, and interpreting both secondary and primary sources. It develops an
understanding that everything written pertaining to history, secondary or primary, must be approached with scepticism and
caution. It develops the ability to distinguish between pieces of writing which are well-substantiated and logical, and those
which simply express theory, hypothesis, or opinion. The skills and learning outcomes rising from historical study are
invaluable in a contemporary world which is dominated by information and communications. The methods and skills
required of the historian, and, more important, the attitudes of mind transmitted in the teaching of history, are of vital
importance in assessing and filtering the messages constantly battering against us. History also provides a training in the
writing up of the results of one's researches, in the form of essays, reports, dissertations. What is essential in history is clear
and effective communication, well structured, and written in precise and explicit language…
7
History and the Past
Much nonsense is talked about historians inevitably being “subjective”; the real point is that, being mere human beings, they
are “fallible”, and subject to many kinds of career and social pressures, or indeed common incompetence. Historians do
disagree with each other in their interpretations, as do scientists. But history deals with human values, in a way the sciences
do not, so there is more scope for differences in evaluation. Historical evidence is fragmentary, intractable, and imperfect.
Individual books and articles may clash with each other; there will always be areas where uncertainty persists, but steadily
agreed knowledge emerges in the form of works of synthesis and high-quality textbooks…
….The existence of the (mistaken) notion that historians “reconstruct” the past does indicate that there is an awareness of
the distinction between “history” and “the past”, though this distinction is often obfuscated. Particularly is this the case with
the metahistorians - A.J. Toynbee, right-wing political scientists like Francis Fukuyama, Marxists, and postmodernists - who,
apart from any other uses, apply the term “history” to some great process (invented by themselves) whereby the past unfolds
in a series of stages into the present and on into the future. In their own studies this process is taken as a given, and they test
the history of historians against this given. No, to keep clear of all the misconceptions which abound in historical
epistemology we have to make a firm distinction between history as “the bodies of knowledge about the past produced by
historians”, and “the past” as “everything which actually happened, whether known, or written, about by historians or not”.
Primary and Secondary Sources
…The only way we can have knowledge of the past is through studying the relics and traces left by past societies, the primary
sources. Primary sources, as it were, form the basic “raw material” of history; they are sources which came into existence
within the period being investigated. The articles and books written up later by historians, drawing upon these primary
sources, converting the raw material into history, are secondary sources (pedants insist on pointing out that secondary sources
may become primary sources for still later historians, but this is a matter of such triviality as scarcely to be worth bothering
about).
There is always some excitement about being in contact with a genuine primary source, but one will not learn very much
from a single source. Reading through an edited selection of excerpts from primary sources will have the salutary effect of
bringing one in contact with the thinking and language of past generations, but it will not amount to research. If the ordinary
reader, or history student, wants to learn quickly about the role and status of women during the Renaissance, or about the
causes of the First World War, they will be well advised to go to the secondary authorities, a knowledge of the principles of
history being useful in separating out the more reliable from the less. But if you are planning to make an original contribution
to historical knowledge, you are unlikely to make much of a stir if you stick strictly to other people's work, that is, the
secondary sources - to which, it should be stressed the research historian will frequently return throughout all stages of
research and writing…
It is through the secondary sources that one becomes beware of the gaps in knowledge, problems unsolved, suspect
explanations. It is with the aid of the secondary sources, and all the other resources of the profession, that one begins to
identify the archives in which one will commence one’s researches. Primary sources, numbingly copious in some areas, are
8
scarce and fragmentary in others. Much has to be garnered indirectly and by inference. Historians do not rely on single
sources, but are always seeking corroboration, qualification, correction; the production of history is very much a matter of
accumulating details, refining nuances. The technical skills of the historian lie in sorting these matters out, in understanding
how and why a particular source came into existence, how relevant it is to the topic under investigation, and, obviously, the
particular codes or language in accordance with which the particular source came into being as a concrete artifact.
Philosophers, and others ignorant of history, get confused because they think “primary” means “more truthful”, and
“secondary” means “less truthful”. That is not the distinction at all. A good secondary source will be as reliable as the
historian can possibly make it. Primary sources are full of prejudices and errors. They were not written to serve the interests
of historians coming along later: they were written to serve the interests of those who created them, going about their own
business.
_____________________________________________
Discussion Questions:
1. What is history and why is it important to have a knowledge of the past?

2. Why do historians often disagree with each other?
3. What is the importance of primary and secondary sources?
4. What is the essence of the historians’ craft with regard to primary and secondary sources?
_____________________________________________
Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History
Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975) was a highly prolific and learned historian. His monumental twelve volume A Study of History, from which the
passage below is taken, is a study of the history of twenty-six different societies. He is one of the most famous generalist historians, and is
remembered for his use of broad explanatory theories. In what follows, Toynbee will present one of those grand theories about the origin of
civilizations.
Source Citation: A. J. Toynbee, A Study of History, Volume I, ed. D.C. Somervell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1947) 98.
We have now reached a point at which we can bring our present argument to a head. We have ascertained that civilizations
come to birth in environments that are unusually difficult and not unusually easy, and this has led us to inquire whether or
not this is an instance of some social law which maybe expressed in the formula: ‘the greater the challenge, the greater the
stimulus.’ We have made a survey of the responses evoked by five types of stimulus—hard countries, new ground, blows,
pressures and penalizations—and in all five fields the result of our survey suggests the validity of the law. We have still,
however, to determine whether its validity is absolute. If we increase the severity of the challenge ad infinitum, do we thereby
ensure an infinite intensification of the stimulus and an infinite increase in the response when the challenge is successfully
met? Or do we reach a point beyond which increasing severity produces diminishing returns? And, if we go beyond this
point, do we reach a further point at which the challenge becomes so severe that the possibility of responding to it
9
successfully disappears? In that case the law would be that ‘the most stimulating challenge is to be found in a mean between
a deficiency of severity and an excess of it.’
Is there such a thing as an excessive challenge? We have not yet encountered an example of such, and there are several
extreme cases of the operation of challenge-and-response which we have not yet mentioned. We have not yet cited the case
of Venice - a city, built on piles driven into the mud bank of a salt lagoon, which has surpassed in wealth and power and glory
all the cities built on terra firma in the fertile plain of the Po; nor Holland - a country which has been actually salvaged from
the sea, but yet has distinguished herself in history far above any other parcel of ground of equal area in the North European
plain; nor Switzerland, saddled with her portentous load of mountains. It might seem that the three hardest pieces of ground
in Western Europe have stimulated their inhabitants to attain, along different lines, the highest level of social achievement
that has as yet been attained by any peoples of Western Christendom.
But there are other considerations. Extreme in degree though these three challenges are, they are limited in range to only one
of the two realms which constitute the environment of any society. They are challenges of difficult ground, no doubt, but on
the human side - blows, pressures and penalizations - the severity of this physical situation has been not a challenge but a
relief; it has shielded them from human ordeals to which their neighbors were exposed.
_____________________________________________
1. How does Toynbee explain the origins of civilization?

2. Why does Toynbee mention Venice, Holland and Switzerland?
3. What relevance is Toynbee’s argument to the civilization of ancient Greece?
_____________________________________________
Herodotus, Histories
The following account of the Battle of Marathon is taken from the writings of Herodotus. Herodotus of Halicarnassus (c. 484-425 BC) is well
known as the “Father of History”. He traveled widely throughout Greece, Egypt and Mesopotamia gathering information for his great work, which
he entitled History, the Greek word for “inquiry”. The earlier portions of this work deals with the customs, legends, history, and traditions of the
peoples of the ancient world, including the Persians, Assyrians and Egyptians. The latter sections, however, describe the events of the so-called
Persian Wars. Herodotus's information was derived in part from the work of predecessors, but it was widely supplemented with knowledge that he
had gained from his own travels. Although he was sometimes inaccurate, he was generally careful to separate plausible from implausible reports.
Moreover, his attempt to draw moral lessons from the study of great events formed the basis of Greek and Roman historiography.
Source Citation: Herodotus, “The Histories,” Internet Ancient History Sourcebook, accessed July 9, 2014,
www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook07.html
Description of the Battle of Marathon
So when the troops were in position, and the sacrifices had proven favorable, instantly the Athenians, so soon as they were
let go, went against the barbarians. But when the Persians saw them coming on at a run they prepared to receive them,
10
although it seemed to them that the Athenians were bereft of their senses, and bent upon their own destruction; for they saw
so few men coming on at a run without either horseman or archers. Such things then the barbarians suspected; but the
Athenians in close array fell upon them and fought in a way worthy of report. For they were the first of the Hellenes – so far
as I know - to make use of a running charge against enemy warriors, and they were likewise the first who dared to look upon
the Median garb and to face men clad in that fashion. Until then it was for Hellenes a fearful thing even to hear the name of
the Medes.
While they were battling at Marathon a long time passed, and in the middle of the battle-line victory went to the barbarians
and breaking through they pursued the Athenians inland; on the other hand, at the horn on each end victory went to the
Athenians and the Plataeans. And since they were victors, they allowed the routed part of the barbarians to flee, but at the
middle, against those who had broken through their own lines, they pulled together the horns and, on both sides, fought. The
Athenians were the victors. And as the Medes fled, they followed, cutting them down, until when they had come to the sea
they demanded fire and seized the ships.
Description of the Battle of Thermopylae
In the morning Xerxes made libations to the rising sun, after which he waited until the time when it was well up, before he
began his advance. This was according to the instructions of Ephialtes, for the descent down from the ridge is much quicker
and shorter, than the long and circuitous ascent. So the barbarians under Xerxes began to draw near; and the Greeks under
Leonidas, as they now went forth determined to die, advanced much further than on previous days, until they reached the
more open portion of the pass. Hitherto they had held their station within the wall and from this had gone forth to fight at
the point where the pass was the narrowest. Now they joined battle beyond the narrows, and carried slaughter among the
barbarians, who fell in heaps. Behind them the captains of the squadrons, armed with whips, urged their men forward with
continual blows. Many were thrust into the sea, and there perished; a still greater number were trampled to death by their
own soldiers; no one heeded the dying. For the Greeks, reckless of their own safety and desperate because they knew that as
the mountain had been crossed their destruction was near at hand, exerted themselves with the most furious valor against the
barbarians.
By this time the spears of most of the Greeks were broken, and with their swords they hewed down the ranks of the
Persians; and here, as they strove, Leonidas fell fighting bravely, together with many other famous Spartans, whose names I
have taken care to learn on account of their great worthiness, as indeed I have those of all the three hundred. There fell too
at the same time many famous Persians: among them, two sons of Darius, Abrocomes and Hyperanthes, his children by
Phratagoune, the daughter of Artanes…
And now there arose a fierce struggle between the Persians and the Lacedaemons over the body of Leonidas, in which the
Greeks four times drove back the enemy, and at last by their great bravery succeeded in bearing off the body. This combat
was scarcely ended when the Persians with Ephialtes approached; and the Greeks, informed that they drew near, made a
change in the manner of their fighting. Drawing back into the narrowest part of the pass, and retreating even behind the
cross wall, they posted themselves upon a hill, where they all stood except for the Thebans drawn up together in one close
body. The hill whereof I speak is at the entrance of the straits, where the stone lion stands which was set up in honor of
11
Leonidas. Here they defended themselves to the last, such as still had swords using them, and the others resisting with their
hands and teeth; till the barbarians, coming on from the front over the ruins of the wall and closing in from behind,
overwhelmed them and buried the remnant which was left beneath showers of missile weapons.
Thus nobly did the whole body of Lacedaemons and Thespians behave; but nevertheless one man is said to have
distinguished himself above all the rest, that is, Dieneces the Spartan. A speech, which he made before the Greeks engaged
the Medes, remains on record. One of the Trachinians told him, “Such was the number of the barbarians, that when they
shot forth their arrows the sun would be darkened by their multitude.” Dieneces, not at all frightened at these words, but
making light of the Median numbers, answered, “Our Trachinian friend brings us excellent tidings. If the Medes darken the
sun, we shall have our fight in the shade.” Other sayings too of a like nature are reported to have been left on record by this
same person. After Dieneces, the most outstanding men in this battle are said to be two Lacedaemon brothers named
Alpheos and Maron, the sons of Orsiphantos. There was also a Thespian who gained greater glory than any of his
countrymen: he was a man called Dithyrambos, the son of Harmatidas.
The slain were buried where they fell and with them the men who had died before those dismissed by Leonidas had left the
pass. In their honor, an inscription was set up which said:
Here did four thousand men from Pelops’ land

Against three million foes bravely stand.
This was in honor of all. Another was for the Spartans alone:
Tell them the news in Sparta, stranger passing by,

That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.
_____________________________________________
1. In the first passage, who were the barbarians referred to by Herodotus and why did he use this term?
2. According to Herodotus, what mistake did the Persians make that contributed to their defeat at Marathon?
3. In the second passage, how were the Spartans defeated at Thermopylae?
4. What insights does this passage give us into Herodotus’ motives for writing his history?
5. What does the last inscription tell us about the mindset of the Spartans?
_____________________________________________
12
Plato, Allegory of the Cave
Plato (c.428-348 BC) was a classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, student of Socrates, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the
Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western World. Along with his mentor, Socrates, and his student, Aristotle,
Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy and science. The Allegory of the Cave, which appears at the beginning of Book VII of
Plato’s best-known work, The Republic, provides a good introduction to the philosophical assumptions of Plato. The Allegory is written as a
fictional dialogue between Plato’s teacher Socrates and Plato's brother Glaucon. The Allegory is related to Plato’s Theory of Forms, according
to which the “Forms” (or “Ideas”) and not the material world of change known to us through our senses possess the highest and most fundamental
kind of reality. Only knowledge of the Forms constitutes real knowledge. In addition, the Allegory of the Cave is an attempt to explain the
philosopher's place in society: to attempt to enlighten the “prisoners”.
Source Citation: Plato, “The Republic,” Internet Ancient History Sourcebook, accessed July 9, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/asbook07.asp#Philosophy
[Socrates] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: - Behold! human
beings living in a underground cave, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the cave; here they
have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before
them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance,
and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like
the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.
[Glaucon] I see.
[Socrates] And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals
made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.
13
[Glaucon] You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the
opposite wall of the cave?
True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?
Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before
them?
Very true.
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one
of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.
That is certain.
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first,
when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the
light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former
state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive someone saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that
now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what
will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to
name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects
which are now shown to him?
Far truer.
And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take
and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which
are now being shown to him?
14
True, he now.
And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the
presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled,
and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.
Not all in a moment, he said.
He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the
reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the
moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of
the sun by day?
Certainly.
Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper
place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.
Certainly.
He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible
world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?
Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.
And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the cave and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that
he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?
Certainly, he would.
And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing
shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were
therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy
the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer, “Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure
anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?”
Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.
Imagine once more, I said, such a one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be
certain to have his eyes full of darkness?
15
To be sure, he said.
And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out
of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to
acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he
went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose
another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
No question, he said.
This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of
sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent
of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or
wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last
of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and
right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the
intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his
eye fixed.
_____________________________________________
1. What is an allegory?
2. How does the Allegory of the Cave illustrate Plato’s view of the physical world?
3. How would you interpret the shadows and the prisoners in the Allegory of the Cave?
4. According to the Allegory of the Cave, what is the main task of the philosopher?
_____________________________________________
16
Plato, The Republic
Various city-states in classical Greece, and particularly Athens, have been admired for their democratic institutions and practices. Yet Plato was a
harsh critic of democracy. An aristocratic Athenian who grew all during the Peloponnesian War, Plato became embittered by the trial and death of
his teacher Socrates in 399. After an extended absence from Athens, Plato returned in 386 and founded the Academy where he hoped to train
philosopher-statesmen in accordance with his ideals expounded in The Republic. In the following selection from that work, Plato employs the
dialogue form to examine democracy and its perils. This represents more than abstract thoughts, for at the time that it was written, there was a
rivalry between democratic forms of government, best represented by Athens, and more structured authoritarian forms, represented by Sparta.
Source Citation: Plato, ‘The Republic”, in Western Civilization: Images and Interpretations, Volume I, ed. Dennis Sherman (New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983), 60-62.
[Socrates] And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and
banishing some, while to the remainder they gave an equal share of freedom and power; and this is the form of government
in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot.
[Glaucon] Yes, he said, that is the nature of democracy, whether the revolution has been effected by arms, or whether fear
has caused the opposite party to withdraw.
[Socrates] And now what is their manner of life, and watch sort of a government have they? For as the government is, such
will be the man.
[Glaucon] Clearly, he said.
In the first place, are they not free; and is not the city full of freedom and frankness - a man may say and do what he likes?
It is said so, he replied.
And where freedom is, the individual is clearly able to order for himself his own life as he pleases?
Clearly.
Then in this kind of State there will be the greatest variety of human natures?
There will.
This, then, seems likely to be the fairest of States, being like an embroidered robe, which is spangled with every sort of
flower. And just as women and children think a variety of colors to be of all things most charming, so there are many men to
whom this State, which is spangled with the manners and characters of mankind, will appear to be the fairest of States.
Yes.
Yes, my good sir, and there will be no better in which to look for a government.
17
Why?
Because of the liberty which reigns there - they have a complete assortments of constitutions; and he who has a mind to
establish a State, as we have been doing, must go to a democracy as he would to a bazaar at which they sell them, and pick
out the one that suits him; then, when he has made his choice, he may found his State.
He will be sure to have patterns enough.
And there being no necessity, I said, for you to govern in this State, even if you have the capacity, or to be governed, unless
you like, or to go to war when the rest go to war, or to be at peace when others are at peace, unless you also disposed - there
being no necessity also, because some law forbids you to hold office or to be a dicast [an ancient Athenian performing the
functions of both judge and juror at a trial], that you should not hold office or be a dicast, if you have a fancy - is not this a
way of life which for the moment is supremely delightful?
For the moment, yes.
And is not their humanity to the condemned in some cases quite charming? Have you not observed how, in a democracy,
many persons, although they have been sentenced to death or exile, just stay where they are and walk around the world – the
gentleman parades like a hero, and nobody sees or cares?
Yes, he replied, many and many a one.
See too, I said, the forgiving spirit of democracy, and the “don’t care” about trifles, on the disregard which she shows of all
the fine principles which we solemnly laid down at the foundation of the city – as when we said that, except in the case of
some rarely gifted nature, there never will be a good man who has not from his childhood been used to play amid things of
beauty and make them a joy and a study – how grandly does she trample all these fine notions of ours under the her feet,
never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman, and promoting to honor any one who professes to be the
people’s friend.
Yes, she is of a noble spirit.
These and other kindred characteristics are proper to democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety
and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.
We know her well.
_____________________________________________
1. How does Plato view Athenian democracy?

2. How does this view of Athenian democracy compare with the view of Pericles in his Funeral Oration?
_____________________________________________
18
Livy, From the Founding of the City
Livy (64/59 BC-AD 17) was a Roman historian who wrote a monumental history of Rome and the Roman people - Ab Urbe Condita
(From the Founding of the City) - covering the period from the earliest legends of Rome before the traditional foundation in 753 BC through
the reign of the first emperor, Augustus, in Livy's own time. The following extract from The Founding of the City is taken from Livy’s account
of the foundation legends of Rome and the Roman Republic.
Source Citation: Livy, “The History of Rome,” Perseus Digital Library, accessed 9 July, 2014,
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0026&redirect=true
Birth of Romulus and Remus
1:4. But the Fates had, I believe, already decreed the origin of this great city and the foundation of the mightiest empire under
heaven. The Vestal [Rhea Silvia] was forcibly violated and gave birth to twins. She named Mars as their father, either because
she really believed it, or because the fault might appear less heinous if a deity were the cause of it. But neither gods nor men
sheltered her or her babes from the king’s cruelty; the priestess was thrown into prison, the boys were ordered to be thrown
into the river. By a heaven-sent chance it happened that the Tiber was then overflowing its banks, and stretches of standing
water prevented any approach to the main channel. Those who were carrying the children expected that this stagnant water
would be sufficient to drown them, so under the impression that they were carrying out the king’s orders they exposed the
boys at the nearest point of the overflow, where the fig tree Ruminalis (said to have been formerly called Romularis) now
stands. The locality was then a wild solitude. The tradition goes on to say that after the floating cradle in which the boys had
been exposed had been left by the retreating water on dry land, a thirsty she-wolf from the surrounding hills, attracted by the
crying of the children, came to them, gave them her teats to suck and was so gentle towards them that the king’s flock-master
found her licking the boys with her tongue. According to the story his name was Faustulus. He took the children to his hut
and gave them to his wife Larentia to bring up. Some writers think that Larentia, from her unchaste life, had got the
nickname of ‘She-wolf’ amongst the shepherds, and that this was the origin of the marvelous story.
The Founding of Rome and the Death of Remus
1:6. After the government of Alba was thus transferred to Numitor, Romulus and Remus were seized with the desire of
building a city in the locality where they had been exposed. There was the superfluous population of the Alban and Latin
towns, to these were added the shepherds: it was natural to hope that with all these Alba would be small and Lavinium small
in comparison with the city which was to be founded. These pleasant anticipations were disturbed by the ancestral curse –
ambition - which led to a deplorable quarrel over what was at first a trivial matter. As they were twins and no claim to
precedence could be based on seniority, they decided to consult the tutelary deities of the place by means of augury as to who
was to give his name to the new city, and who was to rule it after it had been founded. Romulus accordingly selected the
Palatine as his station for observation, Remus the Aventine.
1:7. Remus is said to have been the first to receive an omen: six vultures appeared to him. The augury had just been
announced to Romulus when twice the number appeared to him. Thereupon each was saluted as king by his own party. The
19
one side based their claim on the priority of the appearance, the other on the number of the birds. Then followed an angry
altercation; heated passions led to bloodshed; in the tumult Remus was killed. The more common report is that Remus
contemptuously jumped over the newly raised walls and was forthwith killed by the enraged Romulus, who exclaimed, “So
shall it be henceforth with everyone who leaps over my walls.” Romulus thus became sole ruler, and the city was called after
him, its founder.
The Rape of the Sabines
1:8. In the meantime, the City was growing by the extension of its walls in various directions an increase due rather to the
anticipation of its future population than to any present overcrowding. His [Romulus’] next care was to secure an addition to
the population that the size of the City might not be a source of weakness. It had been the ancient policy of the founders of
cities to get together a multitude of people of obscure and low origin and then to spread the fiction that they were the
children of the soil. In accordance with this policy, Romulus opened a place of refuge on the spot where, as you go down
from the Capitol, you find an enclosed space between two groves. A promiscuous crowd of freemen and slaves, eager for
change, fled thither from the neighboring states. This was the first accession of strength to the nascent greatness of the city.
1:9. The Roman State had now become so strong that it was a match for any of its neighbors in war, but its greatness
threatened to last for only one generation, since through the absence of women there was no hope of offspring, and there
was no right of intermarriage with their neighbors. Acting on the advice of the senate, Romulus sent envoys amongst the
surrounding nations to ask for alliance and the right of intermarriage on behalf of his new community. It was represented
that cities, like everything else, sprung from the humblest beginnings, and those who were helped on by their own courage
and the favor of heaven won for themselves great power and great renown. As to the origin of Rome, it was well known that
whilst it had received divine assistance, courage and self-reliance were not wanting. There should, therefore, be no reluctance
for men to mingle their blood with their fellowmen.
Nowhere did the envoys meet with a favorable reception. Whilst their proposals were treated with contumely, there was at
the same time a general feeling of alarm at the power so rapidly growing in their midst. Usually they were dismissed with the
question, “whether they had opened an asylum for women, for nothing short of that would secure for them inter-marriage on
equal terms.” The Roman youth could ill brook such insults, and matters began to look like an appeal to force.
To secure a favorable place and time for such an attempt, Romulus, disguising his resentment, made elaborate preparations
for the celebration of games in honor of equestrian Neptune, which he called Consualia. He ordered public notice of the
spectacle to be given amongst the adjoining cities, and his people supported him in making the celebration as magnificent as
their knowledge and resources allowed, so that expectations were raised to the highest pitch. There was a great gathering;
people were eager to see the new City, all their nearest neighbors - the people of Caenina, Antemnae, and Crustumerium -
were there, and the whole Sabine population came, with their wives and families. They were invited to accept hospitality at
the different houses, and after examining the situation of the City, its walls and the large number of dwelling-houses it
included, they were astonished at the rapidity with which the Roman State had grown.
20
When the hour for the games had come, and their eyes and minds were alike riveted on the spectacle before them, the
preconcerted signal was given and the Roman youth dashed in all directions to carry off the maidens who were present. The
larger part were carried off indiscriminately, but some particularly beautiful girls who had been marked out for the leading
patricians were carried to their houses by plebeians told off for the task. One, conspicuous amongst them all for grace and
beauty, is reported to have been carried off by a group led by a certain Talassius, and to the many inquiries as to whom she
was intended for, the invariable answer was given, “For Talassius.” Hence the use of this word in the marriage rites. Alarm
and consternation broke up the games, and the parents of the maidens fled, distracted with grief, uttering bitter reproaches
on the violators of the laws of hospitality and appealing to the god to whose solemn games they had come, only to be the
victims of impious perfidy.
The abducted maidens were quite as despondent and indignant. Romulus, however, went round in person, and pointed out
to them that it was all owing to the pride of their parents in denying right of intermarriage to their neighbors. They would live
in honorable wedlock, and share all their property and civil rights, and - dearest of all to human nature - would be the
mothers of freemen. He begged them to lay aside their feelings of resentment and give their affections to those whom
fortune had made masters of their persons. An injury had often led to reconciliation and love; they would find their husbands
all the more affectionate because each would do his utmost, so far as in him lay to make up for the loss of parents and
country. These arguments were reinforced by the endearments of their husbands who excused their conduct by pleading the
irresistible force of their passion - a plea effective beyond all others in appealing to a woman’s nature.
The Rape of Lucretia
1:57. One day when the young men were drinking at the house of Sextus Tarquinius, after a supper where they had dined
with the son of Egerius, Tarquinius Conlatinus, they fell to talking about their wives, and each man fell to praising his wife to
excess. Finally Tarquinius Conlatinus declared that there was no need to argue; they might all be sure that no one was more
worthy than his Lucretia. “Young and vigorous as we are, why don’t we go get our horses and go and see for ourselves what
our wives are doing? And we will base our judgment on whatever we see them doing when their husbands arrive
unannounced.” Encouraged by the wine, “Yes, let’s go!” they all cried, and they went on horseback to the city. Darkness was
beginning to fall when they arrived and they went to the house of Conlatinus. There, they found Lucretia behaving quite
differently from the daughters-in-law of the King, whom they had found with their friends before a grand feast, preparing to
have a night of fun. Lucretia, even though it was night, was still working on her spinning, with her servants, in the middle of
her house. They were all impressed by Lucretia’s chaste honor. When her husband and the Tarquins arrived, she received
them, and her husband, the winner, was obliged to invite the king’s sons in. It was then that Sextus Tarquinius was seized by
the desire to violate Lucretia’s chastity, seduced both by her beauty and by her exemplary virtue. Finally, after a night of
youthful games, they returned to the camp.
1:58. Several days passed. Sextus Tarquinius returned to the house of Conlatinus, with one of his companions. He was well
received and given the hospitality of the house, and maddened with love, he waited until he was sure everyone else was
asleep. Then he took up his sword and went to Lucretia’s bedroom, and placing his sword against her left breast, he said,
“Quiet, Lucretia; I am Sextus Tarquinius, and I have a sword in my hand. If you speak, you will die.” Awakening from sleep,
21
the poor woman realized that she was without help and very close to death. Sextus Tarquinius declared his love for her,
begging and threatening her alternately, and attacked her soul in every way. Finally, before her steadfastness, which was not
affected by the fear of death even after his intimidation, he added another menace. “When I have killed you, I will put next to
you the body of a nude servant, and everyone will say that you were killed during a dishonorable act of adultery.” With this
menace, Sextus Tarquinius triumphed over her virtue, and when he had violated her he left, having taken away her honor.
Lucretia, overcome with sorrow and shame, sent messengers both to her husband at Ardea and her father at Rome, asking
them each to come “at once, with a good friend, because a very terrible thing had happened.” Spurius Lucretius, her father,
came with Publius Valerius, the son of Volesus, and Conlatinus came with Lucius Junius Brutus; they had just returned to
Rome when they met Lucretia’s messenger. They found Lucretia in her chamber, overpowered by grief. When she saw them
she began to cry. “How are you?” her husband asked. “Very bad,” she replied, “how can anything go well for a woman who
has lost her honor? There are the marks of another man in your bed, Conlatinus. My body is greatly soiled, though my heart
is still pure, as my death will prove. But give me your right hand in faith that you will not allow the guilty to escape. It was
Sextus Tarquinius who returned our hospitality with enmity last night. With his sword in his hand, he came to take his
pleasure for my unhappiness, but it will also be his sorrow if you are real men.” They promised her that they would pursue
him, and they tried to appease her sorrow, saying that it was the soul that did wrong, and not the body, and because she had
had no bad intention, she did no wrong. “It is your responsibility to see that he gets what he deserves,” she said, “I will
absolve myself of blame, and I will not free myself from punishment. No woman shall use Lucretia as her example in
dishonor.” Then she took up a knife which she had hidden beneath her robe, and plunged it into her heart, collapsing from
her wound; she died there amid the cries of her husband and father.
1:59. Brutus, leaving them in their grief, took the knife from Lucretia's wound, and holding it all covered with blood up in the
aid, cried, “By this blood, which was so pure before the crime of the prince, I swear before you, O gods, to chase the King
Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, with his criminal wife and all their offspring, by fire, iron, and all the methods I have at my
disposal, and never to tolerate Kings in Rome evermore, whether of that family or any other.”
_____________________________________________
1. What is the value of studying foundation legends?

2. What is Livy’s attitude regarding the truth of the legends concerning Romulus and Remus?
3. What do these foundation legends tell us about the character of the Romans and Roman society?
4. What political and moral messages is Livy hoping to convey in the story of the Rape of Lucretia?
_____________________________________________
22
XII Tables
This is the earliest attempt by the Romans to create a Code of Law; it is also the earliest (surviving) piece of literature coming from the Romans. In
the midst of a struggle for legal and social protection and civil rights between the privileged class (patricians) and the common people (plebeians) a
commission of ten men was appointed (ca. 455 B.C.) to draw up a code of law which would be binding on both parties and which the two consuls
would have to enforce impartially. The commission produced enough statutes (most of them were already “customary law” anyway) to fill ten tablets,
but this attempt seems not to have been entirely satisfactory - especially to the plebeians. A second commission of ten was therefore appointed (450
B.C.) and two additional tablets were drawn up. The originals, said to have been inscribed on bronze, were probably destroyed when the Gauls
sacked Rome in 387 B.C.
Source Citation: “XII Tables”, Internet Ancient History Sourcebook, accessed July 9, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/asbook09.asp
Table I (Excerpt)
If the plaintiff summons the defendant before the magistrate, he must go. If the defendant does not go, let the plaintiff call
the bystanders to witness and then take him by force.
If the defendant attempts evasion or runs away, the plaintiff shall lay hands on him.
If illness or old age is the hindrance, he who summons the defendant to court shall provide a vehicle. He need not provide a
covered carriage with a pallet unless he chooses.
Let the surety of a landholder be a landholder; for one of the proletary [lower class of Roman citizen], let anyone that cares,
be surety.
When the litigants settle their case by compromise, let the magistrate announce it. If they do not compromise, let them state
each his own side of the case before the assembly in the meeting place or before the magistrates in the forum before noon.
Afterwards let them talk it out together, while both are present. After noon, in case either party has failed to appear, let the
magistrate pronounce judgment in favor of the one who is present. If both are present the trial may last until sunset but no
later.
Table II (Excerpt)
He whose witness has failed to appear may summon him by loud calls before his house every third day.
Table III (Excerpt)
One who has confessed a debt, or against whom judgment has been pronounced, shall have thirty days to pay it in. After that
forcible seizure of his person is allowed. The creditor shall bring him before the magistrate. Unless he pays the amount of the
judgment or someone in the presence of the magistrate interferes in his behalf as surety the creditor so shall take him home
and fasten him in stocks or fetters. He shall fasten him with not less than fifteen pounds of weight or, if he chooses, with
23
more. If the prisoner chooses, he may furnish his own food. If he does not, the creditor must give him a pound of meal daily;
if he chooses he may give him more….
Meanwhile they shall have the right to compromise, and unless they make a compromise the debtors shall be held in bonds
for sixty days. During these days they shall be brought to the praetor into the meeting place on three successive market days,
and the amount for which they have been judged liable shall be declared publicly. Moreover, on the third market day they
shall suffer capital punishment or shall be delivered for sale abroad across the Tiber River.
On the 3rd market day let the creditors divide shares. If they cut more or less than their shares it shall be no crime.
Table IV (Excerpt)
A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed.
To a father….shall be given over a son the power of life and death.
If a father sells his son three times, the son shall be free from his father.
To repudiate his wife her husband shall order her…to have her own property for herself, shall take the keys, and shall expel
her.
A child born after ten months since the father's death will not be admitted into a legal inheritance.
Table V (Excerpt)
Females should remain in guardianship even when they have attained their majority [twenty-five], …except for vestial virgins
who…shall be free from guardianship.
The conveyable possessions of a woman who is under guardianship of male agnates [relatives from the father’s family] shall
not be acquired by prescriptive right unless they are transferred by the woman herself with the authorization of her guardian.
As a man has provided in his will in regard to his money and the care of his property, so let it be binding. If he has no heir
and dies intestate, let the nearest agnate have the inheritance. If there is no agnate, let the members of his gens have the
inheritance.
Persons for whom by will….a guardian is not given, for them…their male agnates shall be guardians.
If one is mad but has no guardian, the power over him and his money shall belong to his agnates and the members of his
gens.
If a Roman citizen freedman dies intestate without a direct heir, to his patron shall fall the inheritance…from said
household…into said household.
24
Table VI (Excerpt)
A beam that is built into a house or a vineyard trellis one may not take from its place. One shall be permitted neither to
remove nor to claim stolen timber fixed in buildings or in vineyards…but against the person who is convicted of having fixed
such timber there an action for double damages shall be given…
The prescriptive right of movable things requires one year’s possession for its completion; but the prescriptive right of an
estate and buildings requires two years.
Any woman who does not wish to be subjected in this manner to the hand of her husband should be absent three nights in
succession every year and by this means interrupt his prescriptive right of each year.
Table VII (Excerpt)
If a watercourse conducted through a public place does damage to a private person the said person shall have the right to
bring an action…that security against damage may be given to the owner.
…Branches of a tree shall be pruned all around to a height of fifteen feet.
Should a tree on a neighbor’s farm be bent crooked by the wind and lean over your farm, you may take legal action for
removal of that tree.
A man might gather up fruit that was falling down onto another man’s farm.
A slave is ordered in a will to be a free man under this condition: “if he has given 10,000 coins to the heir”; although the slave
has been alienated by the heir, yet the slave by giving the said money to the buyer shall enter into his freedom…
Table VIII (Excerpt)
…If anyone sings or composes an incantation that can cause dishonor or disgrace to another…he shall suffer a capital
penalty.
If one has maimed a limb and does not compromise with the injured person, let there be retaliation. If one has broken a
bone of a freeman with his hand or with a cudgel, let him pay a penalty of three hundred coins. If he has broken the bone of
a slave, let him have one hundred and fifty coins.
If fruit from your tree falls onto my farm and if I feed my flock off it by letting the flock onto it…no action can lie against
me either on the statute concerning pasturage of a flock, because it is not being pastured on your land, or on the statute
concerning damage caused by an animal….
25
If anyone pastures on or cuts by night another’s crops obtained by cultivation the penalty for an adult shall be capital
punishment and after having been hung up, death as a sacrifice to Ceres… A person below the age of puberty at the praetor’s
decision shall be scourged and shall be judged as a person either to be surrendered to the plaintiff for damage done or to pay
double damages.
Any person who destroys by burning any building or heap of corn deposited alongside a house shall be bound, scourged, and
put to death by burning at the stake provided that he has committed the said misdeed with malice aforethought; but if he
shall have committed it by accident, that is, by negligence, it is ordained that he repair the damage or, if he be too poor to be
competent for such punishment, he shall receive a lighter punishment.
Whoever fells unjustly another’s trees shall pay twenty-five coins for each tree.
If the theft has been done by night, if the owner kills the thief, the thief shall be held to be lawfully killed.
It is unlawful for a thief to be killed by day....unless he defends himself with a weapon; even though he has come with a
weapon, unless he shall use the weapon and fight back, you shall not kill him. And even if he resists, first call out so that
someone may hear and come up.
In the case of all other…thieves caught in the act if a freemen shall be scourged and shall be adjudged as bondsmen to the
person against whom then theft has been committed provided that they have done this by daylight and have not defended
themselves with a weapon; slaves caught in the act of theft…shall be whipped with scourges and shall be thrown from the
Tarpeian Rock [a steep cliff on the summit of the Capitoline Hills which overlooks the Forum]; but children below the age of
puberty shall be scourged at the praetor’s decision and the damage done by them shall be repaired…
If a patron shall have devised any deceit against his client, let him be accursed.
A person who had been found guilty of giving false witness shall be hurled down from the Tarpeian Rock.
No person shall hold meetings by night in the city.
Table IX (Excerpt)
Laws of personal exception shall not be proposed. Laws concerning capital punishment of a citizen shall not be
passed….except by the Greatest Assembly…
The penalty shall be capital for a judge or arbiter legally appointed who has been found guilty of receiving a bribe for giving a
decision.
…Whoever incites a public enemy or hands over a citizen to a public enemy must suffer capital punishment.
Putting to death of any man with a trial and unconvicted, whosoever he might be, is forbidden.
Table X (Excerpt)
26
None is to bury or burn a corpse in the city.
…Expenses of a funeral shall be limited to three mourners wearing veils and one mourner wearing an inexpensive purple
tunic and ten flutists…
The women shall not tear their faces nor wail on account of the funeral.
A dead person’s bones shall not be collected that one may make a second funeral. An exception is for death in battle and on
foreign soil.
Table XI (Excerpt)
Marriages should not take place between plebeians and patricians.
Table XII (Excerpt)
It is forbidden to dedicate for consecrated use a thing concerning whose ownership there is a controversy; otherwise a
penalty of double the value involved shall be suffered.
If a slave commits theft or does damages with his master’s knowledge, the action for damages is in the slave's name.
_____________________________________________
1. What is the value of studying law codes?

2. What do the XII Tables tell us about the role of family, women, men, class, clientage, agriculture, and law and order
within Roman society?
3. What are the various forms of punishment mentioned in the XII Tables?
Plutarch, Life of Tiberius Gracchus
Plutarch (ca. AD. 46-127) was a Greek historian, biographer, and essayist. He was born in the small town of Chaeronea, in the Greek region
known as Boeotia, probably during the reign of the Roman Emperor Claudius. He is best known for his Parallel Lives, a series of biographies of
famous Greeks and Romans, arranged in pairs to illuminate their common moral virtues and vices. The surviving Lives contain 23 pairs, each with
one Greek Life and one Roman Life, as well as four unpaired single Lives. The following extract is taken from Plutarch’s Life of Tiberius
Gracchus.
Source Citation: Plutarch, “Tiberius Gracchus”, in Sources of the Western Tradition I, edited by M. Perry, J. Peden and T. Von
Laue, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1991) 120-122.
Of the territory which the Romans gained by conquest from their neighbors, a part they sold publicly, and turned the
remainder into common land; this common land they assigned to such of the citizens as were poor and indigent, for which
they were to pay only a small rent into the public treasury. But when the wealthy men began to offer larger rents, and drive
the poorer people out, it was enacted by law that no person whatever should enjoy more than five hundred acres of land.
27
This act for some time checked the avarice of the richer, and was of great assistance to the poorer people, who remained in
their places on the land which they had rented and occupied the allotment which each had held from the outset. But later the
rich men of the neighborhood contrived to get these lands again into their possession, under other people's names, and
finally held most of the land openly in their own names. The poor, who were thus deprived of their farms, were no longer
either ready, as they had formerly been, to serve in war or careful in the education of their children; insomuch that in a short
time there were comparatively few freemen remaining in all Italy, which swarmed with gangs of foreign slaves, by whose aid
the rich cultivated their estates, from which they had dispossessed the free citizens. Caius Laelius, the intimate friend of
Scipio, undertook to reform this abuse; but meeting with opposition from men of authority, and fearing a disturbance, he
soon desisted, and received the name of the Wise or the Prudent [both which meanings belong to the Latin word “sapiens”].
But Tiberius, being elected tribune of the people, took the matter directly in hand…..
However, he did not draw up his law without the advice and assistance of those citizens that were then most eminent for
their virtue and authority; amongst whom were Crassus, the high-priest, Mucius Scaevola, the lawyer, who at that time was
consul, and Claudius Appius, his father-in-law. Never did any law appear more moderate and gentle, especially being enacted
against such great oppression and avarice. For they who ought to have been severely punished for transgressing the former
laws, and should at least have lost all their titles to such lands which they had unjustly usurped, were notwithstanding to
receive a price for quitting their unlawful claims, and giving up their lands to those fit owners who stood in need of help. But
although this rectification of the wrong was so considerate, the people were satisfied to let bygones be bygones if they could
be secure from such wrong in the future; yet, on the other hand, the rich men and those of great estates were led by by their
greed to hate the law, and by their wrath and contentiousness to hate the law-giver, and tried to dissuade the people by
alleging that Tiberius was designing a general re-distribution of lands for the confusion of the government, and was stirring
up a general revolution.
But they had no success. For Tiberius, maintaining an honorable and just cause, and possessed of eloquence sufficient to
have made a meaner cause appear plausible, formidable and invincible, when, with the people crowding around the rostra, he
took his place, and spoke on behalf of the poor. “The savage beasts,” said he, “in Italy, have their particular dens, they have
their places of repose and refuge; but the men who bear arms, and expose their lives for the safety of their country, enjoy in
the meantime nothing more in it but the air and light and, having no houses or settlements of their own, are constrained to
wander from place to place with their wives and children.” He told them that the commanders were guilty of a ridiculous
error, when, at the head of their armies, they exhorted the common soldiers to fight for their sepulchers and altars; when not
any amongst so many Romans is possessed of either altar or monument, neither have they any houses of their own, or
hearths of their ancestors to defend. “They fought indeed and were slain, but it was to maintain the luxury and the wealth of
other men. They were styled the masters of the world, but in the meantime had not a single clod of earth to call their own.”
Such word as these, the product of a lofty spirit and genuine feeling, and falling upon the ears of a people profoundly moved
and fully aroused to the speaker’s support, no adversary of Tiberius could successfully withstand.
_____________________________________________
28
1. Why did Tiberius Gracchus feel it necessary to redistribute state-owned public lands?
2. How were earlier efforts to keep land widely distributed among the people thwarted?
3. According to Plutarch, what was the reaction of the senatorial class to the reform proposed by Tiberius Gracchus?
_____________________________________________
Julius Caesar, Gallic Wars
Gaius Julius Caesar (100 BC-44 BC) was a Roman general, statesmen, and notable author of Latin prose. He played a critical role in the events
that led to the demise of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire. Caesar's victories in the Gallic War, completed by 51 BC,
extended Rome's territory to the English channel and the Rhine River. Caesar became the first Roman general to cross both when he built a bridge
across the Rhine and conducted the first invasion of Britain. The following extract, taken from Caesar’s own commentaries on the Gallic Wars,
describes Caesar’s crossing of the Rhine.
Source Citation: Julius Caesar, “War Commentaries”, Internet Ancient History Sourcebook, accessed July 11th, 2014,
IV:17. Caesar…had resolved to cross the Rhine; but to cross by ships he neither deemed to be sufficiently safe, nor
considered consistent with his own dignity or that of the Roman people. Therefore, although the greatest difficulty in
forming a bridge was presented to him, on account of the breadth, rapidity, and depth of the river, he nevertheless
considered that it ought to be attempted by him, or that his army ought not otherwise to be led over. He devised this plan of
a bridge. He joined together at the distance of two feet, two piles, each a foot and a half thick, sharpened a little at the lower
end, and proportioned in length, to the depth of the river. After he had, by means of engines, sunk these into the river, and
fixed them at the bottom, and then driven them in with rammers, not quite perpendicularly, like a stake, but bending forward
and sloping, so as to incline in the direction of the current of the river; he also placed two [other piles] opposite to these, at
the distance of forty feet lower down, fastened together in the same manner, but directed against the force and current of the
river. Both these, moreover, were kept firmly apart by beams two feet thick (the space which the binding of the piles
occupied), laid in at their extremities between two braces on each side, and in consequence of these being in different
directions and fastened on sides the one opposite to the other, so great was the strength of the work, and such the
arrangement of the materials, that in proportion as the greater body of water dashed against the bridge, so much the closer
were its parts held fastened together. These beams were bound together by timber laid over them, in the direction of the
length of the bridge, and were [then] covered over with laths and hurdles; and in addition to this, piles were driven into the
water obliquely, at the lower side of the bridge, and these, serving as buttresses, and being connected with every portion of
the work, sustained the force of the stream: and there were others also above the bridge, at a moderate distance; that if trunks
of trees or vessels were floated down the river by the barbarians for the purpose of destroying the work, the violence of such
things might be diminished by these defenses, and might not injure the bridge.
IV: 18. Within ten days after the timber began to be collected, the whole work was completed, and the whole army led over.
Caesar, leaving a strong guard at each end of the bridge, hastens into the territories of the Sigambri. In the meantime,
ambassadors from several nations come to him, whom, on their suing for peace and alliance, he answers in a courteous
manner, and orders hostages to be brought to him. But the Sigambri, at the very time the bridge was begun to be built, made
29
preparations for a flight (by the advice of such of the Tenchtheri and Usipetes as they had among them), and quitted their
territories, and conveyed away all their possessions, and concealed themselves in deserts and woods.
IV: 19. Caesar, having remained in their territories a few days, and burned all their villages and houses, and cut down their
corn, proceeded into the territories of the Ubii; and having promised them his assistance, if they were ever harassed by the
Suevi, he learned from them these particulars: that the Suevi, after they had by means of their scouts found that the bridge
was being built, had called a council, according to their custom, and sent orders to all parts of their state to remove from the
towns and convey their children, wives, and all their possessions into the woods, and that all who could bear arms should
assemble in one place; that the place thus chosen was nearly the center of those regions which the Suevi possessed; that in
this spot they had resolved to await the arrival of the Romans, and give them battle there. When Caesar discovered this,
having already accomplished all these things on account of which he had resolved to lead his army over, namely, to strike fear
into the Germans, take vengeance on the Sigambri, and free the Ubii from the invasion of the Suevi, having spent altogether
eighteen days beyond the Rhine, and thinking he had advanced far enough to serve both honor and interest, he returned into
Gaul, and cut down the bridge.
_____________________________________________
1. How objective is Caesar’s account of the Gallic Wars?

2. What does this source tell us about the character of Julius Caesar?
3. What does this source tell us about the Roman military?
_____________________________________________
Plutarch, Life of Julius Caesar
The following extracts are taken from Plutarch’s Life of Julius Caesar. The first extract describes the feast of Lupercalia on the 15th February,
44BC; the second extract describes Caesar’s assassination on the Ides of March (15th March), 44BC.
Source Citation: Plutarch, “Lives”, Internet Ancient History Sourcebook, accessed July 11th, 2014,
www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook07.html
Feast of Lupercalia
The feast of Lupercalia was being celebrated and at this time many of the magistrates and many men of noble families run
through the city naked, and, in their jesting and merry-making, strike those whom they meet with shaggy thongs. And many
women of high rank purposely stand in their way and hold out their hands to be struck like children at school. They believe
that the effect will be to give an easy delivery to those who are pregnant, and to help the barren become pregnant….Caesar,
sitting on a golden throne above the rostra wearing a triumphal robe [to celebrate military victory], was watching the
30
ceremony; and Marc Antony, who was consul at the time, was one of those taking part in the sacred running. When he came
running into the forum, the crowd made way for him. He was carrying a diadem with a wreath of laurel tied round it [items
associated with royalty] and he held this out to Caesar His action was followed by some applause, but it was not much and it
was not spontaneous. But when Caesar pushed the diadem away from him, there was a general shout of applause. Antony
then offered him the diadem for the second time, and again only a few applauded, though, when Caesar again rejected it,
there was applause from everyone. Caesar [found] that the experiment had proved a failure.
Assassination of Caesar
It is also related by many that a soothsayer warned Caesar to be on his guard against a great danger on the day of the month
of March, which the Romans call the Ides. When this day was come Caesar, on his way to the senate, greeted the soothsayer
and said by way of raillery [good-humored ridicule], “Well, the Ides of March are come.” And the soothsayer said to him
quietly, “Aye, they are come, but they are not gone.”…Now when the senate had gone to the Theatre of Pompey where they
were to meet, the rest of the company placed themselves close about Caesar’s chair, as if they had some suit to make to him,
and Cassius, turning his face to Pompey's statue, is said to have invoked it, as if it had been sensible of his prayers….
Thereupon, Tillius with both hands caught hold of Caeser’s toga and pulled it off from his shoulders, and Casca, who stood
behind him, drawing his dagger, gave him the first, but a slight wound, about the shoulder. Caesar snatching hold of the
handle of the dagger, and crying out aloud in Latin, “Villain Casca, what does this mean?”…Those who had come prepared
for murder bared each of them his dagger and closed in on Caesar in a circle. Whichever way he turned he encountered
blows and weapons leveled at his face and eyes, and driven hither and thither like a wild beast he was entangled in the hands
of all; for it had been agreed that they should all strike him and taste of the slaughter, for which reason Brutus also gave him
one stab in the groin…when he saw that Brutus had drawn his dagger he pulled his toga down over his head and sank,
whether by chance or because pushed there by his murderers, against the pedestal on which Pompey’s statue stood. And the
pedestal was drenched in blood, so that Pompey himself seemed to be presiding over the vengeance upon his enemy, who lay
here at his feet quivering from a multitude of wounds. For they say he received twenty-three, and many of the conspirators
were wounded by one another as they directed so many blows against body.
_____________________________________________
1. What is the “experiment” being described in the first passage?

2. How does this experiment relate to Caesar’s assassination?
3. In the second passage, why does Plutarch emphasize the fact that the senate was meeting in the Theatre of Pompey and
that Caesar dies at the foot of Pompey’s statue?
4. Why had the conspirators agreed that they should all stab Caesar?
_____________________________________________
31
Res Gestae Divi Augusti
Res Gestae Divi Augusti (“Deeds of the Divine Augustus”) is the funerary inscription of the first Roman emperor, Augustus, giving a
first-person record of his life and accomplishments. The Res Gestae is especially significant because it gives an insight into the image Augustus
portrayed to the Roman people. Various inscriptions of the Res Gestae have been found scattered across the former Roman Empire.
Source Citation: Augustus, “Acts of the Divine Augustus,” Internet Ancient History Sourcebook, accessed July 11th, 2014
A copy below of the deeds of the divine Augustus, by which he subjected the whole wide earth to the rule of the Roman
people, and of the money which he spent for the state and Roman people, inscribed on two bronze pillars, which are set up
in Rome.
1. In my nineteenth year, on my own initiative and at my own expense, I raised an army with which I set free the state, which
was oppressed by the domination of a faction. For that reason, the senate enrolled me in its order by honorary decrees, when
Gaius Pansa and Aulus Hirtius were consuls (43 BC), assigning me the place of a consul in the giving of opinions, and gave
me the imperium. With me as propraetor, it ordered me, together with the consuls, to take care lest any detriment befall the
state. But the people made me consul in the same year, when the consuls each perished in battle, and they made me a
triumvir for the settling of the state.
2. I drove the men who slaughtered my father into exile with a legal order, punishing their crime, and afterwards, when they
waged war on the state, I conquered them in two battles.
3. I often waged war, civil and foreign, on the earth and sea, in the whole wide world, and as victor I spared all the citizens
who sought pardon. As for foreign nations, those which I was able to safely forgive, I preferred to preserve than to destroy.
About 500,000 Roman citizens took the military oath of allegiance to me. I led something more than 300,000 of them into
colonies and I returned them to their towns, after their term of service ran out, and I assigned all of them fields or gave them
money for their military service. I captured 600 ships in addition to those smaller than triremes.
4. Twice I triumphed with an ovation [lesser triumph], and three times I enjoyed a curule triumph [full triumph] and twenty
one times I was named Imperatur. When the senate decreed more triumphs for me, I declined them. I placed the laurel from
the fasces in the Capitol, fulfilling the vows that I had made in battle. On account of the enterprises successfully done by me
and through my officers, under my auspices, on earth and sea, the senate decreed fifty-five times that there be sacrifices to
the immortal gods. Moreover there were 890 days on which the senate decreed there would be sacrifices. In my triumphs
32
kings and nine children of kings were led before my chariot. I had been consul thirteen times, when I wrote these words, and
I was in the thirty-seventh year of tribunician power.
5. The senate and the people offered me the dictatorship in my presence and my absence when Marcus Marcellus and Lucius
Arruntius were consuls (22 BC), but I did not accept it. I did not decline the curatorship of grain in the height of the food
shortage, which I so arranged that within a few days I freed the entire city from the present fear and danger by my own
expense and administration. When the annual and perpetual consulate was then again offered to me, I did not accept it.
6. When Marcus Vinicius and Quintus Lucretius were consuls (19 BC), then again when Publius Lentulus and Gnaeus
Lentulus were (18 BC), and third when Paullus Fabius Maximus and Quintus Tubero were (11 BC), the senate and Roman
people agreed that I alone be appointed supervisor of the laws and morals without a colleague and with supreme power, but I
would not accept any office inconsistent with the custom of our ancestors. What the senate wanted to accomplish through
me, I did through tribunician power, and five times on my own accord I both requested and received from the senate a
colleague in such power.
7. I was triumvir for the settling of the state for ten continuous years. I was first of the senate up to that day on which I wrote
this, for forty years. I was high priest, augur, one of the Fifteen for the performance of rites, one of the Seven of the sacred
feasts, brother of Arvis, fellow of Titus, and Fetial…..
10. By a senate decree my name was included in the Saliar Hymn, and it was sanctified by a law, both that I would be
sacrosanct for ever, and that, as long as I would live, the tribunician power would be mine. I was unwilling to be high priest
in the place of my living colleague; when the people offered me that priesthood which my father had, I refused it. And I
received that priesthood, after several years, with the death of him who had occupied it since the opportunity of the civil
disturbance, with a multitude flocking together out of all Italy to my election, so many as had never before been in Rome,
when Publius Sulpicius and Gaius Valgius were consuls (12 BC)…..
12. By the authority of the senate, a part of the praetors and tribunes of the plebs, with consul Quintus Lucretius and the
leading men, was sent to meet me in Campania, which honor had been decreed for no one but me until that time. When I
returned to Rome from Spain and Gaul, having successfully accomplished matters in those provinces, when Tiberius Nero
and Publius Quintilius were consuls (13 B.C.E.), the senate voted to consecrate the altar of August Peace in the field of Mars
for my return, on which it ordered the magistrates and priests and Vestal virgins to offer annual sacrifices…..
15. I paid to the Roman plebs, 300 sesterces [small bronze coins worth a quarter of a silver denarius] per man from my
father’s will and in my own name gave 400 each from the spoils of war when I was consul for the fifth time (29 BC);
furthermore I again paid out a public gift of 400 sesterces per man, in my tenth consulate (24 BC), from my own patrimony;
and, when consul for the eleventh time (23 BC), twelve rations of grain bought with my own money were measured out; and
in my twelfth year of tribunician power (12-11 BC) I gave 400 sesterces per man for the third time. And these public gifts of
mine never reached fewer than 250,000 men. In my eighteenth year of tribunician power, as consul for the twelfth time (5
BC), I gave to 320,000 plebs of the city 240 sesterces per man. And, when consul the fifth time (29 BC), I gave from my war-
spoils to colonies of my soldiers each 1000 sesterces per man; about 120,000 men in the colonies received this triumphal
33
public gift. When I was consul for the thirteenth time (2 BC), I gave 240 sesterces to the plebs who then received the public
grain; they were a few more than 200,000.
16. I paid the towns money for the fields which I had assigned to soldiers in my fourth consulate (30 BC) and then when
Marcus Crassus and Gnaeus Lentulus Augur were consuls (14 BC); the sum was about 600,000,000 sesterces, which I paid
out for Italian estates, and about 260,000,000 sesterces, which I paid for provincial fields. I was first and alone who did this
among all who founded military colonies in Italy or the provinces according to the memory of my age. And afterwards, … I
paid out rewards in cash to the soldiers whom I had led into their towns when their service was completed, and in this
venture I spent about HS 400,000,000.
17. Four times I helped the senatorial treasury with my money, so that I offered 150,000,000 sesterces to those who were in
charge of the treasury. And when Marcus Lepidus and Lucius Arruntius were consuls (AD 6) I offered 170,000,000 sesterces
from my patrimony to the military treasury, which was founded by my advice and from which rewards were given to soldiers
who had served twenty or more times….
19. I built the senate-house and the Chalcidicum which adjoins it and the temple of Apollo on the Palatine with porticos, the
temple of divine Julius, the Lupercal, the portico at the Flaminian circus, which I allowed to be called by the name Octavian,
after he who had earlier built in the same place, the state box at the great circus, the temple on the Capitoline of Jupiter
Subduer and Jupiter Thunderer, the temple of Quirinus, the temples of Minerva and Queen Juno and Jupiter Liberator on
the Aventine, the temple of the Lares at the top of the holy street, the temple of the gods of the Penates on the Velian, the
temple of Youth, and the temple of the Great Mother on the Palatine.
20. I rebuilt the Capitol [the temple to Jupiter located on the Capitoline Hill] and the theater of Pompey, each work at
enormous cost, without any inscription of my name. I rebuilt aqueducts in many places that had decayed with age, and I
doubled the capacity of the Marcian aqueduct by sending a new spring into its channel. I completed the Forum of Julius and
the basilica, which he built between the temple of Castor and the temple of Saturn, works begun and almost finished by my
father. When the same basilica was burned with fire I expanded its grounds and I began it under an inscription of the name
of my sons, and, if I should not complete it alive, I ordered it to be completed by my heirs. …While consul for the sixth time
(28 BC), I rebuilt eighty-two temples of the gods in the city by the authority of the senate, omitting nothing that ought to
have been rebuilt at that time. While consul for the seventh time (27 BC), I rebuilt the Flaminian road from the city to
Ariminum and all the bridges except the Mulvian and Minucian.
21. I built the temple of Mars Ultor on private ground and the forum of Augustus from war-spoils. I build the theater at the
temple of Apollo on ground largely bought from private owners, under the name of Marcus Marcellus my son-in-law. I
consecrated gifts from war-spoils in the Capitol and in the temple of divine Julius, in the temple of Apollo, in the temple of
Vesta, and in the temple of Mars Ultor, which cost me about 100,000,000 sesterces I sent back gold crowns weighing 35,000
to the towns and colonies of Italy, which had been contributed for my triumphs, and later, however many times I was named
emperor, I refused gold crowns from the towns and colonies which they equally kindly decreed, and before they had decreed
them.
34
22. Three times I gave shows of gladiators under my name and five times under the name of my sons and grandsons; in these
shows about 10,000 men fought. Twice I furnished under my name spectacles of athletes gathered from everywhere, and
three times under my grandson’s name. I celebrated games under my name four times, and furthermore in the place of other
magistrates twenty-three times. As master of the college I celebrated the secular games for the college of the Fifteen, with my
colleague Marcus Agrippa, when Gaius Furnius and Gaius Silanus were consuls (17 BC)….. Twenty-six times, under my
name or that of my sons and grandsons, I gave the people hunts of African beasts in the circus, in the open, or in the
amphitheater; in them about 3,500 beasts were killed.
23. I gave the people a spectacle of a naval battle, in the place across the Tiber where the grove of the Caesars is now, with
the ground excavated in length 1,800 feet, in width 1,200, in which thirty beaked ships, biremes or triremes, but many
smaller, fought among themselves; in these ships about 3,000 men fought in addition to the rowers. …….
25. I restored peace to the sea from pirates. In that slave war I handed over to their masters for the infliction of punishments
about 30,000 captured, who had fled their masters and taken up arms against the state. All Italy swore allegiance to me
voluntarily, and demanded me as leader of the war, which I won at Actium; the provinces of Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, and
Sardinia swore the same allegiance. And those who then fought under my standard were more than 700 senators, among
whom 83 were made consuls either before or after, up to the day this was written, and about 170 were made priests.
26. I extended the borders of all the provinces of the Roman people that neighbored nations not subject to our rule. I
restored peace to the provinces of Gaul and Spain, likewise Germany, which includes the ocean from Cadiz to the mouth of
the river Elbe. I brought peace to the Alps from the region which is near the Adriatic Sea to the Tuscan, with no unjust war
waged against any nation. I sailed my ships on the ocean from the mouth of the Rhine to the east region up to the borders of
the Cimbri, where no Roman had gone before that time by land or sea, and the Cimbri and the Charydes and the Semnones
and the other Germans of the same territory sought by envoys the friendship of me and of the Roman people. By my order
and auspices two armies were led at about the same time into Ethiopia and into that part of Arabia which is called Happy,
[Felix Arabia] and the troops of each nation of enemies were slaughtered in battle and many towns captured. They penetrated
into Ethiopia all the way to the town Nabata, which is near to Meroe; and into Arabia all the way to the border of the Sabaei,
advancing to the town Mariba.
27. I added Egypt to the rule of the Roman people. When Artaxes, king of Greater Armenia, was killed, though I could have
made it a province, I preferred, by the example of our elders, to hand over that kingdom to Tigranes, son of king Artavasdes,
and grandson of King Tigranes, through Tiberius Nero, who was then my step-son. And the same nation, after revolting and
rebelling, and subdued through my son Gaius, I handed over to be ruled by King Ariobarzanes son of Artabazus, King of the
Medes, and after his death, to his son Artavasdes; and when he was killed, I sent Tigranes, who came from the royal clan of
the Armenians, into that rule. I recovered all the provinces that lie across the Adriatic to the east and Cyrene, with kings now
possessing them in large part, and Sicily and Sardina, which had been occupied earlier in the slave war...
29. I recovered from Spain, Gaul, and Dalmatia the many military standards lost through other leaders, after defeating the
enemies. I compelled the Parthians to return to me the spoils and standards of three Roman armies, and as suppliants to seek
the friendship of the Roman people. Furthermore I placed those standards in the sanctuary of the temple of Mars Ultor.
35
30. As for the tribes of the Pannonians, before my principate no army of the Roman people had entered their land. When
they were conquered through Tiberius Nero, who was then my stepson and emissary, I subjected them to the rule of the
Roman people and extended the borders of Illyricum to the shores of the river Danube. On the near side of it the army of
the Dacians was conquered and overcome under my auspices, and then my army, led across the Danube, forced the tribes of
the Dacians to bear the rule of the Roman people.
31. Emissaries from the Indian kings were often sent to me, which had not been seen before that time by any Roman leader.
The Bastarnae, the Scythians, and the Sarmatians, who are on this side of the river Don and the kings further away, and the
kings of the Albanians, of the Iberians, and of the Medes, sought our friendship through emissaries.
32. To me were sent supplications by kings: of the Parthians, Tiridates and later Phrates son of king Phrates, of the Medes,
Artavasdes, of the Adiabeni, Artaxares, of the Britons, Dumnobellaunus and Tincommius, of the Sugambri, Maelo, of the
Marcomanian Suebi (...,) (-)rus. King Phrates of the Parthians, son of Orodes, sent all his sons and grandsons into Italy to
me, though defeated in no war, but seeking our friendship through the pledges of his children. And in my principate many
other peoples experienced the faith of the Roman people, of whom nothing had previously existed of embassies or
interchange of friendship with the Roman people.
33. The nations of the Parthians and Medes received from me the first kings of those nations which they sought by
emissaries: the Parthians, Vonones son of king Phrates, grandson of king Orodes, the Medes, Ariobarzanes, son of king
Artavasdes, grandson of king Aiobarzanes.
34. In my sixth and seventh consulates (28-27 BC), after putting out the civil war, having obtained all things by universal
consent, I handed over the state from my power to the dominion of the senate and Roman people. And for this merit of
mine, by a senate decree, I was called Augustus and the doors of my temple were publicly clothed with laurel and a civic
crown was fixed over my door and a gold shield placed in the Julian senate-house, and the inscription of that shield testified
to the virtue, mercy, justice, and piety, for which the senate and Roman people gave it to me. After that time, I exceeded all in
influence, but I had no greater power than the others who were colleagues with me in each magistracy.
35. When I administered my thirteenth consulate (2 BC), the senate and Equestrian order and Roman people all called me
father of the country, and voted that the same be inscribed in the vestibule of my temple, in the Julian senate-house, and in
the forum of Augustus under the chario which had been placed there for me by a decision of the senate. When I wrote this I
was seventy-six years old.
_____________________________________________
1. How objective is the Res Gestae?

2. What does this inscription tell us about the character of Augustus and the virtues by which he wanted to be
remembered?
3. What does this inscription tell us about the role of the princeps as envisioned by Augustus?
36
_____________________________________________
Augusto Fraschetti, Roman Women
Augusto Fraschetti is professor of Roman administrative history at the University of Rome “La Sapienza”. He has been director of associated
studies at the École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris.
Source Citation: Augusto Fraschetti (ed), Roman Women (Chicago: Chicago University Press. 1994), 3-4.
The Romans believed that all women, whatever their age or status, were characterized by certain traits: a feeble intellect,
weakness of character, and overall, a general incapacity innate in the female sex. These weaknesses [regarded by Romans as]
indisputable and a universally recognized, formed the basis of all relationships (including juridical ones) that every freeborn
Roman woman established with the outer world. When a son was born, it was customary for the father to take the infant in
his arms and lift it from the ground, as a sign of acceptance and recognition, but at the birth of a daughter, the father merely
gave orders that the child should be fed, and not left to die of exposure, which was both lawful and possible. The possibility
that some families may have allowed their infant daughters to die of exposure (just how frequently this really occurred is a
matter of debate) must be considered in relationship to social status of those families. The urban lower classes probably
resorted to this practice often, as did peasant families in the countryside, where daughters could contribute little to the work
in the fields. It was different for families belonging to the noble class, for their daughters could become tools of very
profitable and astute marriage strategies.
From the moment of her birth, a daughter was under her father’s absolute authority and uncontested rule. Sons were also
subject to [this power, which Romans called patria potestas]. Not only were a man’s wife and children under his control as the
paterfamilias [‘head of household’], but also his grandchildren - and their submission to his authority ended only when he
died. Patriarchal power determined all relationships within the family and was the hub around which Roman society was
organized. Thus a woman’s life was doubly conditioned by it. She was raised at home to be a good wife and received an
education appropriate to this role. She learned how to perform household chores, such as the spinning of wool. More rarely,
even in the upper-classes, she might receive a liberal education, a privilege generally enjoyed only by sons destined for
political careers, and trained, primarily through the study of rhetoric, to become skilled public speakers.
A daughter did not stay long in her father’s home. Between the ages of twelve and fourteen, she married, passing from the
power (potestas) of one man, her father, to the hand (manus) of another, her husband. If the marriage [was of the type known
as] cum manu, her husband gained full authority over her. If he died, she became the ward of his closest relative on his father’s
side. If the marriage [was of the type known as] sine manu, she remained under her father’s control, even though her status
had changed from puella [girl] to uxor [wife].
37
…Unlike women of ancient Greece, Roman women could inherit and bequeath their patrimony to their children or to other
heirs, and were allowed…to manage their own finances and property. A woman’s patrimony consisted chiefly of her dowry,
which she received upon marriage.
At all social levels, the basic purpose of marriage was procreation. People married to “procure children for themselves”
(liberorum quaerendorum causa): in lower classes, to increase the work force; in the noble classes, to ensure numerous
descendants. In this, the woman’s role was indispensable. A matron’s reputation depended not only on her modest and
strict manner but also on the number of children she had. When women failed to bear children, their husbands often
divorced them. This demand for offspring could lead to paradoxical situations. A man who had no children might try to
convince a close friend to divorce his fertile wife so that he could marry her and have children.
_____________________________________________
1. What does this passage tell us about the status of women in Roman society?
2. How was the life of patrician women different from the life of Roman women of the lower classes?
_____________________________________________
Slavery in Antiquity
The Greeks and Romans were both large-scale slave-holding societies. Slaves were used widely as a labor source for agriculture, mining, and a wide
range of domestic tasks. Below is a selection of primary sources which gives us a glimpse into the lives of Roman slaves and their treatment by their
owners. You will notice that none of the texts are written by slaves themselves, only about slaves. In fact we have no sources whatsoever that come
directly from a slave. The silence of servitude is complete, and we must rely on the voices of the free to probe into the lives of the enslaved.
Pliny the Elder’s Natural H istory
Pliny the Elder (AD 23-AD 79) was a Roman author, naturalist, and natural philosopher, as well as naval and army commander of the early
Roman Empire and personal friend of the emperor Vespasian. He died trying to rescue friends during eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD. 79.
The following passage is taken from his encyclopedia, Natural History.
Source Citation: Pliny the Elder, “Natural History”, in As the Romans Did, edited by J. Shelton (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1998), 174.
Vedius Pollio, a Roman equestrian, a friend of the emperor Augustus, found that lamprey eels offered him an opportunity to
display his cruelty. He used to toss slaves sentenced to death into ponds of lampreys, not because wild animals on land were
not capable of killing a slave, but because with any other type of animal he was not able to enjoy the sight of a man being
torn to pieces, completely, in one moment.
Letter from Quintus Tullius Cicero to Marcus Tullius Cicero
38
Quintus Tullius Cicero (102-43 BC) was the younger brother of the celebrated orator, philosopher and statesmen Marcus Tullius Cicero. He was
born into a family of the equestrian order, as the son of a wealthy landowner in Arpinum, some 100 kilometres south-east of Rome.
Source Citation: Quintus Tullius Cicero, “Correspondence with Family and Friends”, in As the Romans Did, edited by J.
Shelton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 188.
My dear Marcus, with regard to Tiro…you gave me the very greatest pleasure when you decided that he (Tiro), who did not
deserve his bad fortune, should be our friend rather than our slave. Believe me, when I finished reading your letter and his, I
jumped for joy. I both thank you and congratulate you. [Tiro will always be a great credit to our family] especially when we
take into account his literary skills, his conversational abilities, and his breadth of knowledge, qualities which are more
significant than his ability to perform personal services for us.
Law Code of Theodosius II
Emperor Theodosius II (r. 408-450), commonly surnamed Theodosius the Younger, or Theodosius the Calligrapher, was an Eastern Roman
Emperor from 408 to 450. He is mostly known for promulgating the Theodosian Law Code, and for the construction of the Theodosian Walls of
Constantinople.
Source Citation: Theodosius, “The Law Code of Theodosius”, in As the Romans Did, edited by J. Shelton (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1998), 185.
Who can tolerate that children should be separated from parents, sisters from brothers, wives from husbands? Therefore
anyone who has separated slaves and dragged them off to different owners must recover these slaves and place them with
one single owner. And if anyone should lose slaves because of this policy of reuniting families, substitute slaves should be
given to him by the man who has received the above-mentioned slaves. Take care that from now on no complaint persist
about the separation of slave families.
Letter from Pliny the Younger
Pliny the Younger (AD 61-112) was a lawyer, author, and magistrate of Ancient Rome. Pliny's uncle, Pliny the Elder, helped raise and educate
him. Both Pliny the Elder and Younger were witnesses to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius on August 24, AD 79 during which the former died.
Pliny the Younger wrote hundreds of letters, many of which still survive, that are of great historical value for the time period.
Source Citation: Pliny the Younger, “Letters”, in As the Romans Did, edited by J. Shelton (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1998), 178-179.
What a shocking story I have to tell you, and one worthy of more than just a simple letter! Larcius Macedo, a man of
praetorian rank, suffered a terrible fate at the hands of his slaves. (Admittedly he was an arrogant and cruel master who
remembered too little, or perhaps too well, that his own father had once been a slave.) He was bathing in his villa at Formiae.
Suddenly his slaves surrounded him. One began to strangle him, another punched him in the face, yet another beat him on
the chest, stomach, and even (it makes me sick to report) the genital area. When they thought he was dead, they threw him
onto the red-hot floor to see if he was still alive. He, whether unconscious or pretending to be, lay stretched out and still,
confirming their opinion that death had come. …The treacherous slaves fled in all directions, but many were caught,
although a few are still being sought. He himself, although barely kept alive for a few days, nonetheless did not die without
the satisfaction of revenge since the slaves were punished while he was still alive in the same way that murderers are punished
39
[probably by crucifixion]. Do you realize how many dangers, how many injuries, how many abuses we may be exposed to?
And no one can feel safe, even if he is a lenient and kind master. Slaves are ruined by their own evil natures, not by a master’s
cruelty.
Inscription on a Slave’s Collar

Chance has preserved for us a slave’s collar (left). We know nothing about Assellus except what is
written on the slave collar.
Source Citation: “CIL 15.7172”, in As the Romans Did, edited by J. Shelton (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1998), 177.
Image Citation: “Slave Collar”, Historum, accessed July 23, 2015,

http://historum.com/ancient-history/52007-identification-ancient-world.html
I am Assellus, slave of Praeiectus, who is an administrative officer in the Department of the Grain Supply. I have escaped
from my post. Capture me, for I have run away. Return me to the barbers’ shop near the Temple of Flora.
Pliny the Elder on Marc Antony
Marc Antony (83-30 BC) was a Roman politician and general who played a critical role in the transformation of the Roman Republic from an
oligarchy into the autocratic Roman Empire. Antony was a supporter of Julius Caesar, and served as one of his generals during the Gallic Wars
and the war between Caesar and Pompey the Great/Senate.
Source Citation: Pliny the Elder, “Natural History”, in Greek and Roman Slavery, T. Wiedemann (New York: Routledge, 1988)
104.
When Marc Antony was already a member of the triumvirate, the slave-dealer Tornaius managed to sell to him as twins two
particularly attractive slaves, one born in Asia and the other north of the Alps - they were that similar. But the fraud was
brought to light because of the slaves’ accents, and Antony angrily complained about the high price he had paid (200, 000
sesterces), amongst other things. But the clever trader replied that that was actually why he had asked for such a high price--
there was nothing wonderful about twin brothers looking alike, but to find such a similar appearance in two persons who
belonged to quite different races was really something that was beyond price; and he managed to make Antony think this so
surprising (a feeling highly convenient to the trader) that…this man ended up thinking that no other items that belonged to
him were better symbols of his high status.
Cato the Elder, On Agriculture
Cato the Elder (234-149 BC) (not to be confused with his great-grandson, Cato the Younger) came of an ancient Plebeian family who all were
noted for some military service but not for the discharge of the higher civil offices. He was bred, after the manner of his Latin forefathers, to
agriculture, to which he devoted himself when not engaged in military service. But, having attracted the notice of Lucius Valerius Flaccus, he was
40
brought to Rome, and successively held office. He known for his conservatism and opposition to Hellenization. The following passage is taken from a
manual he wrote about farming titled, On Agriculture.
Source Citation: Cato the Elder, “How to Keep a Slave, c. 170 BC”, in The Mammoth Book of Eyewitness: Ancient Rome, edited by
Jon E. Lewis (Philadelphia: Running Press, 2003), 33-34
Country slaves ought to receive in the winter, when they are at work, four modii [about a quarter bushel] of grain; and four
modii and a half during the summer. The superintendent, the housekeeper, the watchman, and the shepherd get three modii;
slaves in chains four pounds of bread in winter and five pounds from the time when the work of training the vines ought to
begin until the figs have ripened.
Wine for the slaves. After the vintage let them drink from the sour wine for three months. The fourth month let them have a
hemina [about half a pint] per day or two congii and a half [over seven quarts] per month. During the fifth, sixth, seventh, and
eighth months let them have a sextarius [about a pint] per day or five congii per month. Finally, in the ninth, tenth, and the
eleventh months, let them have three hemina [three-fourths of a quart] per day, or an amphora [about six gallons] per month.
On the Saturnalia and on “Compitalia” each man should have a congius [something under three quarts].
To feed the slaves. Let the olives that drop of themselves be kept so far as possible. Keep too those harvested olives that do
not yield much oil, and husband them, for they last a long time. When the olives have been consumed, give out the brine and
vinegar. You should distribute to everyone a sextarius of oil per month. A modius of salt apiece is enough for a year.
As for clothes, give out a tunic of three feet and a half, and a cloak once in two years. When you give a tunic or cloak take
back the old ones, to make cassocks out of. Once in two years, good shoes should be given.
Winter wine for the slaves. Put in a wooden cask ten parts of must (non-fermented wine) and two parts of very pungent
vinegar, and add two parts of boiled wine and fifty of sweet water. With a paddle mix all these thrice per day for five days in
succession. Add one forty-eighth of seawater drawn some time earlier. Place the lid on the cask and let it ferment for ten
days. This wine will last until the solstice. If any remains after that time, it will make very sharp excellent vinegar.
_____________________________________________
1. What does the passage from Pliny’s Natural History, the letter from Quintus Tullius Cicero to his brother Marcus, and the
law code of Theodosius II tell us about the treatment of Roman slaves?
2. What happened to Larcius Macedo and why is his family background of particular interest? What conclusions does Pliny
the Younger draw from the death of Larcius Macedo?
3. What can we learn from Assellus from the inscription on the slave collar?
4. The anecdote about Marc Antony and Cato’s manual suggest two very different uses of slaves by the Romans. What
were these two different uses?
5. Consider the last two passages and the Cicero’s letter about Tiro. What do these sources tell us about the extent to
which the condition of being a slave varied in ancient Rome?
_____________________________________________
41
Exodus, Chapter 20: The Ten Commandments
Exodus is the second book of the Hebrew Bible also known as the Old Testament; it tells of the departure of the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt.
Moses led them, and their destination was the Promised Land. God gave them the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Mosaic law on Mount
Sinai during the Exodus.
Source Citation: Exodus 20 New International Version (NIV), https://www.biblica.com/bible/niv/exodus/20/
And God spoke all these words:
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
“You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters
below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the
children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand
generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
“You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a
sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or
female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and
the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and
made it holy.
“Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
“You shall not murder.
“You shall not commit adultery.
“You shall not steal.
“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
42
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox
or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with
fear. They stayed at a distance and said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us
or we will die.”
Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you
from sinning.”
The people remained at a distance, while Moses approached the thick darkness where God was.
_____________________________________________
1. What do the first four commandments have in common?

2. What do the last six commandments have in common?
3. What does this chapter tell us about the Hebrew God?
_____________________________________________
Book of Acts
The Book of the Acts of the Apostles, often referred to simply as the Book of Acts, is the fifth book of the New Testament. It tells the story
of the Early Christian church, with particular emphasis on the ministry of the apostles Simon Peter and Paul of Tarsus, who are the central figures
of the middle and later chapters of the book. The early chapters, set in Jerusalem, discuss Jesus’ Resurrection, his Ascension, the Day of Pentecost,
and the start of the apostles’ ministry. The later chapters discuss Paul’s conversion, his ministry, and finally his arrest, imprisonment, and trip to
Rome. The following extract is taken from chapter fifteen and is an account of the Council of Jerusalem (c. AD 50).
Source Citation: “Acts 15”, Bible Hub, accessed July 11th, 2014, http://biblehub.com/acts/15.htm
Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the
custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So
Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders
about this question. The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how
the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. When they came to Jerusalem, they were
welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. Then
some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and
required to obey the Law of Moses.” The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got
up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might
hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving
43
the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by
faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither our fathers nor we
have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” The
whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had
done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up: “Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described
to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are
in agreement with this, as it is written: “After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I
will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does
these things” – things known from long ago. “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the
Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from
sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the
earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
_____________________________________________
4. In this passage from the Book of Acts, what is the central issue being discussed? How was this issue resolved?
5. How might this resolution have affected the early history of Christianity?
____________________________________________
Tacitus, Annals
Tacitus (c.56-c.117) is one of the important historians of Roman Antiquity. The surviving portions of his two major works - the Annals and the
Histories - treat the reigns of the Roman emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Nero and those that reigned in the Year of Four Emperors. The following
extract is taken from the Annals and records the first persecution of Christians. It was this persecution, confined to the city of Rome, that St. Peter
and St. Paul were killed.
Source Citation: Tacitus, “The Persecution of Christians”, Eyewitness to History, accessed July 15th, 2014,
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/christians.htm
But neither human resources, nor imperial munificence, nor appeasement of the gods eliminated sinister suspicions that the
fire had been instigated. To suppress this rumor, Nero fabricated scapegoats – and punished with every refinement the
notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign
by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out
afresh, not only in Judaea, where the mischief had started but also even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect
and flourish in the capital.
First, Nero had self-acknowledged Christians arrested. Then, on their information, large numbers of others were condemned
– not so much for incendiarism as for their anti-social tendencies. Their deaths were made farcical. Dressed in wild animals’
44
skins, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be ignited after dark as substitutes for daylight.
Nero provided his Gardens for the spectacle, and exhibited displays in the Circus, at which he mingled with the crowd – or
stood in a chariot, dressed as a charioteer. Despite their guilt as Christians, and the ruthless punishment it deserved, the
victims were pitied. For it was felt that they were being sacrificed to one man’s brutality rather than to the national interest.
_____________________________________________
1. What is Tacitus’ view of Christians and Christianity?

2. What did Nero do to punish Christians?
3. What did Tacitus think about Nero’s persecution of Christians?
_____________________________________________
Pliny and Trajan, Letters
Pliny the Younger (c. AD 61-113) was governor of Pontus/Bithynia from AD 111-113. We have a whole set of exchanges of his letters with the
emperor Trajan on a variety of administrative political matters. These two letters are the most famous, in which Pliny encounters Christianity for the
first time.
Source Citation: Pliny the Younger and Trajan, “The Infection of this Superstition has Spread”, in Aspects of Western
Civilization I: Problems and Sources in History, ed. Perry M. Rogers (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2003), 233-234.
Pliny to Trajan
It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my
hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it
is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be
any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be
granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the
name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.
Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I
interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time,
threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of
their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same
folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.
Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An
anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been
Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I
had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ - none of which
45
those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do - these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the
informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three
years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the
gods, and cursed Christ.
They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a
fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some
crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to
do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent
food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had
forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing
two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.
I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you,
especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be
endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it
seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to
be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial
animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of
people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.
Trajan to Pliny
You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians.
For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they
are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian
and really proves it - that is, by worshiping our gods - even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon
through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a
dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.
_____________________________________________
1. What were the circumstances under which Pliny became involved in prosecuting Christians in Bithynia? How did Pliny
go about prosecuting Christians?
2. What information does Pliny give us about the spread of Christianity in Bithynia? Does Pliny believe that this spread can
be reversed?
3. According to Pliny’s letter, how might Christians avoid prosecution or persecution?
4. What advice does Trajan give Pliny about his dealings with Christians? According to Trajan, what has “no place” in
Roman judicial prosecutions?
5. Based on these letters, how might you sum up the attitude of the Roman authorities to Christianity during the reign of
the emperor Trajan?
46
Minucius Felix, Octavius
Marcus Minucius Felix was one of the earliest of the Latin apologists for Christianity. Of his personal history nothing is known, and even the date
at which he wrote can be only approximately ascertained as between AD 150 and 270. He is now exclusively known by his Octavius, a dialogue
on Christianity between the pagan Caecilius Natalis and the Christian Octavius Januarius. The following extract is interesting because it nicely
illustrates how pagans, during the early years of Christianity, were often confused about the nature of the new religion. Note, in particular, the
emphasis on threatening political terms such as “faction” and “conspiracy”.
Source Citation: Minucius Felix, “A Religion of Lust: Anti-Christian Propoganda”, in Aspects of Western Civilization I: Problems
and Sources in History, ed. Perry M. Rogers (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2003), 236-237.
Is it not deplorable that a faction…of abandoned, hopeless outlaws makes attacks against the gods? These people gather
illiterates from the very dregs of society and credulous women who easily fall prey because of the natural weakness of their
sex. They organize a mob of wicked conspirators who join together at nocturnal assemblies and ritual fasts and inhuman
dinners, not for a particular religious ceremony, but for sacrilegious sacrifice; a secret light-fearing tribe, silent in public,
garrulous in dark corners. They despise temples…they spit on the gods, they laugh at our sacred rites…They despise political
office and regalia, and wander about half-naked. What amazing stupidity and incredible audacity! They despise present
tortures yet dread uncertain future ones; while they fear to die after death, they have no fear of it in the meantime; deceptive
hope soothes away their terror with the solace of a life to come.
Already…decay of morals spreads from day to day throughout the entire world, and the loathsome shrines of this impious
conspiracy multiply. This plot must be completely rooted out and execrated. They recognize one another by secret signs and
tokens; they love one another before they are acquainted. Everywhere they share a kind of religion of lust, and promiscuously
call one another brothers and sister so that even ordinary sexual intercourse becomes incest by the use of a sacred name…I
hear that in some absurd conviction or other they consecrate and worship the head of an ass, the most repulsive of beasts - a
religion worthy of the morals that begot it…Whether this is false I know not, but suspicion naturally attaches to secret and
nocturnal rites. To say that a man put to death for a crime and the lethal wooden cross are objects of their veneration is to
assign altars suitable for abandoned and impious men, the kind of worship they deserve. What is told of the initiation of
neophytes is as detestable as it is notorious. An infant covered with a blanket to deceive the unsuspecting is set before the
one to be initiated in the rites. The neophyte is induced to strike what seem to be harmless blows on the surface of the
blanket, and his random and unsuspecting blows kill this infant. Its blood - oh shocking - is voraciously licked up; the limbs
they eagerly distribute; and by this victim they swear alliance and pledge themselves to mutual silence….On an appointed day
they assemble at a feast with all their children, sisters and mothers, people of both sexes and every age. There, after much
feasting, when the banquet has become heated and intoxication had inflamed the drunken passions of incestuous lust, a dog,
which has been tied to a lamp, is incited to rush and leap forward after a morsel…. The telltale light is upset and
extinguished, and in the shameless dark they exchange embraces indiscriminately and all, if not actually, yet by complicity are
equally involved in incest…
47
_____________________________________________
1. What are the accusations levied against Christians in this source?

2. What does this source say about the truth of these accusations?
3. What do you think is the basis for some of these accusations?
4. Given the terms used in this text, how might politics have influenced Roman attitudes towards early Christians?
_____________________________________________
Persecutions of Diocletian and Maximinus
Diocletian was an important emperor who in 285 instituted reforms that were crucial to the survival of the empire. Still, he persecuted Christians
with a zeal not seen since that of the emperor Decius in 250. This was the last empire-wide persecution, but also the severest and most sustained,
lasting from 303 to 311 - long after Diocletian had abdicated. The passages below are taken from the following books written by Eusebius of
Caesarea (c.260-339) – the Ecclesiastical History and On the Martyrs of Palestine.
Source Citation: Eusubius “Diocletian: Edicts against Christians”, Internet Ancient History Sourcebook, accessed July 15th, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/persec1.asp
[Ecclesiastical History, viii. 2] This was the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian in Dystrus (which the Romans call
March), when the feast of the Savior’s passion was near at hand, and royal edicts were published everywhere, commanding
that the churches should be razed to the ground, the Scriptures destroyed by fire, those who held positions of honor
degraded, and the household servants, if they persisted in the Christian profession, be deprived of their liberty.
And such was the first decree against us. But issuing other decrees not long after, the Emperor commanded that all the rulers
of the churches in every place should be first put in prison and afterwards compelled by every device to offer sacrifice.
[Ecclesiastical History, viii. 6] Then as the first decrees were followed by others commanding that those in prison should be
set free, if they would sacrifice, but that those who refused should be tormented with countless tortures; who could again at
that time count the multitude of martyrs throughout each province, and especially throughout Africa and among the race of
the Moors, in Thebais [Thebes?] and throughout Egypt, from which having already gone into other cities and, provinces, they
became illustrious in their martyrdoms. [On the Martyrs of Palestine, ch. 3]
[On the Martyrs of Palestine, ch. 3] During the second year the war against us increased greatly. Urbanus was then governor
of the province [of Palestine] and edicts were first issued to him, in which it was commanded that all the people throughout
the city should sacrifice and pour out libations to the idols.
[On the Martyrs of Palestine, ch. 4] For in the second attack upon us by Maximinus [Maximinus II, who served as Caesar in
the east under Galerius], in the third year of the persecution against us edicts of the tyrant were issued for the first time that
all the people should offer sacrifice and that the rulers of the city should see to this diligently and zealously. Heralds went
48
through the whole city of Caesarea by the orders of the governor, summoning men, women and children to the temples of
the idols, and in addition the chiliarchs [a type of military rank] were calling upon each one by name from a roll.
[On the Martyrs of Palestine, ch. 9] All at once decrees of Maximinus again got abroad against everywhere throughout the
province. The governors, and in addition the military prefects, incited by edicts, letters and public ordinances the magistrates,
together with generals and the city clerks in all the cities, to fulfill the imperial edicts which commanded that the altars of the
idols should be rebuilt with all zeal and that all the men, together with the women and children, even infants at the breast,
should offer sacrifice and pour out libations; and these urged them anxiously, carefully to make the people taste of the
sacrifices ; and that the viands in the market should be polluted by the libations of the sacrifices ; and that watches should be
stationed before the baths, so as to defile those who washed in these with the all-abominable sacrifices
_____________________________________________
1. What punishment did Diocletian’s first edict order against Christians?

2. What punishment did Diocletian’s second edict order against Christians?
3. How was ritual sacrifice used as a ‘tool of persecution’ by the Roman authorities during the reign of Diocletian and
Galerius? Why was sacrifice used in this manner?
4. What clues does this source give as to the point of view of the author?
_____________________________________________
Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine
Eusebius of Caesarea, as well as being a Roman historian and writer, served as Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine from about AD 314. Together
with Pamphilus, he was a scholar of the Biblical canon and is regarded as an extremely well learned Christian of his time. He wrote
Demonstrations of the Gospel, Preparations for the Gospel, and On Discrepancies between the Gospels, studies of the Biblical
text. As “Father of Church History” he produced the Ecclesiastical History, On the Life of Pamphilus, the Chronicle and On the
Martyrs of Palestine. His most famous work, however, is his biography of the emperor Constantine. According to Eusebius, the following events
took place sometime before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312).
Source Citation: Eusubius “The Conversion of Constantine”, Internet Ancient History Sourcebook, accessed July 15th, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/conv-const.asp
Accordingly he called on him with earnest prayer and supplications that he would reveal to him who he was, and stretch
forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most
marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it been related by
any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he
was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to accredit the
relation, especially since the testimony of after- time has established its truth? He said that about noon, when the day was
already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and
49
bearing the inscription, by this sign conquer [in hoc signo vinces]. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his
whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.
He said, moreover, that he doubted within himself what the import of this apparition could be. And while he continued to
ponder and reason on its meaning, night suddenly came on; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the
same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the
heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.
AT dawn of day he arose, and communicated the marvel to his friends: and then, calling together the workers in gold and
precious stones, he sat in the midst of them, and described to them the figure of the sign he had seen, bidding them represent
it in gold and precious stones. And this representation I myself have had an opportunity of seeing.
Now it was made in the following manner. A long spear, overlaid with gold, formed the figure of the cross by means of a
transverse bar laid over it. On the top of the whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones; and within this, the
symbol of the Savior’s name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of its initial characters, the letter ρ [rho]
being intersected by χ [chi] in its center: and these letters the emperor was in the habit of wearing on his helmet at a later
period. From the cross-bar of the spear was suspended a cloth, a royal piece, covered with a profuse embroidery of most
brilliant precious stones; and which, being also richly interlaced with gold, presented an indescribable degree of beauty to the
beholder. This banner was of a square form, and the upright staff, whose lower section was of great length, bore a golden
half-length portrait of the pious emperor and his children on its upper part, beneath the trophy of the cross, and immediately
above the embroidered banner. The emperor constantly made use of this sign of salvation as a safeguard against every
adverse and hostile power, and commanded that others similar to it should be carried at the head of all his armies.
_____________________________________________
1. According to Eusebius, what were the two visions that Constantine had?
2. How does Eusebius attempt to convince us that his account of these visions is accurate?
3. According to Eusebius, having had these two visions what did Constantine order to have made?
_____________________________________________
Edict of Milan
Recognizing the political advantage to be derived from the support of the Christian church, the Emperors Constantine and Licinius in 313 issued
the Edict of Milan. The establishment of Christianity as the only legal religion was not done by Constantine but by Theodosius I (379-395). But
the equality granted by Constantine was one of the great milestones along the course of Christianity’s struggle for recognition. The Edict of Milan is
found in Lactantius’ On the Death of the Persecutors and in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Whether or not there was a formal “Edict
of Milan’ is debatable. The following is taken from Lactantius’ account.
Source Citation: Lactantius “Galerius and Constantine: Edicts of Toleration”, Internet Ancient History Sourcebook, accessed July
15th, 2014, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/edict-milan.asp
50
When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I, Licinius Augustus, had fortunately met near Mediolanurn [Milan], and were
considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought that among other things which we saw
would be for the good of many, that those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity ought certainly to be made
first, so that we might grant to the Christians and all others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred;
whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us, and all who are
placed under our rule. And thus by this wholesome counsel and most upright provision, we thought to arrange that no one
whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion or of that religion
which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts, may show in
all things his usual favor and benevolence. Therefore, your Worship should know that it has pleased us to remove all
conditions whatsoever, which were in the rescripts formerly given to you officially, concerning the Christians, and now any
one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without any disturbance or molestation.
We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians
free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship
will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake
of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made we
that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion…
_____________________________________________
1. What light does the Edict of Milan shed on Constantine’s conversion?

2. What did the Edict of Milan decree? Did the Edict of Milan only apply to Christians?
3. What was the long-term significance of the Edict of Milan?
Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed is a product of the Trinitarians’ victory over the Arians at the Council of Nicaea, summoned by Constantine in 325. The
outcome of the Council of Nicaea, the first universal council of the Church, was strongly influenced by Constantine, who had himself been persuaded
by important churchmen to support the Trinitarian position. The Nicene Creed expresses what would become the orthodox Christian position on
the Trinity and the incarnation of Christ. It rejects explicitly the doctrine of the Alexandrian churchman Arius, who taught that only God the
Father was eternal and that God the Son was His creation.
Source Citation: “The Nicene Creed”, in Aspects of Western Civilization I: Problems and Sources in History, ed. Perry M. Rogers
(Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2003), 302
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, the only-begotten of his Father, that is of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true
God, begotten not made, consubstantial [being of one substance] with the Father; by whom all things were made, both in
heaven and in earth. Who for the sake of us men and on account of our salvation descended from heaven, became incarnate
and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven and will come to judge the living
and the dead. And we believe in the Holy Spirit. And those who say “There was a time when he was not,” or “He did not
51
exist before he was begotten,” or “He was made of nothing,” or assert that “He is of other substance or essence than the
Father,” or that the Son of God is a creature, or subject to change or conversion - all that say so, the Catholic and Apostolic
Church anathematizes them. [“Anathema” is a curse, carrying the full authority of the Church, which banishes the recipient
from the Christian community.]
_____________________________________________
1. What is a creed? Why was the adoption of a creed a significant step for Christianity?
2. Which phrases reflect the Nicene Creed’s Trinitarian position and its rejection of the teachings of Arius of Alexandria?
3. Constantine summoned the Council of Nicaea. What precedent did this set for future Roman/Byzantine emperors?
_____________________________________________
St. Augustine, City of God
St. Augustine (354-430), a leading Christian thinker and bishop of Hippo in Africa, wrote The City of God after Rome was sacked in 410.
Opponents of the Church claimed that the destruction of the city occurred because Christianity neglected the pagan gods who traditionally protected
Rome. In the following excerpt from Book 5, St. Augustine describes a heavenly city that, unlike Rome, can never fall.
Source Citation: “St. Augustine, City of God”, in Medieval Europe: A Short Sourcebook, ed. C. Warren Hollister et al.,
(McGraw Hill: Boston, 2002), 17; St. Augustine, “City of God”, The Triumph of Christianity, accessed July 16th, 2014
http://www.bakeru.edu/faculty/jrichards/World%20Civ%20II/E-Sources/E12Augustine.htm
Rome had been invaded by the Goths under King Alaric and was staggered by the impact of this great disaster; and the
worshippers of false gods, whom we customarily call pagans, working to turn this invasion into an accusation against the
Christian religion, began to curse the true God more sharply and more bitterly than ever. Upon which I, burning with the
zeal of the house of God, decide to refute their blasphemies and errors in these books on the city of God.
The first five books of the City of God rebut those who think that the safety of mankind depends on the cult of the gods
whom the pagans worshipped, and who contend that these disasters happened, and were as bad as they were, because of the
prohibition of that worship. The next five books answer those who, while saying that mortals never have and never will be
spared evils – some greater, some lesser, varying with time and place and person – still argue that the cult of many gods, in
which sacrifices are made to them, is useful because of the life to be after death. In these ten books, then, are refuted those
two false notions that are contrary to the Christian religion.
Of the twelve books following, the first four contain the beginning of the two cities, of which the one is of God, the other of
man; the second four, their course or progress; the third, which is the last four, their ends. And all twenty-two books,
whether they are about one city or the other, took their title from the better of the two, with the result that they were called
by preference the City of God.
I place humanity into two groups, one that lives following man, the other that lives according to God, and about which I
might call two cities, that is, two societies, of which one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to undergo
52
eternal punishment with the devil. But this is their end, which is to be spoken of later. Now I must detail the paths of the
two cities from the time when two people first reproduced to the time when reproduction will come to an end. For the
history of the two cities consists of the whole era or age in which the dying give way to the born.……
For those pagan heroes there was not to be the divine grace of everlasting life along with His holy angels in his Heavenly
City, for the only road to this Society of the Blessed is true piety, that religious service…which is offered to the One true
God. On the other hand, if God did not grant them at least the temporal [earthly] glory of a splendid Empire, there would
have been no reward for the praiseworthy efforts or virtues by which they strove to attain that glory. When our Lord said:
“Amen I say to you that have received their reward,” He had in mind those who do what seems to be good in order to be
glorified by men.
After all, the pagans subordinated their private property to the common welfare, that is, to the Republic and the public
treasury….They gave their counsel freely in the councils of the state. They indulged in neither public crime nor private
passion. They thought they were on the right road when they strove, by all these means, for honors, rule and glory. Honor
has come to them from almost all peoples. The rule of their laws has been imposed on many peoples. And in our day, in
literature and in history, glory has been given them by almost everyone. They have no right to complain of the justice of the
true and Supreme God. “They have received their just reward.”
The reward of the saints is altogether different. They were the men who, while on earth, suffered reproaches for the City of
God which is so much hated by the lovers of this world. That City is eternal. There, no one is born because no one dies.
There, there reigns that true and perfect happiness which is not a goddess, but a gift of God - toward whose beauty we can
but sigh in our pilgrimage on earth, though we hold the pledge of it by faith. In that City, the sun does not “rise upon the
good and bad” for the Sun of Justice cherishes the good alone. There, where the Truth is a treasure shared by all, there is no
need to pinch the poor to fill the coffers of the state.
_____________________________________________
1. Why did St. Augustine write the City of God?

2. What is the outline of St. Augustine’s argument?
3. What reward did God grant the pagan heroes of Rome?
4. Why do these heroes have no right to complain about God’s justice?
5. According to Augustine, who are the saints? What rewards do saints receive in the City of God?
6. If saints are rewarded in an Eternal City, does it matter if Rome, an earthly empire, falls?
_____________________________________________
53
St. Benedict of Nursia, Benedictine Rule
Benedict (c.480-547) founded twelve communities for monks at Subiaco, Italy (about 40 miles (64 km) to the east of Rome), before moving to
Monte Cassino in the mountains of southern Italy. Benedict's main achievement is his “Rule of St. Benedict”, containing precepts for his monks. It
is heavily influenced by the writings of John Cassian, and shows strong affinity with the Rule of the Master. But it also has a unique spirit of
balance, moderation and reasonableness (ἐπιείκεια, epieikeia), and this persuaded most religious communities founded throughout the Middle Ages
to adopt it. As a result, his Rule became one of the most influential religious rules in Western Christendom. For this reason, Benedict is often called
the founder of western monasticism.
Source Citation: St. Benedict “The Rule of St. Benedict, c.530”, Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, accessed July 15th, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/rul-benedict.asp
Concerning Obedience
The first grade of humility is obedience without delay. This becomes those who, on account of the holy service which they
have professed, or on account of the fear of hell or the glory of eternal life, consider nothing dearer to them than Christ: so
that, so soon as anything is commanded by their superior, they may not know how to suffer delay in doing it, even as if it
were a divine command. Concerning whom the Lord said: “As soon as he heard of me he obeyed me.” And again to teachers
He says, “He who hears you, hears Me” (Luke 10:16).
Such as these, therefore, immediately leaving their own affairs and forsaking their own will, dropping the work they were
engaged on and leaving it unfinished, with the ready step of obedience follow up with their deeds the voice of him who
commands. And so as it were at the same moment the master's command is given and the disciple’s work is completed, the
two things being speedily accomplished together in the swiftness of the fear of God by those who are moved with the desire
of attaining life everlasting. That desire is their motive for choosing the narrow way, of which the Lord says, “Narrow is the
way that leads to life” (Matt. 7:14), so that, not living according to their own choice nor obeying their own desires and
pleasures but walking by another's judgment and command, they dwell in monasteries and desire to have an Abbot over
them. Assuredly such as these are living up to that maxim of the Lord in which He says, “I have come not to do My own will,
but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38).
Concerning Silence
Let us do as the prophet says. “I said, I will take heed to my ways that I am not with my tongue. I have kept my mouth with a
bridle. I was dumb with silence. I held my peace even from good and my sorrow was stirred.” Here the prophet shows that
if one ought at times, for the sake of silence, to refrain from good sayings, how much more, as a punishment for sin, ought
one to cease from evil words…And Therefore, if anything is to be asked of the prior, let it be asked with all humility and
subjection of reverence, lest one seem to speak more than is fitting. Scurrilities, however, or idle words and those exciting
laughter, we condemn in all places with lasting prohibition: nor do we permit a disciple to open his mouth for such sayings.
Concerning Humility
The sixth grade of humility is, that a monk be contented with all lowliness or extremity, and consider himself, with regard to
everything which is enjoined on him, as a poor and unworthy workman; saying to himself with the prophet: “I Was reduced
54
to nothing and was ignorant; I was made as the cattle before thee, and I am always with thee.” The seventh grade of humility
is, not only that he, with his tongue, pronounce himself viler and more worthless than all; but that he also believe it in the
inner-most workings of his heart; humbling himself and saying with the prophet, etc. The eighth degree of humility is that a
monk do nothing except what the common rule of the monastery, or the example of his elders, urges him to do. The ninth
degree of humility is that a monk restrain his tongue from speaking; and, keeping silence, do not speak until he is spoken to.
The tenth grade of humility is that he be not ready, and easily inclined, to laugh… The eleventh grade of humility is that a
monk, when he speaks, should speak slowly and without laughter, humbly with gravity, using few and reasonable words; and
that he be not loud of voice. . . . The twelfth grade of humility is that a monk shall, not only with his heart but also with his
body, always show humility to all who see him: that is, when at work, in the oratory, in the monastery, in the garden, on the
road, in the fields. And everywhere, sitting or walking or standing, let him always be with head inclined, his looks fixed upon
the ground; remembering every hour that he is guilty of his sins. Let him think that he is already being presented before the
tremendous judgment of God, saying always to himself in his heart what the publican of the gospel, fixing his eyes on the
earth, said: “Lord I am not worthy, I a sinner, so much as to lift mine eyes unto Heaven.”
Whether the Monks Should Have Anything of Their Own
More than anything else is this special vice to be cut off root and branch from the monastery that one should presume to
give or receive anything without the order of the abbot, or should have anything of his own. He should have absolutely not
anything: neither a book, nor tablets, nor a pen-nothing at all. For indeed it is not allowed to the monks to have their own
bodies or wills in their own power. But all things necessary they must expect from the Father of the monastery; nor is it
allowable to have anything which the abbot did not give or permit. All things shall be common to all, as it is written: “Let not
any man presume or call anything his own.” But if any one shall have been discovered delighting in this most evil vice: being
warned once and again, if he do not amend, let him be subjected to punishment.
Concerning the Amount of food
We believe, moreover, that, for the daily refection of the sixth as well as of the ninth hour, two cooked dishes, on account of
the infirmities of the different ones, are enough for all tables: so that whoever, perchance, cannot eat of one may partake of
the other. Therefore let two cooked dishes suffice for all the brothers: and, if it is possible to obtain apples or growing
vegetables, a third may be added. One full pound of bread shall suffice for a day, whether there be one refection, or a
breakfast and a supper. But if they are going to have supper, the third part of that same pound shall be reserved by the
cellarer, to be given back to those who are about to sup. But if, perchance, some greater labor shall have been performed, it
shall be in the will and power of the abbot, if it is expedient, to increase anything; surfeiting above all things being guarded
against, so that indigestion may never seize a monk: for nothing is so contrary to every Christian as surfeiting, as our Lord
says: “Take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting.” But to younger boys the same quantity shall
not be served, but less than that to the older ones; moderation being observed in all things. But the eating of the flesh of
quadrupeds shall be abstained from altogether by everyone, excepting alone the weak and the sick.
Concerning the Amount of Drink.
55
Each one has his own gift from God, the one in this way, the other in that. Therefore it is with some hesitation that the
amount of daily sustenance for others is fixed by us. Nevertheless, in view of the weakness of the infirm we believe that a
hemina [just less than half a liter] of wine a day is enough for each one. Those moreover to whom God gives the ability of
bearing abstinence shall know that they will have their own reward. But the prior shall judge if either the needs of the place,
or labor or the heat of summer, requires more; considering in all things lest satiety or drunkenness creep in. Indeed we read
that wine is not suitable for monks at all. But because, in our day, it is not possible to persuade the monks of this, let us agree
at least as to the fact that we should not drink till we are sated, but sparingly. For wine can make even the wise to go astray.
Where, moreover, the necessities of the place are such that the amount written above cannot be found - but much less or
nothing at all - those who live there shall bless God and shall not murmur. And we admonish them to this above all: that they
be without murmuring.
Concerning the Daily Manual Labor.
Idleness is the enemy of the soul. And therefore, at fixed times, the brothers ought to be occupied in manual labor; and again,
at fixed times, in sacred reading. ... there shall certainly be appointed one or two elders, who shall go round the monastery at
the hours in which the brothers are engaged in reading, and see to it that no troublesome brother chance to be found who is
open to idleness and trifling, and is not intent on his reading; being not only of no use to himself, but also stirring up others.
_____________________________________________
1. What are some of the virtues and ideals advocated by the Rule of St. Benedict?
2. Why do you think these virtues and ideals were considered so important to the vocation of a monk?
3. The Benedictine Rule is often praised for its “flexibility:” how is this evident?
4. Why would the monastic life appeal to men and women in the early Middle Ages?
5. How did Benedictine monasticism help to form Western cultural values?
_____________________________________________
St. Jerome, Epistles
St. Jerome (c. 347-420) is best known as the translator of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin. Jerome's edition, the Vulgate, is still an
important biblical text of the Roman Catholic Church. Together with St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, he is among the more important Church
Fathers. He spent much of his life living in a hermit's cell near Bethlehem, surrounded by a few friends, both men and women, to whom he acted as
priestly guide and teacher.
Source Citation: St. Jerome, “News of the Attacks”, in Aspects of Western Civilization I: Problems and Sources in History, ed. Perry
M. Rogers (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2003), 285-286.
Innumerable and most ferocious people have overrun the whole of Gaul. The entire area bounded by the Alps, the Pyrenees,
the ocean and the Rhine is occupied by the Quadi, Vandals, Carmatians, Alanni, Gepides, Saxons, Burgundians, Alammani -
oh weep for the empire - and the hostile Pannonoans…Mainz, once a noble city, is captured and razed, and thousands have
56
been massacred in the church. Worms has succumbed to a long siege. Rheims, the impregnable, Amiens, Artois…Tours,
Nimes and Strasburg are in the hands of the Germans. The province of Aquitaine, ….of Lyons and Narbonne are completely
occupied and devastated either by the sword from without or famine within. I cannot mention Toulouse with tears, for until
now it has been spared, due to the merits of its saintly bishop Exuperus. The Spaniards tremble, expecting daily the invasion
and recalling the horrors Spaniards suffered in continual anticipation.
Who would believe that Rome, victor over all the world, would fall, that she would be to her people both the womb and the
tomb. Once all the East, Egypt and Africa acknowledged her sway and were counted among her men servants and her
maidservants. Who would believe that holy Bethlehem would receive as beggars, nobles, both men and women, once
abounding in riches? Where we cannot help we mourn and mingle with theirs our tears… there is not an hour, not even a
moment, when we are not occupied with crowds of refugees, when the peace of the monastery is not invaded by a horde of
guests so that we shall either have to shut the gates or neglect the Scriptures for which the gates were opened. Consequently,
I have to snatch furtively the hours of the night, which now with winter approaching are growing longer, and try to dictate by
candlelight and thus…relieve a mind distraught. I am not boasting of our hospitality, as some may suspect, but simply
explaining to you the delay.
_____________________________________________
1. According to this source, what had recently happened in parts of Gaul and Spain?
2. What has been the impact of these events on St. Jerome’s monastery in Bethlehem?
3. What do you think St. Jerome meant by the following phrase: “Who would believe that Rome…would be to her people
both the womb and the tomb”?
4. What is the value of this source to an understanding of the decline of the Roman Empire in the fifth century?
_____________________________________________
Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1788), by eighteenth-century British historian Edward Gibbon, is
considered by many to be essential reading. It is admired not only for its grasp of the history of the Roman Empire, but also for such qualities as its
breadth of scholarship, its eloquence, and its wit. The book spans 13 centuries, from the time of Roman Emperor Trajan (98-117) to the capture of
Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. In his Decline and Fall, Gibbon attempted to explain the reasons for the decline and eventual
collapse of the Roman Empire. He believed that Christianity was partly to blame for this collapse. The following extract, taken from Vol. III,
Chapter 38, explains why.
Source Citation: Edward Gibbon “General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West”, Internet Medieval
History Sourcebook, accessed July 15th, 2014, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gibbon-fall.html
As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction,
or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. The clergy successfully
preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of
57
military spirit were buried in the cloister: a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious
demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers’ pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only
plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and more earthly passions of malice and ambition, kindled
the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were
sometimes bloody and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman
world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country. Yet
party spirit, however pernicious or absurd, is a principle of union as well as of dissension. The bishops, from eighteen
hundred pulpits, inculcated the duty of passive obedience to a lawful and orthodox sovereign; their frequent assemblies and
perpetual correspondence maintained the communion of distant churches; and the benevolent temper of the Gospel was
strengthened, though confirmed, by the spiritual alliance of the Catholics. The sacred indolence of the monks was devoutly
embraced by a servile and effeminate age; but if superstition had not afforded a decent retreat, the same vices would have
tempted the unworthy Romans to desert, from baser motives, the standard of the republic. Religious precepts are easily
obeyed which indulge and sanctify the natural inclinations of their votaries; but the pure and genuine influence of Christianity
may be traced in its beneficial, though imperfect, effects on the barbarian proselytes of the North. If the decline of the
Roman Empire was hastened by the conversion of Constantine, his victorious religion broke the violence of the fall, and
mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors.
_____________________________________________
1. According to Edward Gibbon, what role did Christianity have in the decline of the Roman Empire?
2. What do you think Edward Gibbon meant by the following phrase: “Yet party spirit, however pernicious or absurd, is a
principle of union as well as of dissension”?
_____________________________________________
Procopius of Caesarea, Secret History and History of the Wars
Lawyer and historian in the Eastern Roman Empire, Procopius (500- 565) was secretary and legal advisor to General Belisarius in the wars
against the Vandals and Ostrogoths in North Africa and Italy, respectively. In his eight volumes of histories, Procopius recorded many of the events
of his time. He also described the public works of the Emperor Justinian in his Buildings, but the Secret History is an animated and vindictive
attack on all those in power, especially Justinian and his wife the Empress Theodora, possibly because Procopius’s hero, Belisarius, was accused of
conspiracy and imprisoned. In the first excerpt, taken from the Secret History, Procopius describes the character of Justinian and Theodora. In the
second excerpt, taken from the History of the Wars, Procopius provides an account of the Nika Revolt.
Source Citation: Procopius, “History of the Wars”, in Leon Barnard and Theodore B. Hodges, Readings in European History,
(New York: Macmillan, 1958), 52-55.
From the Secret H istory - Character of Justinian and Theodora
Justinian was neither very tall nor very short, but of average height and weight. His face was round, not uncomely, and of a
ruddy complexion even after two days of fasting. To put it very succinctly, he was the perfect double of the Emperor
58
Domitian, the son of Vespasian. Because of his evil deeds, Domitian provoked the hatred of the Romans to such an extent
that after they had dismembered his body, the Senate decreed the obliteration of his name from all public documents and the
destruction of all of his statues.…
Such was Justinian’s portrait. But as to his character, I could never describe it with such accuracy. The man was an evildoer
at the same time that he was everybody’s dupe – both devil and fool, in other words. Dishonest in his dealings with all and
sundry, his words and deeds were instinctively false, although nothing was easier than deceiving him if that was your
intention. His original nature, totally devoid of principle, was corrupted by folly and maliciousness. As an ancient
philosopher once said, the most contradictory faults are sometimes found in the same individual, just as colors are formed by
mixtures.
Crafty, dissembling, and hypocritical, Justinian was implacable in his rages, always double-dealing; he was cruel, very adept at
concealing his thoughts, easily brought to tears – but not from joy or sorrow, only on purpose, after the needs of the
moment. He always played false. Not accidentally but rather by design did he multiply solemn promises and commitments,
both in words and in deeds, even to his own subjects, only to renege on them later….
What person could ever adequately describe the instincts of this man? Some people are found to be better than their
reputations in some ways, but in Justinian’s case Nature seems to have accumulated in one soul all the vices that are usually
dispersed among many. Ever ready to lend ear to slander, ever harsh in his punishments, he never bothered to check the
facts. As soon as he heard the slanderer’s charges, he gave his decision. Without the least hesitation he issued orders for the
capture of towns, the burning of cities, the enslavement of whole peoples – for no reason whatever. So that, if one were to
estimate all the calamities of this nature inflicted by the Romans from the earliest times to the present, Justinian would, I
believe, be charged with more murders than any of his predecessors…
The Empress Theodora, on the other hand, was not accessible even to the chief magistrates without endless waiting and
painful supplication. Always received as a group, they had to stay, like a troop of slaves, until the end of the entire audience,
standing in a stuffy-anteroom, terrified of falling out of favor. To be absent was to run the greatest risk. Constantly on
tiptoe, each one straining to rise above his neighbors so that the eunuchs might see him when they came out. If one were
summoned at last, after days of waiting, he would go into her presence in trepidation and depart quickly, after having lightly
kissed each of her feet. There was no opportunity to speak or make a request unless she ordered it. Such was the servile
state of society and politics, and Theodora was headmistress of the New Academy.
If the thinking and life habits of this pair were contrasting, they shared a common avarice, a lust for blood, and an aversion
for truth. When anyone who had offended Theodora was reported to have committed a misdeed, no matter how trivial and
unworthy of notice, accusations totally unfounded would immediately be brought against him, making the affair very serious
indeed. This multiplication of charges would lead the court to the obvious finding and a sentence which was invariably the
dispossession of the accused.
Among the innovations of Justinian and Theodora in the administration of the government was the following: In ancient
times the Senate coming into the emperor’s presence was accustomed to do obeisance. Any man of patrician rank would
59
salute him on the right breast, and the emperor would kiss him on the head and then dismiss him, while all the others would
first bend the right knee to the emperor and then withdraw. It was not at all the custom to salute the empress. But in the
case of Justinian and Theodora, all the members of the Senate, of whatever rank, would prostrate themselves on the floor,
flat on their faces, and while holding their hands and feet stretched far out, they would touch with their lips the foot of each
[ruler] before rising. For even Theodora was not inclined to forgo this testimony to her dignity, she who acted as if the
Roman Empire lay at her feet, but who was not at all averse to receiving even the ambassadors of the Persians and of the
other barbarians and bestowing presents of money upon them, something that had never happened since the beginning of
time.
From the H istory of the Wars - Nika Revolt:
At this time [January 1, 532] an insurrection broke out unexpectedly in Byzantium among the populace, and, contrary to
expectation, it proved to be a very serious affair, and ended in great harm to the people and to the senate, as the following
account will show.
In every city the population has been divided for a long time past into the Blue and the Green factions; but within
comparatively recent times it has come about that, for the sake of these names and the seats which the rival factions occupy
in watching the games, they spend their money and abandon their bodies to the most cruel tortures, and even do not think it
unworthy to die a most shameful death. And they fight against their opponents knowing not for what end they imperil
themselves, but knowing well that, even if they overcome their enemy the fight, the conclusion of the matter for them will be
to be carried off straight away to the prison, and finally, after suffering extreme torture, to be destroyed. So there grows up in
them against their fellow men a hostility which has no cause, and at no time does it cease or disappear, for it gives place
neither to the ties of marriage nor of relationship nor of friendship, and the case is the same even though those who differ
with respect to these colors be brothers or any other kin. . . . I, for my part, am unable to call this anything except a disease of
the soul. . . .
At this time the officers of the city administration in Byzantium were leading away to death some of the rioters. But the
members of the two factions conspiring together and declaring a truce with each other, seized the prisoners and then
straightway entered the prison and released all those who were in confinement there. . . . Fire was applied to the city as if it
had fallen under the hand of an enemy. . . . The emperor and his consort, with a few members of the senate shut themselves
up in the palace and remained quietly there. Now the watch-word which the populace passed to one another was Nika
[“Conquer”]. . . .
….On the fifth day of the insurrection in the late afternoon the Emperor Justinian gave orders to Hypatius and Pompeius,
nephews of the late emperor, Anastasius, to go home as quickly as possible, either because he suspected that some plot was
being matured by them against his own person, or, it may be, because destiny brought them to this. But they feared that the
people would force them to the throne (as in fact fell out), and they said that they would be doing wrong if they should
abandon their sovereign when he found himself in such danger. When the Emperor Justinian heard this, he inclined still
more to his suspicion, and he bade them quit the palace instantly. . . .
60
On the following day at sunrise it became known to the people that both men bad quit the palace where they had been
staying. So the whole population ran to them, and they declared Hypatius emperor and prepared to lead him to the market
place to assume the power. But the wife of Hypatius, Mary, a discreet woman, who had the greatest reputation for prudence,
laid hold of her husband and would not let go, but cried out with loud lamentation and with entreaties to all her kinsmen that
the people were leading him on the road to death. But since the throng overpowered her, she unwillingly released her
husband, and he by no will of his own came to the Forum of Constantine, where they summoned him to the throne; . . .
The emperor and his court were deliberating as to whether it would be better for them if they remained or if they took to
flight in the ships. And many opinions were expressed favoring either course. And the Empress Theodora also spoke to the
following effect: "My opinion then is that the present time, above all others, is inopportune for flight, even though it bring safety. . . . For one
who has been an emperor it is unendurable to be a fugitive. May I never be separated from this purple, and may I not live that day on which those
who meet me shall not address me as mistress. If, now, it is your wish to save yourself, O Emperor, there is no difficulty. For we have much money,
and there is the sea, here the boats. However consider whether it will not come about after you have been saved that you would gladly exchange that
safety for death. For as for myself, I approve a certain ancient saying that royalty is a good burial-shroud." When the queen had spoken thus,
all were filled with boldness, and, turning their thoughts towards resistance, they began to consider how they might be able to
defend themselves if any hostile force should come against them. . . .All the hopes of the emperor were centered upon
Belisarius and Mundus, of whom the former, Belisarius, had recently returned from the Persian war bringing with him a
following which was both powerful and imposing, and in particular he had a great number of spearmen and guards who had
received their training in battles and the perils of warfare. . . .
When Hypatius reached the Hippodrome, he went up immediately to where the emperor is accustomed to take his place and
seated himself on the royal throne from which the emperor was always accustomed to view the equestrian and athletic
contests. And from the palace Mundus went out through the gate which, from the circling descent, has been given the name
of the Snail. . . . Belisarius, with difficulty and not without danger and great exertion, made his way over ground covered by
ruins and half-burned buildings, and ascended to the stadium. . . . Concluding that he must go against the populace who had
taken their stand in the Hippodrome - a vast multitude crowding each other in great disorder-he drew his sword from its
sheath and, commanding the others to do likewise, with a shout be advanced upon them at a run. But the populace, who
were standing in a mass and not in order, at the sight of armored soldiers who had a great reputation for bravery and
experience in war, and seeing that they struck out with their swords unsparingly, beat a hasty retreat. . . . [Mundus]
straightway made a sally into the Hippodrome through the entrance which they call the Gate of Death. Then indeed from
both sides the partisans of Hypatius were assailed with might and main and destroyed. . . . There perished among the
populace on that day more than thirty thousand. . . . The soldiers killed both [Hypatius and Pompeius] on the following day
and threw their bodies into the sea. . . . This was the end of the insurrection in Byzantium.
_____________________________________________
1. How objective is the Secret History?

2. What does the passage from the Secret History tell us about the character of Justinian and Theodora?
61
3. What were the events leading up to the Nika Revolt? In what ways do the Nika revolt and the circus factions illustrate
the “Byzantine” nature of Byzantine politics?
4. What was the role of Theodora in suppressing the Nika Revolt?
5. What does the passage from the History of the Wars tell us about the character of Justinian and Theodora? How does this
view of Justinian and Theodora compare to picture of Justinian and Theodora given in the Secret History??
_____________________________________________
Beowulf
Beowulf is the oldest surviving epic poem of Old English and thus commonly cited as one of the most important works of Anglo-Saxon literature.
In the poem, Beowulf, a hero of the Geats in Scandinavia, comes to the aid of Hroðgar, the king of the Danes, whose mead hall (in Heorot) has
been under attack by a monster known as Grendel. After Beowulf slays him, Grendel’s mother attacks the hall and is then also defeated.
Victorious, Beowulf goes home to Geatland in Sweden and later becomes king of the Geats. After a period of fifty years has passed, Beowulf defeats
a dragon, but is fatally wounded in the battle. After his death, his attendants bury him in a tumulus, a burial mound, in Geatland. The following
extract describes the death of Beowulf.
Source Citation: Beowulf, accessed July 27th, 2014, http://www.heorot.dk/beowulf-rede-text.html
Bíowulf maþelode - hé ofer benne spræc, 2724 Beowulf spoke; he spoke despite his injury,
wunde wælbléate - wisse hé gearwe the mortal wounds - he readily knew
þæt hé dæg-hwíla gedrogen hæfde that he the length of his days had fulfilled,
eorðan wynne; ðá wæs eall sceacen joy of earth; drawing to a close
dógor-gerímes, déað ungemete néah:- his number of days, death exceedingly near:-
“Nú ic suna mínum syllan wolde “Now I to my son I would have wished to give
gúð-gewaédu þaér mé gifeðe swá war-garments, if it had been granted to me such that
aénig yrfe-weard æfter wurde any heir would be remaining after
líce gelenge. Ic ðás léode héold this body; I ruled the people
fíftig wintra; næs sé folc-cyning fifty winters; there was no king
ymbe-sittendra aénig ðára, of any neighboring clans - of any of them -
þé mec gúð-winum grétan dorste, who me with war-bands dared to greet,
egesan ðéon. Ic on earde bád to threaten with terror; I on earth awaited
maél-gesceafta, héold mín tela, destiny, ruled the things in my keeping,
ne sóhte searo-níðas, né mé swór fela did not seek cunning hostility, nor swore me many
áða on unriht.Iic ðæs ealles mæg oaths unjustly; All this consoles me,
feorh-bennum séoc, geféan habban; sick as I am with mortal-injuries;
forðám mé wítan ne ðearf. Waldend fíra because he will not need to reproach me, the Ruler of men,
morðor-bealo mága, þonne mín sceaceð for dire murder of kinsmen, when departs my
líf of lice. Nú ðú lungre geong life from body. Now go you quickly
hord scéawian under hárne stán, to examine the hoard under the hoary grey stone,
62
Wígláf léofa, nú se wyrm ligeð, dear Wiglaf, now the dragon lies dead,
swefeð sáre wund, since beréafod; . sleeping sorely wounded, deprived of treasure;
Bío nú on ofoste þæt ic aér-welan be now in haste that you might feast your eyes on
gold-aéht ongite, gearo scéawige the gold, that I might gaze on the ancient wealth,
swegle searo-gimmas, þæt ic ðý séft mæge on those sparkling cleverly-cut gems, so that I can
æfter máððum-welan mín álaétan for treasure-wealth more pleasantly leave my
líf ond léodscipe, þone ic longe héold.” life and nation, that long I ruled.”
Ðá ic snúde gefrægn sunu Wíhstánes Then, I heard, swiftly the son of Weohstan,
æfter word-cwydum wundum dryhtne after the word-speech of the wounded lord,
hýran heaðo-síocum, hringnet beran listened to the battle-sick one, bore chain-mail
brogdne beadu-sercean under beorges hróf. under the rock-piled roof of the barrow.
Geseah ðá sige-hréðig, þá hé bí sesse géong, Exalting in his triumph, he saw beyond the seat,
mago-þegn módig máððum-sigla fealo, the spirited young thegn, many precious jewels,
gold glitinian grunde getenge, glittering gold close to the ground,
wundur on wealle, ond þæs wyrmes den wonders on the wall, and the dragon’s den,
ealdes úht-flogan, orcas stondan the old twilight-flier, filled with goblets standing,
fyrn-manna fatu, feormend-léase, the ancient vessels of men tarnished,
hyrstum behroren. þaér wæs helm monig stripped of adornments; there was a multitude of helmets
eald ond ómig, earm-béaga fela, old and rusty, many arm-rings
searwum gesaéled. Sinc éaðe mæg cleverly fastened. How easily treasure,
gold on grunde, gum-cynnes gehwone buried in the ground, gold hidden however skilfully,
oferhígian; hýde sé ðe wylle! Can hide from any man!
Swylce hé siomian geseah segn eall-gylden Also he saw hanging a standard all-golden
héah ofer horde, hond-wundra maést, high over the hoard, the greatest of hand-wrought wonders,
gelocen leoðo-cræftum; of ðám léoman stód linked with skill of hands; from it light issued,
þæt hé þone grund-wong ongitan meahte, so that he on the ground could perceive,
wraéte giondwlítan. Næs ðæs wyrmes þaér look over the ornament; there was not of the dragon
onsýn aénig, ac hyne ecg fornam. any remaining sign, for him the blade-edge had dispatched.
Ðá ic on hlaéwe gefrægn hord réafian Then, I heard, in the mound - the old work of giants -
eald enta geweorc ánne mannan, the hoard was plundered by a certain man,
him on bearm hlódon bunan ond discas him on his chest he loaded goblets and plates,
sylfes dome; segn éac genóm anything his judgment wanted; he also took the banner,
béacna beorhtost. Bill aér gescód the brightest beacon; the blade of the old king’s sword
- ecg wæs íren - eald-hláfordes - its edge was iron - had already done its worst
þám ðára máðma mund-bora wæs to him who for a long while had been
longe hwíle, líg-egesan wæg the treasures’ protector; hovering over the gold,
63
hátne for horde, hioro-weallende unleashing fire, fiercely surging forth
middel-nihtum, oðþæt hé morðre swealt. in the middle of nights until he died in violence.
Ár wæs on ofoste, eft-síðes georn, The messenger [Wiglaf] was in haste, eager to return,
frætwum gefyrðred; hyne fyrwet bræc excited by the treasures; anxiety weighed
hwæðer colleen-ferð cwicne gemétte on his brave heart, he was hoping he would meet alive
in ðám wong-stede Wedra þéoden in that place, the chief of the Wederas [Geats]
ellen-síocne, þaér hé hine aér forlét. ill in strength, where he had left him earlier;
Hé ðá mid þám máðmum maérne þíoden He then carried the treasures to the glorious chieftain,
dryhten sínne dríorigne fand, his lord, whom he found bleeding,
ealdres æt ende; hé hine eft ongon his life at an end; he again began on him
wæteres weorpan, oðþæt wordes ord to sprinkle water, until the beginning of words
bréost-hord þurhbræc. Þá se beorn gespæc, broke through the king’s breast-cage,
gomel on giogoðe - gold scéawode - the old lord gazed sadly at the gold -
“Ic ðára frætwa Fréan ealles ðanc, “I, to the Lord of All,
Wuldur-cyninge, wordum secge, give words of thanks to the King of Glory,
écum Dryhtne, þé ic hér on starie to the eternal Lord, for the riches which I look on here,
þæs ðe ic móste mínum léodum that I was able for my people
aér swylt-dæge swylc gestrýnan. before the day I die to gain such riches.
Nú ic on máðma hord mine bebohte Now that I, for the hoard of treasures, have bartered with my
fróde feorh-lege fremmað géna last breath, it is up to you to attend still
léoda þearfe! Ne mæg ic hér leng wesan. to the need of the nation. I cannot be here longer;
Hátað heaðo-maére hlaéw gewyrcean, order war-famed men to construct a mound
beorhtne æfter baéle æt brimes nósan; bright after the fire, at the ocean’s cape;
sé scel tó gemyndum mínum léodum it shall to remind my people
héah hlífian on Hrones-næsse tower high on headland at Hronesness,
þæt hit saé-líðend syððan hátan so that sea-farers then will name it
Bíowulfes biorh, ðá ðe brentingas Beowulf's Barrow, those who ships
ofer flóda genipu feorran drífað.” over the seas’ mists drive from afar.”
Dyde him of healse hring gyldenne Took him from his neck the golden ring,
þíoden þríst-hýdig, þegne gesealde, the valiant chief, and to the thegn gave,
geongum gár-wigan gold-fáhne helm, to the young spear-warrior, a gold-adorned helmet,
béah ond byrnan, hét hyne brúcan well: ring and war-shirt, and told him to use them well:
“Þú eart ende-láf ússes cynnes, “You are the last remainder of our race,
Waégmundinga; ealle wyrd forspéon of the Waegmundings; Fate has swept off all
míne mágas tó meodsceafte, of my kinsmen into their destiny’s death,
64
eorlas on elne; ic him æfter sceal.” earls in their strength; I must go after them.”
Þæt wæs þám gomelan gingæste word That was for the old man the final word
Bréost-gehygdum, aér hé baél cure of the thoughts of his breast, ere he chose funeral fire,
háte heaðo-wylmas; him of hwæðre gewát hot furious seething; yet from him went
sáwol sécean sóð-fæstra dóm. his soul to seek truth-fast judgment.
_____________________________________________
1. The earliest surviving copy of Beowulf dates from about 1000. However, most scholars believe that the poem was
composed much earlier, possibly during the seventh century when the Anglo-Saxons were being converted to
Christianity. How does this passage support this claim?
2. What does this source tell us about the culture and society of the Anglo-Saxons?
_____________________________________________
Charlemagne and Pope Leo III
Charlemagne (c.742-814) was the King of the Franks from 768, and the King of Italy from 774, and from 800 the first emperor in western
Europe since the collapse of the Western Roman Empire three centuries earlier. Called the “Father of Europe”, Charlemagne united most of
Western Europe under his rule and in doing so created the Carolingian Empire. His rule spurred the Carolingian Renaissance, a period of cultural
and intellectual activity within the Catholic Church. Charlemagne was crowned emperor by Pope Leo III (750-816), who was Pope from 795 to
his death in 816. The following two sources shed light on the complex relationship between Charlemagne and Pope Leo. The first source is a letter
written by Charlemagne to Pope Leo III about four years prior to Leo’s crowning of Charlemagne in 800. The second source is taken from the
writings of Charlemagne’s contemporary biographer, Einhard.
Source Citation: “Charlemagne, Letter to Pope Leo III” and “Documents Relating to the Imperial Coronation of
Charlemagne”, in Medieval Europe: A Short Sourcebook, ed. C. Warren Hollister et al., (McGraw Hill: Boston, 2002), 105-106.
Charlemagne, Letter to Pope Leo III
As I have done with your predecessors, I desire to establish with your blessedness an inviolable covenant of faith and charity
so that divine mercy obtained by the prayers of your apostolic holiness and your apostolic blessing may follow me everywhere
while, God willing, the most holy See of the Roman Church will always be defended by our devotion. Indeed, it is our task
with divine help to shield everywhere with our arms the Holy Church of Christ from all her enemies abroad, and from
incursions of the heathen and the devastations of the infidel, and to fortify her from within by the profession of the Catholic
faith. It is your part, holy father, to assist the success of our arms with your hands raised in prayer to God, as Moses did, so
that by your intervention, Gold willing and granting, the Christian people will forever achieve victory of the enemies of His
name, and the name of our Lord Jesus Christ will be glorified throughout the world.
Einhard, Life of Charlemagne
Although [Charlemagne] held [the Roman Church] in great respect, he only travelled to Rome to fulfill his vows and make his
supplications four times during the forty-seven years of his reign.
65
But for the last journey there was still another reason. The Romans had inflicted many injuries upon Pope Leo, tearing out
his eyes and cutting out his tongue so that he felt compelled to implore the help of the king. Therefore he went to Rome to
restore order in the much disturbed affairs of the Church, and stayed there for the whole winter. At this time he received the
titles of Emperor and Augustus. But at first he disliked this act so much that he decalred that, had he anticipated the intention
of the pontiff, he would not have entered the church on that day when it happened, although it was a grear feat day. But he
endured very patiently the jealousy of the emperors who were indignant about his assuming these titles. By sending them
frequent embassies and letters in which he addressed them as brothers, he overcame their contempt with his magnanimity, in
which he was undoubtedly their superior.
_____________________________________________
1. What does Charlemagne’s letter to Pope Leo tell us about Charlemagne’s policy toward the papacy?
2. According to Charlemagne in his letter to Pope Leo, what are the proper functions of spiritual and secular power?
3. According to Einhard, was it Charlemagne’s or Pope Leo’s idea to crown Charlemagne emperor in 800?
4. Why might Charlemagne have been initially unhappy with his imperial crowning?
5. Which emperor was probably most “indignant” about the imperial crowning of Charlemagne? Why?
_____________________________________________
Strasbourg Oaths
The bilingual versions of these oaths, which record an alliance between Louis the German (804-876) and Charles the Bald (823-877) against their
older brother Lothar, illustrate the linguistic split between the western and eastern halves of the former Carolingian Empire. Not only are these
among the earliest documents in French and German, they also show the strong ethnic differences that undermined centralized Carolingian
administration.
Source Citation: “The Oaths of Strasbourg”, in Medieval Europe: A Short Sourcebook, ed. C. Warren Hollister et al., (McGraw
Hill: Boston, 2002), 105-106.
[French Version] Pro Deo amur et pro Christian poblo et nostro commun salvament, dist di in avant, in quant Deus savir et
podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo et in adiudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit son fradre salvar
dist, in o quid il me altresi fazet, et ab Ludher nul plaid numquam prindrai, qui, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno
sit.
[Translation: “For the love of God and for Christendom and our common salvation, from this day onwards, as God will
give me the wisdom and power, I shall protect this brother of mine Charles, with aid or anything else, as one ought to protect
one's brother, so that he may do the same for me, and I shall never knowingly make any covenant with Lothar that would
harm this brother of mine Charles.”]
[German Version] In Godes minna ind in thes christiânes folches ind unsêr bêdhero gehaltnissî, fort thesemo dage
frammordes, sô fram sô mir God gewizci indi mahd furgibit, sô haldih thesan mînan bruodher, sôso man mit rehtu sînan
66
bruodher scal, in thiu thaz er mig sô sama duo, indi mit Ludheren in nohheiniu thing ne gegango, the mînan willon imo ce
scadhen werbên.
[Translation: “For the love of God and Christendom and the salvation of us both, from this day on, as God will give me
the wisdom and power, I shall protect this brother of mine, as one ought to protect one's brother, so that he may do the
same for me, and I shall never go along with Lothar in anything that, by my will, would harm him [Louis].”]
_____________________________________________
1. What is an oath?
2. What is the significance of the fact that the Strasbourg Oaths were taken in different vernacular languages? What does
this suggest about the unity of the Carolingian Empire?
3. What do the Strasbourg Oaths tell us about the nature and importance of oath-taking in medieval Germanic society?
4. How does this practice of oath-taking relate to “feudalism”?
_____________________________________________
Concordat of Worms
The Concordat of Worms was an agreement between Pope Calixtus II and the Henry V, the Holy Roman Emperor, on September 23, 1122 near
the city of Worms. It brought to an end the first phase of the power struggle known as the Investiture Controversy between the Papacy and the Holy
Roman Emperors and has been interpreted as containing within itself the germ of nation-based sovereignty; in part this was an unforeseen result of
strategic maneuvering between the Church and the European sovereigns over political control within their domains. The Concordat of Worms was a
part of the larger reforms put forth by many popes, most notably Pope Gregory VII. These included celibacy of the clergy, end of simony and
autonomy of the Church from secular leaders (lack of autonomy was known as lay investiture).
Source Citation: “Concordat of Worms”, Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, accessed July 15th, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/worms1.html
Privilege of Pope Calixtus II
I, bishop Calixtus, servant of the servants of God, do grant to thee beloved son, Henry - by the grace of God august emperor
of the Romans - that the elections of the bishops and abbots of the German kingdom, who belong to the kingdom, shall take
place in thy presence, without simony and without any violence; so that if any discord shall arise between the parties
concerned, thou, by the counsel or judgment of the metropolitan and the co-provincials, may give consent and aid to the
party which has the more right. The one elected, moreover, without any exaction may receive the regalia from thee through
the lance, and shall do unto thee for these what he rightfully should. Be he who is consecrated in the other parts of the
empire (i.e. Burgundy and Italy) shall, within six months, and without any exaction, receive the regalia from thee through the
lance, and shall do unto thee for these what he rightfully should. Excepting all things which are known to belong to the
Roman church. Concerning matters, however, in which thou dost make complaint to me, and dost demand aid-1, according
67
to the duty of my office, will furnish aid to thee. I give unto thee true peace, and to all who are or have been on thy side in
the time of this discord.
Edict of the Emperor Henry V
In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity, I, Henry, by the grace of God august emperor of the Romans, for the love of
God and of the holy Roman church and of our master pope Calixtus, and for the healing of my soul, do remit to God, and to
the holy apostles of God, Peter and Paul, and to the holy catholic church, all investiture through ring and staff; and do grant
that in all the churches that are in my kingdom or empire there may be canonical election and free consecration. All the
possessions and regalia of St. Peter which, from the beginning of this discord unto this day, whether in the time of my father
or also in mine, have been abstracted, and which I hold: I restore to that same holy Roman church. As to those things,
moreover, which I do not hold, I will faithfully aid in their restoration. As to the possessions also of all other churches and
princes, and of all other lay and clerical persons which have been lost in that war: according to the counsel of the princes, or
according to justice, I will restore the things that I hold; and of those things which I do not hold I will faithfully aid in the
restoration. And I grant true peace to our master pope Calixtus, and to the holy Roman church, and to all those who are or
have been on its side. And in matters where the holy Roman church shall demand aid I will grant it; and in matters
concerning which it shall make complaint to me I will duly grant to it justice.
_____________________________________________
1. What “privilege” did Pope Calixtus II grant to the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry V?
2. What did Emperor Henry V grant to Pope Calixtus II?
3. Was the Concordat of Worms a victory for Henry V or Calixtus II?
_____________________________________________
Fiefs and Vassals
The usefulness of feudalism as a term is at present under intense discussion among historians of the Middle Ages, with the majority of experts now
rejecting the term. Feudalism was not a word used in the Middle Ages. It has had two quite distinct meanings in recent usage. The first meaning -
promoted by radicals during the French Revolution and developed by Marxist historians - refers to a social system based on a society in which
peasant agriculture is the fundamental productive activity; in which slavery is non-existent or marginal but peasants are tied to the land in some way;
and in which a small elite defined by military activity dominates. This is probably the most important meaning in modern popular usage. For most
of the twentieth-century, professional medievalists have given the term a quite different meaning. For medieval historians the term has come to mean a
system of reciprocal personal relations among members of the military elite, which lead ultimately to parliament and then Western democracy. For
modern historians, the older “Lord and peasant” model was subsumed in the concept of manoralism. Historian Susan Reynolds, in her Fiefs and
Vassals, systematically attacked the basis of the professional medievalists’ version of feudalism [although she did not tackle the older social and
economic, or Marxist, model]. Reynolds argued that recent historians had been too ready to read back eleventh- and twelfth-century legal texts
(which do use feudal) terminology onto a much more variated ninth- and tenth century society and had ended up creating a “feudal world” which
simply did not exist, or which, at most, described small parts of France for short periods. Most reviewers have found Reynold’s arguments
compelling. As a result, teachers can no longer teach “feudalism” without severe qualifications. The sources here are some of those which have
traditionally been used to explain the “feudal system”. They may be better read and discussed, perhaps, as examples of how people created a variety
of social and personal bonds in a society with few stable and accessible legal or governmental authorities. They do not represent a “system”.
68
Oaths of Allegiance
The relationship of loyalty between a warrior and his chosen lord goes back to early Germanic practices. From the seventh century onward we have
set formulas for commendation. This early example is from England.
Source Citation: ““Feudal” Oaths of Fidelity”, Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, accessed July 15th, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/feud-oath1.asp
Thus shall one take the oath of fidelity:
By the Lord before whom this sanctuary is holy, I will to N. be true and faithful, and love all which he loves and shun all
which he shuns, according to the laws of God and the order of the world. Nor will I ever with will or action, through word or
deed, do anything which is unpleasing to him, on condition that he will hold to me as I shall deserve it, and that he will
perform everything as it was in our agreement when I submitted myself to him and chose his will.
It is right that those who offer to us unbroken fidelity should be protected by our aid. And since such and such a faithful one of
ours, by the favor of God, coming here in our palace with his arms, has seen fit to swear trust and fidelity to us in our
hand...and if anyone perchance should presume to kill him, let him know that he will be judged guilty of his wergild of 600
shillings.
Fulbert of Chartres, 1020
Fulbert of Chartres (died 1028), bishop of Chartres, was one of the leading scholars and political figures in France in the first decades of the
eleventh century. In particular, his opinions on canon law and Roman (civil) law were widely respected. His writings, especially his letters, provide an
important source for eleventh-century French history. In the following letter, Fulbert addresses the issue of the mutual duties of a lord and vassal.
Source Citation: Fulbert of Chartres, “On Feudal Obligations”, Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, accessed July 15th, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/fulbert1.asp
To William most glorious duke of the Aquitanians, bishop Fulbert the favor of his prayers.
Asked to write something concerning the form of fealty, I have noted briefly for you on the authority of the books the things
which follow. He who swears fealty to his lord ought always to have these six things in memory; what is harmless, safe,
honorable, useful, easy, practicable. Harmless, that is to say that he should not be injurious to his lord in his body; safe, that
he should not be injurious to him in his secrets or in the defences through which he is able to be secure; honorable, that he
should not be injurious to him in his justice or in other matters that pertain to his honor; useful, that he should not be
injurious to him in his possessions; easy or practicable, that that good which his lord is able to do easily, he make not difficult,
nor that which is practicable he make impossible to him.
However, that the faithful vassal should avoid these injuries is proper, but not for this does he deserve his holding; for it is
not sufficient to abstain from evil, unless what is good is done also. It remains, therefore, that in the same six things
mentioned above he should faithfully counsel and aid his lord, if he wishes to be looked upon as worthy of his benefice and
to be safe concerning the fealty which he has sworn.
69
The lord also ought to act toward his faithful vassal reciprocally in all these things. And if he does not do this he will be justly
considered guilty of bad faith, just as the former, if he should be detected in the avoidance of or the doing of or the
consenting to them, would be perfidious and perjured.
I would have written to you at greater length, if I had not been occupied with many other things, including the rebuilding of
our city and church which was lately entirely consumed in a great fire; from which loss though we could not for a while be
diverted, yet by the hope of the comfort of God and of you we breathe again.
Homage and Fealty to the Count of Flanders, 1127
The following account is taken from a chronicle celebrating the life of Charles the Good, Count of Flanders, who was murdered in 1127. It provides
us with an interesting insight into the nature of the homage and fealty that vassals were required to swear to their lords during this period.
Source Citation: “Fief Ceremonies 12th Century”, Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, accessed July 15th, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/feud-fief1.asp
Through the whole remaining part of the day those who had been previously enfeoffed by the most pious count Charles, did
homage to the count, taking up now again their fiefs and offices and whatever they had before rightfully and legitimately
obtained. On Thursday the seventh of April, homages were again made to the count being completed in the following order
of faith and security.
First they did their homage thus, the count asked if he was willing to become completely his man, and the other replied, “I
am willing”; and with clasped hands, surrounded by the hands of the count, they were bound together by a kiss. Secondly, he
who had done homage gave his fealty to the representative of the count in these words, “I promise on my faith that I will in
future be faithful to count William, and will observe my homage to him completely against all persons in good faith and
without deceit.” Thirdly, he took his oath to this upon the relics of the saints. Afterward, with a little rod which the count
held in his hand, he gave investitures to all who by this agreement had given their security and homage and accompanying
oath.
Charter of John of Toul
The following charter, dating from the thirteenth century, reveals how complex the feudal hierarchy might become when a vassal – in this case John of
Toul – is granted fiefs by a number of different lords.
Source Citation: “Liege Homage”, in Aspects of Western Civilization I: Problems and Sources in History, ed. Perry M. Rogers (Upper
Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2003), 327.
I, John of Toul, make known that I am the liege man of the lady Beatrice, countess of Troyes, and of her son, Theobald,
count of Champagne, against every creature, living or dead, saving my allegiance to lord Enjorand of Coucy, lord John of
Arcis, and the count of Grandpré. If it should happen that the count of Grandpré should be at war with the countess and
count of Champagne on his own quarrel, I will aid the count of Grandpré in my own person, and will send to the count and
the countess of Champagne the knights whose service I owe to them for the fief which I hold of them. But if the count of
Grandpré shall make war on the countess and the count of Champagne on behalf of his friends and not in his own quarrel, I
will aid in my own person the countess and count of Champagne, and will send one knight to the count of Grandpré for the
70
service which I owe him for the fief which I hold of him, but I will not go myself into the territory of the count of Grandpré
to make war on him.
_____________________________________________
1. What is “homage”? What is “fealty”? What do these sources tell us about the nature of loyalty in medieval society and
the bonds and obligations that bound together lords and vassals?
2. According to the charter of John of Toul, to who does John of Toul owe allegiance?
3. According to this charter, if the Count of Grandpré goes to war with the countess of Troyes and the count of
Champagne, what arrangement has John of Toul made that will allow him to perform the obligations he owes to all
three?
_____________________________________________
The Crusades
The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade in
1091 with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the Holy Land leading to an intermittent 200-year struggle. Following the fall the last
Christian stronghold in the region (Acre in modern Israel) in 1291, Roman Catholic Europe mounted no further coherent response. In part, Urban
was seeking to reunite the Christian church under his leadership by providing Emperor Alexios I Komnenos with military support. The Byzantine
Empire had suffered a significant defeat by the Seljuk Turks in 1071 at the Battle of Manzikert and was unable to recover territory lost in the
initial Muslim conquest. The implication was the significant loss of fertile farmland and vast grazing areas of Anatolia.
Pope Urban II, Speech at the Council of Clermont
In 1094 or 1095, Alexios I Komnenos, the Byzantine emperor, sent to the pope, Urban II, and asked for aid from the west against the Seljuq
Turks, who taken nearly all of Asia Minor from him. At the council of Clermont, Urban addressed a great crowd and urged all to go to the aid
of the Greeks and to recover Palestine from the rule of the Muslims. The acts of the council have not been preserved, but we have five accounts of
the speech of Urban which were written by men who were present and heard him. The following account is taken from the writings of Robert the
Monk. Robert was writing perhaps 25 years after the speech was given, but he may have been present at the council.
Source Citation: Robert the Monk, “Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at the Council of Clermont, 1095” Internet Medieval History
Sourcebook, accessed July 25th, 2015, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html
In the year of our Lord’s Incarnation one thousand and ninety-five, a great council was celebrated within the bounds of Gaul,
in Auvergne, in the city which is called Clermont. Over this Pope Urban II presided, with the Roman bishops and cardinals.
This council was a famous one on account of the concourse of both French and German bishops, and of princes as well.
Having arranged the matters relating to the Church, the lord pope went forth into a certain spacious plain, for no building
was large enough to hold all the people. The pope then, with sweet and persuasive eloquence, addressed those present in
words something like the following, saying:
71
Oh, race of Franks,…From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very
frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly
alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has
invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the
captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of
God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their
uncleanness….When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity
of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the
victim falls prostrate upon the ground. Others they bind to a post and pierce with arrows. Others they compel to extend their
necks and then, attacking them with naked swords, attempt to cut through the neck with a single blow. …The kingdom of
the Greeks is now dismembered by them and deprived of territory so vast in extent that it cannot be traversed in a march of
two months. On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not
upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity,
and strength to humble the hairy scalp of those who resist you.
…She [Jerusalem] seeks therefore and desires to be liberated, and does not cease to implore you to come to her aid. From
you especially she asks succor, because, as we have already said, God has conferred upon you above all nations great glory in
arms. Accordingly undertake this journey for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the
kingdom of heaven.
When Pope Urban had said these and very many similar things in his urbane discourse, he so influenced to one purpose the
desires of all who were present that they cried out, “It is the will of God! It is the will of God!”
Whoever, therefore, shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage and shall make his vow to God to that effect and shall offer
himself to Him as a, living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, shall wear the sign of the cross of the Lord on his forehead
or on his breast. When, ‘truly’, having fulfilled his vow he wishes to return, let him place the cross on his back between his
shoulders. Such, indeed, by the twofold action will fulfill the precept of the Lord, as He commands in the Gospel, “He that
takes not his cross and follows after me, is not worthy of me.”
William of Tyre, The Capture of Jerusalem
William of Tyre (c.1130-c.1190), archbishop of Tyre and chronicler, belonged to a noble French family and may have been born in Palestine about
1130. Together with Fulk of Chartres, he is our best source on the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Source Citation: William of Tyre, “The Capture of Jerusalem”, in Sources of the Western Tradition, Volume I, edited by M. Perry,
Joseph Peden and Theodore Von Laue (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), 229.
It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and
the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated
limbs strewn in all directions that roused horror in all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the
victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight, which brought terror to all who met them. It is
72
reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished, in addition to those who lay slain
throughout the city in the streets and squares, the number of whom was estimated as no less.
A Letter Written by a Jew following the Capture of Jerusalem (1090s)
This letter was sent from North Africa or Spain by a pilgrim who had set out from his country more than five years before 1099. He was detained
in Alexandria because of constant dangers in Palestine. However, there were constant dangers in Egypt due to the warfare between the Fatimids
and the Seljuk Turks as well.
Source Citation: S.D. Goitein, “Contemporary Letters on the Capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders”, Journal of Jewish Studies
3, No. 4, (1952), 177.
You may remember, my lord that many years ago I left our country to seek God’s mercy and help in my poverty, to behold
Jerusalem and return thereupon. However, when I was in Alexandria God brought about circumstances which caused a slight
delay…The sea grew stormy…Moreover, mutinies [spread throughout the country and reached] even Alexandria, so that we
ourselves were besieged several times and the city was ruined... The end however was good, for the Sultan – may God bestow
glory upon his victories – conquered the city and caused justice to abound in it in a manner unprecedented in the history of
any king in the world; not even a dirham [coin of small value] was looted from anyone. Thus I had come to hope that
because of his justice and strength God would give the land into his hands, and I should thereupon go to Jerusalem in safety
and tranquility. For this reason I proceeded from Alexandria to Cairo, in order to start [my journey] from there.
When, however, God had given Jerusalem, the blessed, into his hands this state of affairs continued for too short a time to
allow for making a journey there. The Franks arrived and killed everybody in the city, whether of Ishmael or Israel; and the
few who survived the slaughter were made prisoners. Some of these have been ransomed since, while others are still in
captivity in all parts of the world.
Now, all of us had anticipated that our Sultan – may God bestow glory upon his victories – would set out against them [the
Franks] with his troops and chase them away. But time after time our hope failed.
The Significance of Jerusalem to Muslims
Muhyi al-Din Ibn al-Zaki, who was appointed by Saladin to serve as the Friday sermon preacher of the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, explains
the significance of Jerusalem in Muslim history and piety. In so doing, he echoed many of the ideas that had been preached throughout the twelfth
century by the scholars and jurists during the period of the city’s loss to the Crusaders
Source Citation: Muhyi al-Din Ibn al-Zaki, “Jerusalem is the residence…”, in “Some Medieval Accounts of Salah al-Din’s
Recovery of Jerusalem (Al-Quds)”, by Hadia Dajani-Shakeel, Internet Ancient History Sourcebook, accessed July 29, 2015,
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/med/salahdin.asp
Jerusalem is the residence of your father Abraham, the place of ascension of your prophet, the burial ground of the
messengers, and the place of the descent of revelations. It is in the land where men will be resurrected and it is in the Holy
Land, to which God has referred in His clear book [the Qur'an] . It is the farthest place of worship, where the prophet
73
prayed, and the place to which God sent His servant and messenger and the word which He caused to descend upon Mary
and His spirit Jesus, whom He honoured with that mission and ennobled with the gift of prophecy without removing him
from the rank he held as one of His creatures.
Usamah ibn Munqidh, Book of Contemplation
Usamah (1095-1188) was the Emir of Shaizar and fought against the Crusaders with Saladin. Yet as a resident of the area around Palestine, he
also had a chance to befriend a number of them. The following passage is taken from his Book of Contemplation, which was written as a gift
for Saladin in the 1180s.
Source Citation: Usamah ibn Munqidh, “Among the Franks” in The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, by Amin Maalouf, (New
York, Schocken Books, 1984), 128-129.
Among the Franks are those who have become acclimatized and have associated long with the Muslims. These are much
better than the recent comers from the Frankish lands. But they constitute the exception and cannot be treated as a rule.
When I was visiting Jerusalem, I used to go to al-Aqsa mosque, where my Templar friends were staying. Along one side of
the building was a small oratory in which the Franks had set up a church. The Templars placed this spot at my disposal so
that I might say my daily prayers. One day I entered, said Allahu akbar, and was about to begin my prayer, when a man, a
Frank, threw himself upon me, grabbed me, and turned me toward the east, saying, “Thus do we pray.” The Templars rushed
forward and led him away. I then set myself to prayer once more, but this same man, seizing upon a moment of inattention,
threw himself upon me yet again, turned my face to the east, and repeated once more, “Thus do we pray.” Once again the
Templars intervened, led him away, and apologized to me, saying, “He is a foreigner. He has just arrived from the land of the
Franks and he has never seen anyone pray without turning to face east.” I answered that I had prayed enough and left,
stunned by the behavior of this demon who had been so enraged at seeing me pray while facing the direction of Mecca.
Saladin Captures Jerusalem
In the following passage, Hadia Dajani-Skakeel, retired professor at the University of Michigan, gives an account of Saladin’s capture of Jerusalem
using contemporary Christian and Arab accounts of this capture.
Source Citation: Hadia Dajani-Shakeel, “Some Medieval Accounts of Salah al-Din’s Recovery of Jerusalem (Al-Quds)” Internet
Ancient History Sourcebook, accessed July 29, 2015. http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/med/salahdin.asp
When Balian [of Ibelin, the Latin leader who negotiated the surrender of the city] returned to the city without an agreement,
fear gripped the population. According to Ernoul [squire to Balian, and author of a Latin chronicle], the citizens “crowded in
the churches to pray and confess their sins, [they] beat themselves with stones and scourges, begging for God’s mercy.” The
Latin women in the city placed tubs in front of Mount Calvary and filled them with cold water, then took their young
daughters, stripped them naked, and placed them in the water up to their necks. They cut their hair and burned it in the hope
of averting their shame. Meanwhile, the clergy walked in procession around the walls of the city chanting psalms and carrying
the Syrian “true cross,” which had been kept in the city after the “true cross” of the Latins had fallen into the hands of Salah
al-Din’s forces at the battle of Hittin. Ernoul reports that the entire population took part in the procession, except for the
very old men, who locked themselves inside their homes.
74
When Balian appeared again before Salah al-Din, he asked for a general amnesty in return for the surrender of the city, but
Salah al-Din rejected his request. Balian then threatened that the Latins inside the city would fight to the death: They would
burn their houses, destroy the Dome of the Rock, uproot the Rock, and kill all Muslim prisoners, who were estimated to
number in the thousands; they would destroy their property and kill their women and children. According to al-Qadi al-Fadil
[the head of Saladin’s chancery], Balian also “offered a tribute in an amount that even the most covetous could not have
hoped for.”
Salah al-Din met with his commanders and told them that this was an excellent opportunity to capture the city without
further bloodshed. After lengthy negotiations, an agreement was reached between Salah al-Din and the Latins according to
which they were granted safe conduct to leave the city, provided that each male paid a ransom of ten dinars, each female paid
five dinars, and each child was ransomed for two dinars. All those who paid their ransom within forty days were allowed to
leave the city, while those who could not ransom themselves were to be enslaved.
‘Imad al-Din [worked in Saladin’s chancery with al-Qadi al-Fadil] indicates that Balian offered to pay 30,000 dinars on behalf
of the poor, an offer that was accepted, and the city was at last surrendered on Friday, 27 Rajab, A.H. 583/2 October, A.D.
1187. The twenty-seventh of Rajab was the anniversary of al-Mi’raj, through which Jerusalem had become a part of Islamic
history and piety. When Salah al-Din entered Jerusalem triumphantly, he immediately released the Muslim prisoners, who,
according to Ibn Shaddad [12th-century Muslim scholar who wrote a biography of Saladin], numbered close to 3,000. The
newly released captives were later rewarded with the homes vacated by the Latins.
Meanwhile, the Latins started to prepare for their departure. They began to sell their property and possessions at very low
prices to the merchants in Salah al-Din’s army, as well as to native Christians. According to ‘Imad al-Din, they stripped the
ornaments from their churches, carrying with them vases of gold and silver and silk- and gold-embroidered curtains as well as
church treasures. The Patriarch Heraclius collected and carried away gold plating, gold and silver jewelry, and other artefacts
from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
In order to control the departing population, Salah al-Din ordered that all the gates of Jerusalem be temporarily closed. At
each gate a commander was appointed to control the movement of the Latins and to ensure that only those who had paid
ransom could leave. Persons were employed inside the city to take a census. ‘Imad al-Din says that Egyptian and Syrian
officers were appointed to collect the payments and to give the departing Latins receipts that were to be submitted at the gate
before leaving the city. Although this sounds like good administration, at the time the Latins were being counted and were
making their departure, the city was in a state of chaos and there was much mismanagement of the ransom money collected.
The grand masters of the Templars and Hospitallers were approached to donate money for the release of poor Latins, but
when they resisted, a riot almost erupted and they were forced to contribute to the ransom.
There were examples of magnanimity on the part of the Muslim victors, however. The patriarch and Balian asked Salah al-
Din to set some slaves free. Accordingly, he freed 700 slaves on behalf of the patriarch and 500 on behalf of Balian. Al-Malik
al-‘Adil, Salah al-Din's brother, asked him to release 1,000 slaves on his behalf and was granted his request. Furthermore,
Salah al-Din sent his guard throughout the city to announce that all old people who could not pay would be allowed to leave
the city: These came forth from the Postern of St. Lazar, and their departure lasted from the rising of the sun until night fell.
75
Salah al-Din also allowed many noble women of Jerusalem to leave without ransom. Among them was Queen Sibyl, who left
unhindered with all her entourage. Salah al-Din even granted her safe conduct to visit her captive husband [Guy de Lusignan,
king of Jerusalem] in Nablus. The widow of Renaud of Chatillon was also released, as well as a Byzantine princess who had
led a monastic life in Jerusalem and who was allowed to leave with all her entourage without paying a ransom. Some of Salah
al-Din’s commanders ransomed groups who they claimed belonged to their iqta’. For example, the ruler of al-Bira asked for
the release of 500 Armenians, and Muzaffar al-Din Ibn ‘Ali Kuchuk asked for the release of 1,000, claiming that they had
come from Edessa. Salah al-Din granted his request.
After the exodus of all those Latins who could leave, 15,000 individuals remained in the city. According to Imad al-Din, 7,000
of them were men and 8,000 were women and children. All were enslaved.
_____________________________________________
1. How would you describe the tone of Pope Urban II’s speech at the Council of Clermont?
2. According to D. Kagan, S. Ozment and F. Turner, the crusades represented “an outlet for the heightened religious zeal
of the later eleventh and twelfth centuries” (The Western Heritage (Pearson Prentice-Hall: New Jersey, 2004), 234). By
considering the tone of this passage and the details that are included, how does Pope Urban’s speech support this
assertion?
3. How would you describe the Christian capture of Jerusalem? What is William of Tyre’s opinion concerning this capture?
4. In the letter written by a Jew following the capture of Jerusalem, what does the author mean by “whether Ishmael or
Israel”? What does this source tell us about relations between Jews and Muslims in Egypt and the Near East during the
time of the crusades?
5. According to Ibn al-Zaki, why is Jerusalem important to Muslims?
6. What was the misunderstanding between the Frankish crusader and Usamah? What does this source tell us about the
realities of life in the crusader states in the 12th century?
7. How did Saladin treat the Christians in Jerusalem following his capture of the city? How does this contrast with what
you know about the Christian capture of Jerusalem in 1099?
_____________________________________________
76
York Civic Ordinances, 1301
The following extract is taken from a series of ordinances issued in York (England) in 1301. These ordinances were intended to rid the city of
various problems that the city was facing by 1300 as its population expanded. These problems included corrupt trading activities and as, as we see
below, poor sanitary conditions.
Source Citation: York Civic Ordinances, 1301, Michael Prestwich, ed. (York: Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, 1976),
16-17.
Pigs and Prostitutes
No one shall keep pigs which go in the city by day or night, nor shall any prostitute stay in the city. If anyone finds a pig in
the streets he may kill it, and may at his choice cut off its trotters, or the bailiff of York may let him have full 4d. for them, if
it happens that the pig escapes from someone's custody. If any prostitute keeps a brothel and resides in the city, she is to be
taken and imprisoned for a day and a night. The Bailiff who takes her shall have the roof timbers and the door of the building
in which she is lodged. Nonetheless, he who rents out houses to prostitutes shall lose the rent of such a house for one term.
Streets
The streets of the city shall be viewed twice each term. No one is to put out excrement or other filth or animal manure in the
city, nor shall canvas or linen be placed in the drains. Tree trunks and other timbers are to be removed. Ordure [excrement or
dung] is to be carried away, and the gutters and drains cleaned. There shall be four public latrines in the four quarters of the
city. The people of each trade shall be placed and ordained to remain in a specific place, so that no degrading business or
unsuitable trade is carried out among those who sell food for humans.
1. What do these two passages tell us about the growth of towns and cities during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries?
2. How might these ordinances help explain the devastation caused by the Black Death which hit Europe less than fifty
years after the York Civic Ordinances were written?
____________________________________________
Peter Abélard, Sic et Non
Peter Abélard (1079 - 1142) was a medieval French scholastic philosopher, theologian and preeminent logician. His affair with and love for
Heloise d’Argenteuil, for which he was eventually castrated, has become legendary. Sic et Non is one of his best known works. In the work,
Abélard juxtaposes apparently contradictory quotations from the Church Fathers on many of the traditional topics of Christian theology. In the
Prologue, Abélard outlines rules for reconciling these contradictions, the most important of which is noting the multiple significations of a single word.
However, Abélard does not himself apply these rules in the body of the Sic et Non, which has led scholars to conclude that the work was meant as
an exercise book for students in applying dialectic (logic) to theology.
Source Citation: Peter Abélard “From Sic et Non, 1120”, Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, accessed July 25th, 2014
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1120abelard.asp
There are many seeming contradictions and even obscurities in the innumerable writings of the church fathers. Our respect
for their authority should not stand in the way of an effort on our part to come at the truth. The obscurity and contradictions
77
in ancient writings may be explained upon many grounds, and may be discussed without impugning the good faith and
insight of the fathers. A writer may use different terms to mean the same thing, in order to avoid a monotonous repetition of
the same word. Common, vague words may be employed in order that the common people may understand; and sometimes
a writer sacrifices perfect accuracy in the interest of a clear general statement. Poetical, figurative language is often obscure
and vague.
Not infrequently apocryphal works are attributed to the saints. Then, even the best authors often introduce the erroneous
views of others and leave the reader to distinguish between the true and the false. Sometimes, as Augustine confesses in his
own case, the fathers ventured to rely upon the opinions of others.
Doubtless the fathers might err; even Peter, the prince of the apostles, fell into error: what wonder that the saints do not
always show themselves inspired? The fathers did not themselves believe that they, or their companions, were always right.
Augustine found himself mistaken in some cases and did not hesitate to retract his errors. He warns his admirers not to look
upon his letters as they would upon the Scriptures, but to accept only those things which, upon examination, they find to be
true.
All writings belonging to this class are to be read with full freedom to criticize, and with no obligation to accept
unquestioningly; otherwise they way would be blocked to all discussion, and posterity be deprived of the excellent intellectual
exercise of debating difficult questions of language and presentation. But an explicit exception must be made in the case of
the Old and New Testaments. In the Scriptures, when anything strikes us as absurd, we may not say that the writer erred, but
that the scribe made a blunder in copying the manuscripts, or that there is an error in interpretation, or that the passage is not
understood. The fathers make a very careful distinction between the Scriptures and later works. They advocate a
discriminating, not to say suspicious, use of the writings of their own contemporaries.
In view of these considerations, I have ventured to bring together various dicta of the holy fathers, as they came to mind, and
to formulate certain questions which were suggested by the seeming contradictions in the statements. These questions ought
to serve to excite tender readers to a zealous inquiry into truth and so sharpen their wits. The master key of knowledge is,
indeed, a persistent and frequent questioning. Aristotle, the most clear-sighted of all the philosophers, was desirous above all
things else to arouse this questioning spirit, for in his Categories he exhorts a student as follows: "It may well be difficult to
reach a positive conclusion in these matters unless they be frequently discussed. It is by no means fruitless to be doubtful on
particular points. “By doubting we come to examine, and by examining we reach the truth”.
1. How does Peter Abélard account for the “errors’ found among the writings of the church fathers?
2. According to Peter Abélard, how should the Old and New Testaments be treated differently than the writings of the
later church fathers?
3. How does Sic et Non intend to deal with the inconsistencies in the writings of the biblical authors and the church fathers?
4. Does this source suggest why Peter Abélard fell afoul of church authorities?
_____________________________________________
78
Geoffrey Chaucer, Canterbury Tales
The Canterbury Tales is a collection of over 20 stories written in Middle English by Geoffrey Chaucer at the end of the fourteenth century, during
the time of the Hundred Years’ War. The tales (mostly written in verse, although some are in prose) are presented as part of a story-telling contest
by a group of pilgrims as they travel together on a journey from Southwark to the shrine of Saint Thomas Becket at Centerbury Cathedral. The
prize for this contest is a free meal at the Tabard Inn at Southwark on their return. The Canterbury Tales includes a prologue in which Chaucer
introduces the reader to each of the twenty-nine pilgrims travelling to Canterbury. Two of these introductions, plus the opening lines to the prologue,
are reproduced below.
Source Citation: Geoffrey Chaucer, “Canterbury Tales: Prologue”, Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, accessed July 28th, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/CT-prolog-para.html
Here bygynneth the Book Here begins the Book

of the tales of Caunterbury of the Tales of Canterbury
1: Whan that aprill with his shoures soote When April with his showers sweet with fruit
2: The droghte of march hath perced to the roote, The drought of March has pierced unto the root
3: And bathed every veyne in swich licour And bathed each vein with liquor that has power
4: Of which vertu engendred is the flour; To generate therein and sire the flower;
5: Whan zephirus eek with his sweete breeth When Zephyr also has, with his sweet breath,
6: Inspired hath in every holt and heeth Quickened again, in every holt and heath,
7: Tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne The tender shoots and buds, and the young sun
8: Hath in the ram his halve cours yronne, Into the Ram one half his course has run,
9: And smale foweles maken melodye, And many little birds make melody.
10: That slepen al the nyght with open ye That sleep through all the night with open eye
11: (so priketh hem nature in hir corages); (So Nature pricks them on to ramp and rage)-
12: Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages, Then do folk long to go on pilgrimage,
13: And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes, And palmers to go seeking out strange strands,
14: To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes; To distant shrines well known in sundry lands.
15: And specially from every shires ende And specially from every shire's end
16: Of engelond to caunterbury they wende, Of England they to Canterbury wend,
17: The holly blisful martir for to seke, The holy blessed martyr there to seek
18: That hem hath holpen whan that they were seeke. Who helped them when they lay so ill and weal
The Knight’s Portrait The Knight
43: A knyght ther was, and that a worthy man, A knight there was, and he a worthy man,
44: That fro the tyme that he first bigan Who, from the moment that he first began
45: To riden out, he loved chivalrie, To ride about the world, loved chivalry,
46: Trouthe and honour, fredom and curteisie. Truth, honour, freedom and all courtesy.
47: Ful worthy was he in his lordes werre, Full worthy was he in his liege-lord’s war,
48: And therto hadde he riden, no man ferre, And therein had he ridden (no man more far)
79
49: As wel in cristendom as in hethenesse, As well in Christendom as in heathen land,
50: And evere honoured for his worthynesse. And honoured everywhere for worthiness.
51: At alisaundre he was whan it was wonne. At Alexandria, he was when it was won;
52: Ful ofte tyme he hadde the bord bigonne Full often times been placed at the head of the table
53: Aboven alle nacions in pruce; Above all the nations’ knights in Prussia.
54: In lettow hadde he reysed and in ruce, In Latvia raided he, and Russia,
55: No cristen man so ofte of his degree. No christened man so oft of his degree.
56: In gernade at the seege eek hadde he be In far Granada at the siege was he
57: Of algezir, and riden in belmarye. Of Algeciras, and in Belmarie.
58: At lyeys was he and at satalye, At Leyes was he and at Satalie
59: Whan they were wonne; and in the grete see When they were won; and on the Middle Sea
60: At many a noble armee hadde he be. At many a noble meeting chanced to be.
61: At mortal batailles hadde he been fiftene, Of mortal battles he had fought fifteen,
62: And foughten for oure feith at tramyssene And he’d fought for our faith at Tramissene
63: In lystes thries, and ay slayn his foo. Three times in lists, and each time slain his foe.
64: This ilke worthy knyght hadde been also This self-same worthy knight had been also
65: Somtyme with the lord of palatye At one time with the lord of Palatye
66: Agayn another hethen in turkye. Against another heathen in Turkey:
67: And everemoore he hadde a sovereyn prys; And evermore he had a sovereign price;.
68: And though that he were worthy, he was wys, Though so illustrious, he was very wise
69: And of his port as meeke as is a mayde. And bore himself as meekly as a maid.
70: He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde He never yet had any vileness said,
71: In al his lyf unto no maner wight. In all his life, to whosoever regardless of who he was.
72: He was a verray, parfit gentil knyght. He was a truly perfect, gentle knight.
73: But, for to tellen yow of his array, But now, to tell you all of his array,
74: His hors were goode, but he was nat gay. His steeds were good, but yet he was not showy.
75: Of fustian he wered a gypon Of simple fustian wore he a doublet
76: Al bismotered with his habergeon, Sadly discoloured by his coat of mail;
77: For he was late ycome from his viage, For he had lately come from his voyage
78: And wente for to doon his pilgrymage. And now was going on this pilgrimage.
The Wife of Bath’s Portrait The Wife of Bath
445: A good wif was ther of biside bathe, A good wife was there from beside Bath,
446: But she was somdel deef, and that was scathe. Who - sad to say - was deaf in either ear.
447: Of clooth-makyng she hadde swich an haunt, At making cloth she had so great a spent
448: She passed hem of ypres and of gaunt. She bettered those of Ypres and even of Ghent.
449: In al the parisshe wif ne was ther noon In all the parish there was no goodwife
450: That to the offrynge bifore hire sholde goon; Should offering make before her, on my life;
80
451: And if ther dide, certeyn so wrooth was she, And if one did, indeed, so wroth was she
452: That she was out of alle charitee. It put her out of all her charity.
453: Hir coverchiefs ful fyne weren of ground; Her handkerchiefs were of finest weave and ground;
454: I dorste swere they weyeden ten pound I dare swear that they weighed a full ten pound
455: That on a sonday weren upon hir heed. Which, of a Sunday, she wore on her head.
456: Hir hosen weren of fyn scarlet reed, Her hose were of the choicest scarlet red,
457: Ful streite yteyd, and shoes ful moyste and newe. Close gartered, and her shoes were soft and new.
458: Boold was hir face, and fair, and reed of hewe. Bold was her face, and fair, and red of hue.
459: She was a worthy womman al hir lyve: She’d been respectable throughout her life,
460: Housbondes at chirche dore she hadde fyve, With five husbands at church door bringing joy and strife,
461: Withouten oother compaignye in youthe, -- Not counting other company in youth;
462: But therof nedeth nat to speke as nowthe. But thereof there’s no need to speak, in truth.
463: And thries hadde she been at jerusalem; Three times she’d journeyed to Jerusalem;
464: She hadde passed many a straunge strem; And many a foreign stream she’d had seen;
465: At rome she hadde been, and at boloigne, At Rome she’d been, and to Boulogne,
466: In galice at seint-jame, and at coloigne. To St. James’ in Galicia, and Cologne.
467: She koude muchel of wandrynge by the weye. She could tell much of wandering by the way:
468: Gat-tothed was she, soothly for to seye. Gap-toothed was she, it is no lie to say.
469: Upon an amblere esily she sat, Upon an ambler easily she sat,
470: Ywympled wel, and on hir heed an hat Well wimpled, aye, and over all a hat
471: As brood as is a bokeler or a targe; As broad as is a buckler or a targe;
472: A foot-mantel aboute hir hipes large, A rug was tucked around her hips large,
473: And on hir feet a paire of spores sharpe. And on her feet a pair of sharpened spurs.
474: In felaweshipe wel koude she laughe and carpe. In company well could she laugh her slurs.
475: Of remedies of love she knew per chaunce, The remedies of love she knew, perchance,
476: For she koude of that art the olde daunce. For of that art she’d learned the old, old dance.
_____________________________________________
1. Compare the language of the Canterbury Tales with the language of Beowulf. In general, how are these “languages”
different?
2. List the places the Wife of Bath has visited. What was the importance of each in Medieval Europe?
3. What is Chaucer’s attitude towards the Wife of Bath and the Knight?
_____________________________________________
81
Domesday Book
Domesday Book is a manuscript record of the great survey completed in 1086 on orders of William the Conqueror of much of England and
parts of Wales. According to the the contemporary Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (sa. 1085), the decision was taken to compile the survey at
William’s Christmas court in 1085, and William’s men were sent, “all over England into every shire [to] find out how many hides there
were in the shire, what land and cattle the king had himself in the shire, what dues he ought to have in twelve months from the shire. Also he
had a record made of how much land his archbishops had, his bishops and his abbots and his earls, and what or how much everyone who was
in England had.... So very narrowly did he have it investigated that there was no single hide nor yard of land, nor indeed ... one ox or cow or
pig which was left out and not put down in his record, and these records were brought to him afterwards”. Written in Latin (though highly
abbreviated, and with some vernacular for native terms without Latin equivalent), the survey’s key purpose was to determine what taxes had
been owed under Edward the Confessor. The first passage is entry for the royal manor of Earley, Berkshire; the second passage has is the
entry for the royal manor of Hambleden, Buckinghamshire.
Source Citation: Domesday Book, ed. A. Williams and G.H. Martin, (Penguin Books: London, 2002), 138, 419.
The King holds in demesne Earley. Almaer held it in alod [freehold] of King Edward. [It was] then [assessed] at 5 hides, now
at 4 hides. There is land for 6 ploughs. In demesne is 1 plough; and 6 villans [villagers] and 1 bordar [smallholder] with 3
ploughs. There are 2 slaves and 1 site [or close] in Reading and 2 fisheries worth 7s and 6d and 20 acres of meadow. There is
woodland for 70 pigs. TRE [at the time of King Edward] it was worth 100s, and afterwards and now it is worth 50s.
The queen herself holds Hambleden. It is assessed at 20 hides. There is land for 30 ploughs. In demesne are 5 hides, and
there are 3 ploughs; and 50 villans with 9 bordars which have 27 ploughs. There are 9 slaves, and 1 mill rendering 20s, and
from 1 fishery, 1,000 eels, meadow for 8 ploughs, and woodland for 700 pigs. From all rents, it renders yearly 35 pounds and
by tale; when the queen was living 15 pounds; TRE 16 pounds. This manor Earl Aelfgar held.
_____________________________________________
1. What type of information did the Domesday survey provide for William the Conqueror?
2. According to the BBC history website, the compiling of the Domesday Book was “an exercise unparalleled in
contemporary Europe, and was not matched in its comprehensive coverage of the country [England] until the
population censuses of the 19th century”. What does this “unparalleled exercise” tell us about the government of William
the Conqueror in England in the late 11th century?
3. Despite its renown as the best-known source from medieval England, the Domesday Book is hardly exciting reading.
How might modern historians use the information contained in the Domesday Book?
_____________________________________________
82
Alixe Bovey, Women in Medieval Society
Alixe Bovey is a medievalist whose research focuses on illuminated manuscripts, pictorial narrative, and the relationship between myth and material
culture across historical periods and geographical boundaries. Her career began at the British Library, where she was a curator of manuscripts for
four years; she then moved to the School of History at the University of Kent. She is now Head of Research at The Courtauld Institute of Art in
London.
Source Citation: Alixe Bovey, “Women in Medieval Society”, British Library, accessed 28 July, 2015,
www.bl.uk/the-middle-ages/articles/women-in-medieval-society#sthash.CFQplzin.dpuf
Most people in medieval Europe lived in small rural communities, making their living from the land. Peasant women had
many domestic responsibilities, including caring for children, preparing food, and tending livestock. During the busiest times
of the year, such as the harvest, women often joined their husbands in the field to bring in the crops. Women often
participated in vital cottage industries, such as brewing, baking and manufacturing textiles. The most common symbol of the
peasant woman was the distaff - a tool used for spinning flax and wool. Eve is often shown with a distaff, illustrating her duty
to perform manual labour after the fall from Paradise. An image often seen in medieval art is a woman waving her distaff at a
fox with a goose in its jaws; sometimes, in satirical images, women are even shown attacking their husbands with a distaff or
some other domestic implement.
Women living in towns had similar responsibilities to those in the countryside. Just as rural women helped with their
husbands' work, urban women assisted their fathers and husbands in a wide variety of trades and crafts, including the
production of textiles, leather goods, and metal work, as well as running shops and inns.
Original Sin
According to the Bible, Eve was created from Adam's rib and, having eaten the forbidden fruit, was responsible for man's
expulsion from paradise. In medieval art, the responsibility of women for this 'original sin', is often emphasised by giving a
female head to the serpent who tempts Eve to disobey God. The story underlined the belief that women were inferior to
men, and that they were morally weaker and likely to tempt men into sin.
Throughout the Middle Ages, the place of women in society was often dictated by biblical texts. The writings of the apostle
Paul, in particular, emphasized men’s authority over women, forbidding women from teaching, and instructing them to
remain silent. However, the Virgin Mary was a contrast to this negative image: as the mother of Christ, she was the channel
through which Christians might be saved. She was sometimes described as the 'second Eve', as she was seen to have made up
for Eve's sins. Throughout the Middle Ages, Mary was seen as the most powerful of all saints, as well as a strong (if
paradoxical) model of chastity and motherhood.
83
Women and Power
There were some women who exercised power, providing a challenge to the stereotypical image of medieval women as
oppressed and subservient. In the church, women could hold positions of great responsibility as abbesses of convents. In
some instances, such as monasteries that housed communities of men and women, the abbess had seniority over monks.
Outside monastic walls, women could wield political power, especially as queens and regents who exercised royal authority on
behalf of absent husbands or underage sons. A number of powerful queens can be noted in English history, of whom one of
the most remarkable was Queen Isabella (1295-1358), who (in collaboration with her lover, Sir Robert Mortimer) brought
about the end of the reign of her husband, Edward II (1284-1327).
Wives and Nuns
Yet however powerful some women were in the Middle Ages, it is important to remember that the overwhelming majority
were not. Most women, even those in privileged circumstances, had little control over the direction their lives took. The
marriages of young aristocratic women were usually arranged by their families (but here it is worth noting that their husbands,
too, had little choice in their partners). Once widowed, such women had legal independence and, in many instances,
autonomy over considerable financial resources.
The two main alternatives for a medieval woman were to marry, or to 'take the veil' and become a nun. Almost all female
orders required women to live behind the walls of a monastery or within an individual cell, living a life of contemplation,
prayer and work. Though the appeal of this way of life might be difficult to grasp today, for a medieval woman, one of its
attractions must have been freedom from the dangers of childbearing.
Most women, however, were married, usually as teenagers. Afterwards, they were responsible for managing the household,
whether this was a great castle or a small peasant hovel.
Wealthy women had servants, who assisted them with cooking, cleaning and childcare, and so were left time to engage in
other pursuits. Popular diversions for aristocratic women included religious activities, hunting, dancing and playing games.
Pregnancy and Childbirth
Pregnancy and childbirth were risky in the Middle Ages: complications that would today be considered relatively minor, such
as the breech presentation of the baby, could be fatal for mother and child. The Caesarean section, known since antiquity,
was normally only performed if the mother was dead or dying as it was inevitably fatal for her.
Sources
Although historical sources about medieval women are not as numerous as those relating to men, they are much richer than
is often supposed. Through surviving documents, literary and other texts and images, it is clear that medieval women were
resilient, resourceful and skilled. Moreover, in exceptional instances they were capable of exercising political power, learning
and creativity outside the domestic sphere.
84
It is, however, dangerous to generalise about the status and experience of medieval women, whose lives were shaped by as
many different considerations as they are today. Interpretations of women's place in medieval society have to strike a balance
between exceptional individuals, who by dint of their wealth, status and achievements are often relatively well documented,
and the experience of ordinary women, whose lives tended to leave few traces on the historical record.
_____________________________________________
1. What was the religious basis for the inferior status of medieval women?
2. What were the main responsibilities of women living in the country and in the towns during the Middle Ages?
3. How did the lives of aristocratic women differ from the lives of women from the poorer classes?
4. How might some women come to wield power during the Middle Ages?
5. What does this passage tell us about the status of women in the Middle Ages?
_____________________________________________
Peter of Blois, Letter to Eleanor of Aquitaine
This letter was composed by Peter of Blois in 1173 at the request of his patron, Rotrou, the Archbishop of Rouen (and no doubt at the request of
the archbishop's patron, King Henry II). Eleanor was succeeding in her revolt against her king and husband. Eleanor’s sons had also joined in the
revolt against Henry. This letter was an attempt to stop her.
Source Citation: Peter of Blois, “Letter 154 to Queen Elanor, 1173”, Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, accessed July 30th,
2014, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/eleanor.asp
To Aleanor, Queen of England. From [Rotrou] the Archbishop of Rouen and his Suffragens: Greetings in the search for
peace –
Marriage is a firm and indissoluble union. This is public knowledge and no Christian can take the liberty to ignore it. From
the beginning biblical truth has verified that marriage once entered into cannot be separated. Truth cannot deceive: it says,
“What God has joined let us not put asunder [Matt 19].” Truly, whoever separates a married couple becomes a transgressor
of the divine commandment.
So the woman is at fault who leaves her husband and fails to keep the trust of this social bond. When a married couple
becomes one flesh, it is necessary that the union of bodies be accompanied by a unity and equality of spirit through mutual
consent. A woman who is not under the headship of the husband violates the condition of nature, the mandate of the
Apostle, and the law of Scripture: “The head of the woman is the man [Ephes 5].” She is created from him, she is united to
him, and she is subject to his power.
85
We deplore publicly and regretfully that, while you are a most prudent woman, you have left your husband. The body tears at
itself. The body did not sever itself from the head, but what is worse - you have opened the way for the lord king’s, and your
own, children to rise up against the father. Deservedly the prophet says, “The sons I have nurtured and raised, they now have
spurned me [Isaiah 1].” As another prophet calls to mind, “If only the final hour of our life would come and the earth’s
surface crack open so that we might not see this evil”!
We know that unless you return to your husband, you will be the cause of widespread disaster. While you alone are now the
delinquent one, your actions will result in ruin for everyone in the kingdom. Therefore, illustrious queen, return to your
husband and our king. In your reconciliation, peace will be restored from distress, and in your return, joy may return to all. If
our pleadings do not move you to this, at least let the affliction of the people, the imminent pressure of the church and the
desolation of the kingdom stir you. For either truth deceives, or “every kingdom divided against itself will be destroyed [Luke
11].” Truly, this desolation cannot be stopped by the lord king but by his sons and their allies.
Against all women and out of childish counsel, you provoke disaster for the lord king, to whom powerful kings bow the neck.
And so, before this matter reaches a bad end, you should return with your sons to your husband, whom you have promised
to obey and live with. Turn back so that neither you nor your sons become suspect. We are certain that he will show you
every possible kindness and the surest guarantee of safety.
I beg you, advise your sons to be obedient and respectful to their father. He has suffered many anxieties, offenses and
grievances. Yet, so that imprudence might not demolish and scatter good will (which is acquired at such toil!), we say these
things to you, most pious queen, in the zeal of God and the disposition of sincere love.
Truly, you are our parishioner as much as your husband. We cannot fall short in justice: Either you will return to your
husband, or we must call upon canon law and use ecclesiastical censures against you. We say this reluctantly, but unless you
come back to your senses, with sorrow and tears, we will do so.
_____________________________________________
1. What does this letter tell us about the status of women in Medieval Europe?
2. What does this letter tell us about the character of Eleanor of Aquitaine? What are some of the issues we need to be
aware of when using this letter in this manner?
3. What does this letter tell us about royal power, marriage, and rebellion in Medieval Europe?
_____________________________________________
86
Constitutions of Clarendon
The Constitutions of Clarendon were a set of legislative procedures passed by Henry II of England in 1164. The Constitutions were composed of 16
articles and represent an attempt to restrict ecclesiastical privileges and curb the power of the Church courts and the extent of Papal authority in
England. The Constitutions take their name from Clarendon Palace, Wiltshire (England), the royal hunting lodge at which they were promulgated.
Source Citation: “Constitutions of Clarendon”, Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, accessed July 30th, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/cclarendon.asp
From the year of our Lord's incarnation 1164, the fourth year of the papacy of Alexander, the tenth of the most illustrious
Henry, king of the English, in the presence of the same king, was made this remembrance or recognition of a certain part of
the customs, liberties, and dignities of his predecessors, that is to say of King Henry his grandfather and others, which ought
to be observed and held in the kingdom. And because of dissensions and discords which had arisen between the clergy and
the lord king’s justices and the barons of the kingdom concerning the customs and dignities, this recognition has been made
before the archbishops and bishops and clergy, and the earls and barons and great men of the kingdom…
A certain part of the customs and dignities that were recognized is contained in the present writing. Of which part these are
the articles:
1. If a controversy arises between laymen, or between laymen and clerks, or between clerks concerning patronage and
presentation of churches, it shall be treated or concluded in the court of the lord king.
2. Churches of the lord king’s fee cannot be permanently bestowed without his consent and grant.
3. Clerks charged and accused of any matter, summoned by the king’s justice, shall come into his court to answer there to
whatever it shall seem to the king’s court should be answered there; and in the church court to what it seems should be
answered there; however the king’s justice shall send into the court of holy Church for the purpose of seeing how the matter
shall be treated there. And if the clerk be convicted or confess, the church ought not to protect him further.
4. It is not permitted the archbishops, bishops, and priests of the kingdom to leave the kingdom without the lord king’s
permission. And if they do leave they are to give security, if the lord king please, that they will seek no evil or damage to king
or kingdom in going, in making their stay, or in returning.
6. Laymen ought not to be accused save by dependable and lawful accusers and witnesses in the presence of the bishop, yet
so that the archdeacon lose not this right or anything which he ought to have thence. And if there should be those who are
deemed culpable, but whom no one wishes or dares to accuse, the sheriff, upon the bishop’s request, shall cause twelve
lawful men of the neighborhood or the vill to take oath before the bishop that they will show the truth of the matter
according to their conscience.
7. No one who holds of the king in chief or any of the officials of his demesne is to be excommunicated or his lands placed
under interdict unless the lord king, if he be in the land, or his justiciar, if he be outside the kingdom, first gives his consent,
that he may do for him what is right: yet so that what pertains to the royal court be concluded there, and what looks to the
church court be sent thither to be concluded there.
87
8. As to appeals which may arise, they should pass from the archdeacon to the bishop, and from the bishop to the
archbishop. And if the archbishop fails in furnishing justice, the matter should come to the lord king at the last, that at his
command the litigation be concluded in the archbishop’s court; and so because it should not pass further without the lord
king’s consent.
9. If litigation arise between a clerk concerning any holding which the clerk would bring to charitable tenure but the layman
to lay fee, it shall be determined on the decision of the king’s chief justice by the recognition of twelve lawful men in the
presence of the king’s justice himself whether the holding pertain to charitable tenure or to lay fee. And if the recognition
declare it to be charitable tenure, it shall be litigated in the church court, but if lay fee, unless both plead under the same
bishop or baron, the litigation shall be in the royal court. But if both plead concerning that fief under the same bishop or
baron, it shall be litigated in his court; yet so that the who was first seised lose not his seisin [legal possession of a fiefdom] on
account of the recognition that was made, until the matter be determined by the plea.
10. If anyone who is of a city, castle, borough, or demesne manor of the king shall be cited by archdeacon or bishop for any
offense for which he ought to beheld answerable to them and despite their summonses he refuse to do what is right, it is fully
permissible to place him under interdict, but he ought not to be excommunicated before the king’s chief official of that vill
shall agree, in order that he may authoritatively constrain him to come to his trial. But if the king’s official fail in this, he
himself shall be in the lord king’s mercy; and then the bishop shall be able to coerce the accused man by ecclesiastical
authority.
11. Archbishops, bishops, and all ecclesiastics of the kingdom who hold of the king in chief have their possessions of the lord
king as barony and answer for them to the king’s justices and ministers and follow and do all royal rights and customs; and
they ought, just like other barons, to be present at the judgments of the lord king's court along with the barons, until it come
in judgment to loss of limbs or death.
12. When an archbishopric or bishopric, or an abbey or priory of the king’s demesne shall be vacant, it ought to be in his
hands, and he shall assume its revenues and expenses as pertaining to his demesne. And when the time comes to provide for
the church, the lord king should notify the more important clergy of the church, and the election should be held in the lord
king's own chapel with the assent of the lord king and on the advice of the clergy of the realm whom he has summoned for
the purpose. And there, before he be consecrated, let the elect perform homage and fealty to the lord king as his liege lord for
life, limbs, and earthly honor, saving his order.
13. If any of the great men of the kingdom should forcibly prevent archbishop, bishop, or archdeacon from administering
justice in which he or his men were concerned, then the lord king ought to bring such an one to justice. And if it should
happen that any one deforce the lord king of his right, archbishops, bishops, and archdeacons ought to constrain him to
make satisfaction to the lord king.
14. Chattels which have been forfeited to the king are not to be held in churches or cemeteries against the king’s justice,
because they belong to the king whether they be found inside churches or outside.
16. Sons of villeins should not be ordained without the consent of the lord on whose land it is ascertained they were born.
88
The declaration of the above-mentioned royal customs and dignities has been made by the archbishops, bishops, earls,
barons, and the nobler and older men of the kingdom, at Clarendon on the fourth day before the Purification of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, lord Henry being present there with the lord king his father. There are, indeed, many other great customs and
dignities of holy mother church and of the lord king and barons of the kingdom, which are not included in this writing, but
which are to be preserved to holy church and to the lord king and his heirs and the barons of the kingdom, and are to be kept
inviolate forever.
_____________________________________________
1. According to the opening paragraph, what are the Constitutions of Clarendon?

2. What do the Constitutions of Clarendon tell us about the relationship between church and state as envisioned by Henry?
3. What do the Constitutions of Clarendon tell us about Henry’s attitude towards royal justice?
4. Why do you think Thomas Becket took such offense to the Constitutions of Clarendon?
_____________________________________________
Gervase of Canterbury, History of the Archbishops of Canterbury
Gervase of Canterbury (c.1141-c.1210) was an English chronicler. As a monk of Canterbury, he personally knew Becket. In fact, he was one of
the monks who buried the saint after his martyrdom.
Source Citation: Gervase of Canterbury, “History of the Archbishops of Canterbury”, Internet Medieval History Sourcebook,
accessed July 30th, 2014, http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/1205gervase2.asp
But on the fifth day of the nativity, which was the third day of the week, there arrived four courtiers, who desired to speak
with the archbishop, thinking by this to discover the weak points [of the monastery]. These were Reginald Fitz-Urse, Hugh
de Morville, William de Traci, and Richard Brito. After a long discussion, they began to employ threats; and at length rising
up hastily, they went out into the courtyard; and under the spreading branches of a mulberry-tree, they cast off the garments
with which they had covered their breastplates, and, accompanied by those persons whom they had summoned from the
province, they returned into the archbishop’s palace. Yet he, unmoved by the exhortations, the prayers, and the tears of his
followers, remained firm in his place, until the time had arrived for the performance of the evening service in the church;
towards which he advanced with a slow and deliberate step, like one who of his own free-will prepares himself for death.
Having entered the church, he paused at the threshold; and he asked his attendants of what they were afraid. When the clerks
began to fall into disorder, he said, “Depart, you cowards! Let these blind madmen go on in their career. We command you,
in virtue of your obedience, not to shut the door.”
While he was thus speaking, behold! The executioners having ransacked the bishop’s palace, rushed together through the
cloisters; three of whom carried hatchets in their left bands, and one an axe or a two-edged glaive, while all of them
brandished drawn swords in their right hands. But after they had rushed through the open door, they separated from each
other, Fitz-Urse turning to the left, while the three others took to the right. The archbishop had already ascended a few steps,
89
when Fitz-Urse, as he hurried onwards, asked one whom he met, “Where is the archbishop?” Hearing this, he turned round
on the step, and, with a slight motion of the head, he was the first to answer, “Here am I, Reginald. I have conferred many a
benefit on you, Reginald; and do you now come to me with arms in your hands?” “You shall soon find that out,” was the
reply. “Are not you that notorious traitor to the king?” And, laying hold on his pall [an ecclesiastical woolen cloak], he said,
“Depart hence,” and he struck the pall with his sword. The archbishop replied, “I am no traitor; nor will I depart, wretched
man!” and he plucked the fringe of his pall from out the knight’s hand. The other repeated the words, “Flee hence!” The
reply was, “ I will not flee; here your malice shall be satisfied.” At these words the assassin stepped back, as if smitten by a
blow. In the meantime the other three assailants had arrived; and they exclaimed, “Now you shall die!” “If,” said the
archbishop, “you seek my life, I forbid you, under the threat of an anathema, from touching any one of my followers. As for
me, I willingly embrace death, provided only that the church obtain liberty and peace at the price of my blood.” When he had
said these words, he stretched forth his head to the blows of the murderers. Fitz-Urse hastened forward, and with his whole
strength lie planted a blow upon the extended head; and he cried out, as if in triumph over his conquered enemy, “Strike!
strike!” Goaded on by the author of confusion, these butchers, adding wound to wound, dashed out his brains; and one of
them, following up the martyr, (who at this time was either in the act of falling, or had already fallen) struck the pavement
with his sword but the point of the weapon broke off short. They now returned through the cloister, crying out, “Knights of
the king, let us go; he is dead!” And then they pillaged whatever they found in the archbishop’s residence. See here a wonder.
While he was yet alive, and could speak, and stand on his feet, men called him a traitor to the king; but when he was laid low,
with his brains dashed out, he was called the holy Thomas, even before the breath had left his body.
_____________________________________________
1. What sort of view of Thomas Becket emerges from Gervase of Canterbury’s description of Thomas’ final moments?
Why does Thomas willingly embrace death? How does this passage support the view that Thomas died a martyrs’ death?
2. How does Reginald Fitz-Urse (and presumably the other knights) view Thomas Becket? Based on the writing of Gervase
of Canterbury, does the murder of Thomas Becket seem premeditated or does it seem more likely to have been an act of
violence committed in the heat of the moment?
_____________________________________________
Magna Carta
In 1215, the barons of England forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, a document which defined the rights of the king and the privileges of the
nobility. Although the articles of the charter addressed the specific issues of the time, many of them became the foundation for new freedoms which
eventually extended to all British people. For example, paragraph 12 addressed the fact that King John had repeatedly imposed burdensome taxes
upon his subjects. In time, the language of this paragraph led to the concept that no taxes can be levied without the consent of the governed. Another
important article of the charter is paragraph 39, which eventually led to the right of all subjects to a trial by a jury of their peers.
Source Citation: “Magna Carta”, Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, accessed July 30th, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.asp
90
JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to
his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal
subjects, Greeting.
(1) First, that we have granted to God, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the
English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be
observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our
barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church’s elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest
necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe
ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity. To all free men of our kingdom we have also
granted, for us and our heirs forever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us
and our heirs:
(2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his
heir shall be of full age and owe a “relief”, the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of “relief”. That
is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay 100 pounds for the entire earl’s barony, the heir or heirs of a knight l00 shilling
at most for the entire knight’s “fee”, and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of “fees”.
(6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be
made known to the heir’s next-of-kin.
(7) At her husband’s death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall
pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death.
She may remain in her husband’s house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned.
(8) No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security
that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other
lord she may hold them of.
(10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no
interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whomsoever he holds his lands. If such a debt falls
into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.
(12) No “scutage” or “aid” may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our
person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable “aid”
may be levied. “Aids” from the city of London are to be treated similarly.
(13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and
grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.
(20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence
correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his
91
merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these
fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighborhood.
(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.
(23) No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an ancient obligation to do so.
(27) If a free man dies intestate, his movable goods are to be distributed by his next-of-kin and friends, under the supervision
of the Church. The rights of his debtors are to be preserved.
(28) No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other movable goods from any man without immediate payment,
unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of this.
(30) No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent.
(31) Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any purpose, without the consent of the owner.
(35) There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also
be a standard width of dyed cloth, russett, and haberject, a type of cloth, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to
be standardized similarly.
(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible
witnesses to the truth of it.
(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of
his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful
judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.
(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
(41) All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water,
for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not
apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the
outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered
how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too.
(45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are
minded to keep it well.
(46) All barons who have founded abbeys, and have charters of English kings or ancient tenure as evidence of this, may have
guardianship of them when there is no abbot, as is their due.
(48) All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their
wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by 12 sworn knights of the county, and within 40 days of their enquiry
92
the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably. But we, or our chief justice if we are not in England, are first
to be informed.
(52) To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgment of
his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgment of the 25 barons
referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (61). In cases, however, where a man was deprived or dispossessed of
something without the lawful judgment of his equals by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains
in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders,
unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. On our
return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once render justice in full.
(54) No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband.
(61) Since we have granted all these things for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has
arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength,
forever, we give and grant to the barons the following security: The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep,
and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter. If we,
our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of
the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or
in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence
abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us
or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may seize upon and assail us in
every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or
anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as
they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us. Any man who
so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join
with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so
desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling
to take it to swear it at our command. If-one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is prevented in any other
way from discharging his duties, the rest of them shall choose another baron in his place, at their discretion, who shall be duly
sworn in as they were. In the event of disagreement among the twenty-five barons on any matter referred to them for
decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-five,
whether these were all present or some of those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear. The twenty-five barons shall
swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power. We will
not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these
concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we
will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.
93
_____________________________________________
1. What were the major concerns of the barons who forced John to sign Magna Carta? What do they hope to gain from
Magna Carta?
2. The articles of Magna Carta illustrate that a socio-economic revolution was well underway in England by the time that
Magna Carta was signed. What was this socio-economic revolution and what do those involved in this revolution hope
to gain from Magna Carta?
3. Does Magna Carta deserve its reputation as an important founding document in English and American legal history?
_____________________________________________
Parliamentary Summonses, 1295
The evolution of the English Parliament was complex and long. The Parliament of 1265, and even those of the early fourteenth century, looked
nothing like the later institution. Nevertheless, Parliament did take on a greater role in English government under Edward I (1272-1307). The
writs of summons to the Parliament of 1295 are evidence about the nature and function of the developing body.
Source Citation: “Parliamentary Summonses, 1295”, Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, accessed, July 30th, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/ed1-summons.asp
Summons of a Bishop to Parliament
The King to the venerable father in Christ Robert, by the same grace archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England,
greeting. As a most just law, established by the careful providence of sacred princes, exhorts and decrees that what affects all,
by all should be approved, so also, very evidently should common danger be met by means provided in common. You know
sufficiently well, and it is now, as we believe, divulged through all regions of the world, how the king of France fraudulently
and craftily deprives us of our land of Gascony, by withholding it unjustly from us. Now, however, not satisfied with the
before-mentioned fraud and injustice, having gathered together for the conquest of our kingdom a very great fleet, and an
abounding multitude of warriors, with which he has made a hostile attack on our kingdom and the inhabitants of the same
kingdom, he now proposes to destroy the English language altogether from the earth, if his power should correspond to the
detestable proposition of the contemplated injustice, which God forbid. Because, therefore, darts seen beforehand do less
injury, and your interest especially, as that of the rest of the citizens of the same realm, is concerned in this affair, we
command you, strictly enjoining you in the fidelity and love in which you are bound to us, that on the Lord’s day next after
the feast of St. Martin, in the approaching winter, you be present in person at Westminster; citing beforehand the dean and
chapter of your church, the archdeacons and all the clergy of your diocese, causing the same dean and archdeacons in their
own persons, and the said chapter by one suitable proctor, and the said clergy by two, to be present along with you, having
full and sufficient power from the same chapter and clergy, to consider, ordain and provide, along with us and with the rest
of the prelates and principal men and other inhabitants of our kingdom, how the dangers and threatened evils of this kind are
to be met. Witness the king at Wangham, the thirtieth day of September. [Note; Summonses just like this were sent out to the two
archbishops and eighteen bishops, and, with the omission of the last paragraph, to seventy abbots.]
94
Summons of a Baron to Parliament
The king to his beloved and faithful relative, Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, greeting. Because we wish to have a consultation
and meeting with you and with the rest of the principal men of our kingdom, as to provision for remedies against the dangers
which in these days are threatening our whole kingdom; we command you, strictly enjoining you in the fidelity and love in
which you are bound to us, that on the Lord’s day next after the feast of St. Martin, in the approaching winter, you be present
in person at Westminster, for considering, ordaining and doing along with us and with the prelates, and the rest of the
principal men and other inhabitants of our kingdom, as may be necessary for meeting dangers of this kind.
Witness the king at Canterbury, the first of October.

[Note: Similar summonses were sent to seven earls and forty-one barons.]
Summons of Representatives of Shires and Towns to Parliament
The king to the sheriff of Northamptonshire. Since we intend to have a consultation and meeting with the earls, barons and
other principal men of our kingdom with regard to providing remedies against the dangers which are in these days
threatening the same kingdom; and on that account have commanded them to be with us on the Lord’s day next after the
feast of St. Martin in the approaching winter, at Westminster, to consider, ordain, and do as may be necessary for the
avoidance of these dangers; we strictly require you to cause two knights from the aforesaid county, two citizens from each
city in the same county, and two burgesses from each borough, of those who are especially discreet and capable of laboring,
to be elected without delay, and to cause them to come to us at the aforesaid said time and place.
Moreover, the said knights are to have full and sufficient power for themselves and for the community of the aforesaid
county, and the said citizens and burgesses for themselves and the communities of the aforesaid cities and boroughs
separately, then and there for doing what shall then be ordained according to the common counsel in the premises; so that
the aforesaid business shall not remain unfinished in any way for defect of this power. And you shall have there the names of
the knights, citizens and burgesses and this writ.
Witness the king at Canterbury on the third day of October.
_____________________________________________
1. What were the reasons for summoning the parliament of 1295?

2. As well as members of the clergy and the nobility, who else was summoned to the parliament of 1295?
3. How does the summoning of this parliament reflect the changing nature of the “community of the realm” in England?
How does the summoning of this parliament reflect the changing nature of the relationship between the king and this
community?
_____________________________________________
95
C. Warren Hollister, Philip II and the Extension of Royal Power
Charles Warren Hollister (November 2, 1930 – September 14, 1997) was an American author and historian. He was one of the founding
members of the University of California Santa Barbara history department. He specialized in English medieval History, especially studies that
emphasized the interrelationship of England within the Anglo-Norman realm and the development of administrative kingship. The following
extract is taken from his Medieval Europe: A Short History.
Source Citation: C. Warren Hollister and Judith M. Bennett, Medieval Europe: A Short History, 9th Edition (Boston: McGraw-
Hill, 2002), 283-284.
The French monarchy came of age under Louis VII’s talented son, Philip II, “Augustus.” A wily and clever opportunist,
Philip Augustus expanded the royal demesne and tightened his lordship over the dukes and counts of France.
Philip Augustus’s great achievement was the destruction of the Angevin empire, an accomplishment that both weakened the
English royal house (which lost vast lands) and strengthened his own (by adding these lands to the Capetian royal demesne).
For two decades Philip plotted against Henry II and Richard the Lion-Hearted, but it was not until the reign of King John
that his efforts bore fruit. When Philip Augustus moved against Normandy in 1203-1204, John’s unpopularity and lethargy
allowed Philip to win with surprising ease the prize he had sought so long. Ten years later, with his decisive victory over
John’s German and Flemish allies at Bouvines in 1214, Philip extinguished John’s last hope of recovering the lost territories.
Settling for good the question of Normandy and Anjou, Bouvines was also a turning point in the power balance of European
monarchies in the Central Middle Ages. Thereafter the Capetian monarchy overshadowed the faltering Holy Roman Empire,
as well as the much-reduced territories of the kings of England. France became the great power of the thirteenth century.
Philip Augustus extended his power by administration as well as war. He used the curia regis, the high feudal court of France,
as an effective instrument for the assertion of royal rights. He also relied for local governance not on local nobles but instead
on salaried officials known as baillis, or bailiffs. These bailiffs, whose functions were at once financial, judicial, military, and
administrative, owed their positions to royal favor and were devoted to the crown. Throughout the thirteenth century they
worked tirelessly and often unscrupulously to erode the privileges of the aristocracy and extend royal authority. A loyal and
highly mobile bureaucracy, the bailiffs became in time a powerful instrument of royal absolutism. Since they usually had no
roots in the regions they administered, bailiffs were more loyal to the crown than their English counterparts - the sheriffs
who managed the counties and shire knights who went to parliamentary assemblies. Drawn from the local gentry, sheriffs and
shire knights tended to divide their loyalties between monarchy and locality.
Philip Augustus also transformed Paris into the true royal capital of France. Paris had long been the largest city in France, and
during his reign, its population doubled to some 50,000 people. It was the chief center of a royal government that, like that of
England, had moved constantly from place to place. But Philip kept his government more permanently in Paris, ruling from
his royal palace at the west end of an island in the Seine, the Ile de la Cite, which was also the site of the cathedral of Notre
Dame, nearing completion at that time. Philip built great walls around the city, paved its major streets, and built a fortress, the
Louvre, just outside the walls near the Seine as it flowed westward toward Normandy. (For centuries the Louvre served as a
royal palace; today it is one of the world’s great museums, and the walls of Philip Augusts can still be seen from an
underground gallery beneath it.) Having prospered under Philip Augustus, Paris continued to flourish under its successors.
96
By 1300, the population of Paris would double again to about 200,000 inhabitants. It was then probably Europe’s largest city,
having even surpassed in size Milan, Venice, Naples, and the other great Italian city-states.
At the very end of his life, Philip Augustus made good use of another opportunity to extend his territorial sway. When
Innocent III called the Albigensian Crusade against the heretics of southern France in 1208, Philip Augustuss made sure that
his heir Louis took an active part in it. And when the son succeeded father in 1223 as Louis VIII (r. 1223-1226), he used all
the resources of his monarchy to break the power of the Cathars and extend Capetian royal authority southward to the
Mediterranean.
It may seem surprising that Louis VIII, who inherited a vastly expanded royal jurisdiction and extended it still further himself,
gave out about one-third of these hard-won royal territories as fiefs to junior members of his family. These family fiefs,
carved out of the royal domain, are known as apanages. As their creation shows, the growing power of the Capetian
monarchy cannot be understood simply as a linear process of expanding royal demesne. The Capetians recognized the
importance of keeping younger sons happy and did not hesitate to grant them counties and duchies. Indeed, given the limited
facilities of communication and transportation in twelfth and thirteenth century France, the realm was too large to be
controlled directly by any king. At least for the time being these rich cadet branches, bound to the crown by firm family ties,
strengthened rather than weakened Capetian rule. So too did the bailiffs who efficiently pursued the king’s interests
throughout the realm.
_____________________________________________
1. What were the great military achievements of Philip II’s reign?

2. How did Philip II go about strengthening royal control over the lands in France that he governed directly?
3. How was Paris transformed during the reign of Philip II?
_____________________________________________
Jean de Joinville, Life of Saint Louis
Jean de Joinville (1224 - 1317) was one of the great chroniclers of medieval France. He belonged to a noble family from Champagne, and on the
death of his father, he became seneschal of Champagne. He a very pious man and was concerned with the proper administration of the region. In
1244, when Louis IX organized the Seventh Crusade, Joinville decided to abandon his family to join with the Christian knights. At the time of the
crusade, Joinville placed himself in the service of the king and became his counselor and confidant. Many years after Louis’ death, Jeanne of
Navarre, wife of Philip IV of France, asked Joinville to write Louis’ biography. He then put himself to the task of writing what is today known as
the Life of Saint Louis. Jeanne of Navarre died on 2 April 1305, while the work was not yet completed. Joinville dedicated it in 1309 to her son,
Louis, king of Navarre and count of Champagne, the future Louis X of France.
Source Citation: Jean de Joinville The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville: A New English Version, trans. Ethel Wedgwood (New York:
E.P. Dutton and Co., 1906), 20-22.
In the name of Almighty God, I, John, Lord of Joinville, Seneschal of Champagne, do cause to be written the life of our Saint
Louis, that which I saw and heard during the space of six years that I was in his company on the pilgrimage overseas and after
97
we returned. And before I tell you of his great deeds and knightliness, I will tell you what I saw and heard of his holy words
and good teachings, so that they may be found in sequence, to the edification of those that shall hear them.
The love he bore his people appeared in what he said to his son during a sore sickness he had at Fontainebleau; “Fair son,”
said he, “I pray thee, win the love of the people of thy kingdom. For truly, I would rather that a Scot should come out of
Scotland and rule the people of the kingdom well and justly, than that you should govern them ill-advisedly.”……
He called me once, and said to me: “You are of such subtle perception in all matters touching religion that I am afraid to talk
to you, and for that reason I have called in these friars here, for I wish to ask you a question.” The question was, “Seneschal,
what sort of thing is God?” I answered: “Such a good thing, sir, that there is none better.” “Well answered indeed,” said he
“for the very same answer is written in this book that I hold. Next I ask you,” said he, “Which would you rather: Be a leper,
or have committed a deadly sin?” And I, who never lied to him, replied: That I would rather have committed thirty deadly
sins than be a leper. And when the friars were gone, he called me all alone, and made me sit at his feet, and said to me: “What
was that you said to me yesterday?” And I replied: That I still said the same. “You talk like a hasty rattlepate,” said he, “For
there is no leprosy so foul as deadly sin, seeing that a soul in deadly sin is in the image of the Devil. And truly when a man
dies, he is healed of the leprosy of the body, but when a man dies that has committed deadly sin, great fear must he needs
have lest such leprosy should endure so long as God shall be in Heaven.”
He asked me: Whether I washed the feet of the poor on Maundy Thursday? “Sorrow take it, Sir!” said I “The feet of those
wretches will I never wash!” “Truly,” said he “That was ill said; for you should not despise that which God did for our
instruction. Therefore, I pray you, for the love of God and of me, that henceforth you will accustom yourself to wash them.”
He so loved all manner of God-fearing men, that he bestowed the Constableship of France on my lord Giles le Brun, who
was not of the realm of France, because he had a great reputation as a God-fearing man. And truly so I think he was….
The holy King strove with all his might, by his conversation, to make me believe firmly in the Christian law. …He told me
that there was a great conference of clergy and Jews in the monastery of Cluny, and there was a knight, to whom the abbot
had given bread out of charity, and he desired the abbot to let him have the first word, and with some difficulty he got
permission. Then the knight rose, and leaned upon his crutch, and bade them bring forth the greatest scholar and master
among the Jews, and they did so. And he put a question to him as follows: “Master,” said he, “I ask you, whether you believe
that the Virgin Mary, who carried God in her womb and in her arms, brought forth as a maid, and that she is the Mother of
God?” And the Jew replied: That he did not believe a word of it. The knight replied: That he was a great fool to trust himself
inside her monastery and house, when he neither believed in nor loved her; “And truly you shall pay for it” said he. And
thereupon he lifted up his staff, and struck the Jew behind the ear, and stretched him on the ground. And the Jews took to
their heels, carrying their master off with them, all wounded. And that was the end of the conference. Then the abbot came
to the knight, and said: That he had acted very foolishly; and the knight replied: That he himself had acted still more foolishly,
in calling such a conference; for that there were numbers of Christians there, who by the close of the conference would have
gone away infidels, by not seeing through the fallacies of the Jews. “And so I tell you,” said the King, “That no one ought to
argue with them unless he be a very good scholar; but a layman, if he hear the Christian law defamed, should undertake its
defense with the sword alone, and that he should use to run them straight through the body as far in as it will go!” …
98
He had arranged his business in such a fashion, that my lord of Nesle and the good Count of Soissons, and we others who
were about his person after hearing Mass used to go and listen to the Pleas of the Gate (which they call now “Petitions”).
And when he came back from the minster, he used to send for us, and would sit down at the foot of his bed and make us sit
all round him, and would ask us, whether there were any cases to be dispatched that could not be dispatched without him,
and we named them, and he would send for the parties, and ask them: “Why do you not accept what our officers offer you?”
and they would say: “It is very little, Sir.” And he would talk to them as follows: “You ought really to take what people are
ready to concede.” And in this way the holy man labored with all his might to bring them into the right and reasonable
course.
Many a time it chanced in summer that he would go and sit in the forest of Vincennes, after Mass, and all who had business
would come and talk with him, without hindrance from ushers or anyone. Then he would ask them with his own lips: “Is
there anyone here that has a suit?” and those that had suits stood up. Then he would say: “Keep silence, all of you; and you
shall be dealt with in order.” Then he would call up my lord Peter of Fontaines and my lord Geoffrey of Villette, and say to
one of them: “Dispatch me this suit!” and if, in the speech of those who were speaking on behalf of others, he saw that a
point might be better put, he himself would put it for them with his own lips. I have seen him sometimes in summer, when
to hear his people’s suits, he would come into the gardens of Paris, clad in a camel’s-hair coat, with a sleeveless surcoat of
tiretaine, a cloak of black taffety round his neck, his hair well combed and without a coif, and a white swans down hat upon
his head. He would cause a carpet to be spread, that we might sit round him; and all the people who had business before him
stood round about, and then he caused their suits to be dispatched, just as I told you before about the forest of Vincennes.
_____________________________________________
1. Assess the validity of Joinville’s account of the life of St. Louis.

2. Given that during the Middle Ages, St. Louis was often held up as a model of Christian kingship, what characteristics did
people in the Middle Ages believe kings should possess?
_____________________________________________
Clifford R. Backman, Mysticism
Source Citation: Clifford R. Backman, “Mysticism,” in Cultures of the West: A History, Second Edition (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2016), 360-362.
In apparent contrast to the intense rationalism of the scholastics, mysticism, or the experience of direct contact with
God, was also among the central aspects of the age. It was hardly a new phenomenon. The voices that had sent
Abraham on his first wanderings in the Holy Land, the burning bush on Mount Sinai through which Moses heard
God’s commands, the warnings of the biblical prophets—all these were God’s piercing of the veil between the divine
99
world and our own. In the early Christian era, Church Fathers like Jerome and Augustine reported mystical
revelations. God spoke to the masses countless times through the miracle of the saints. What was unique about the
mystical experiences of the late Middle Ages was their sheer number. Many hundreds—even thousands—of people
claimed to have experienced God, in the form of either visions or otherworldly voices. They included austere
Carthusian and Cistercian monks and nuns and courtly poets, but also everyday peasants and town dwellers—school
teachers, lawyers, shop-keepers, midwives, government officials, children and the elderly.
Some people had single life-altering visions; some had repeated experiences; other had literally hundreds of powerful,
stirring episodes of contact with the divine. These revelations centered on Christ. People heard Christ, saw Christ,
spoke with Christ, embraced Christ, and kissed Christ. Moreover, the Christ whom they encountered was not the
stern, lordly King of Heaven and Judge of the Last Day (the most common images of Christ in early medieval art).
Rather, he was the gentle, caring Christ who suffered and died out of his love for all mankind.
Mysticism privileged women. Vastly greater numbers of women reported experiencing this sort of contact than men
did, and it seems likely that even greater numbers of women experienced visions without reporting them. Hildegard
of Bingen (1098-1179) was a noble-born German abbess who dramatically described her visions in prose, painting and
music. Hadewijch of Flanders (d. ca 1245) composed a long sequence of poems and letters that described her own
“mystical marriage” to Christ in the vocabulary of courtly love. Julian of Norwich was an educated commoner who at
the age of thirty had sixteen separate visions. As a result, she became a recluse and devoted the rest of her life to
puzzling out what had happened to her. Her Revelations of Divine Love is one of the most moving of all mystical
books. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) started seeing visions in early childhood. For several years she hid from the
world, a recluse in her crowded family home (she was the twenty-second of twenty-four children), but at the age of
twenty she dedicated herself to social reform and became a tireless advisor to princes and popes. Her visions
continued for the rest of her life.
Although many mystics criticized contemporary problems in the church, none saw themselves as rebels against it. In
fact, most took special care to champion orthodox doctrine. But the sheer number of late medieval mystics suggests a
grave dissatisfaction with the church and the world.
_____________________________________________
1. Why do you think more women reported experiencing these mystical experiences?
2. What does the impulse toward mysticism suggest about late medieval society?
_____________________________________________
100
Unam Sanctam
On 18 November 1302, Pope Boniface VIII issued the Papal Bull Unam sanctam which some historians consider one of the most extreme
statements of Papal spiritual supremacy ever made. The original document is lost but a version of the text can be found in the registers of Boniface
VIII in the Vatican Archives. Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Catholic Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal
salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the
Church and thus to attain salvation. The pope further emphasizes the higher position of the spiritual in comparison with the secular order.
Source Citation: “The Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302,” Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, accessed August 13th, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/B8-unam.asp
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We
believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of
sins…. In this church then there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” [Eph 4:5]…
Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and
the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter…..Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not
confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess to not being of the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in the
Gospel of John that there is one sheepfold and one shepherd [John 10:16] We are informed by the words of the gospels
that in this Church and in its power there are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal….Both are in the power
of the Church…The former is to be used by the Church, the latter for the Church; the former in the hands of the priest,
the latter by the hands of kings and knights, but at the command and permission of the priest. Moreover, one sword ought
to be subordinated to the other, and the temporal authority to be subjected to spiritual power. For the Apostle said: “There
is no power except from God and the powers that are ordained of God” [Rom 13:1-2]; but they would not be ordained [i.e.
arranged or set in order] unless one sword were subjected to the other, and, as it were, the inferior one made the higher by
the other...And we must necessarily admit that the spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power,
because spiritual things surpass the temporal things. This we see very clearly by the payment, benediction, and consecration
of the tithes, as well as the receiving of power, and from the governing of these things. For the truth itself declares that the
spiritual power must establish the temporal power and pass judgment on it if it is not good. Thus is accomplished the
prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the church and the ecclesiastical power: “Behold, I have placed you over nations and
over kingdoms…” [Jer. 1:10]. Therefore, if the terrestrial power errs, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor
spiritual power errs, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power. But if the highest spiritual power errs, it can be judged
only by God and not by man. For the Apostle says: “The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no
man” [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, though it has been given to man and is exercised by man, is not human but
rather divine. For it was granted by the word of the Lord to Peter, and the rock was made firm to him and his successors,
in Christ himself, whom he had confessed. For the Lord said to Peter: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be
bound also in Heaven…” [Matt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God resists the ordinance
of God [Rom 13:2]…We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human
creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
101
_____________________________________________
1. What is the central argument of the papal bull Unam Sanctam?

2. How might this argument be at odds with Philip IV’s vision of royal power in France?
_____________________________________________
Catherine of Siena: Excerpt from Letter 74, 1376
Catherine of Siena dedicated much of her life to helping Siena’s poor and sick. Catherine also began traveling throughout Italy with a band of earnest
associates urging reform of the clergy, support for the crusades, and settling disputes between republics, principalities, and powerful Italian families. But
it was her letters to people from all walks of life that was her preferred form of communication. Writing to an ever-increasing audience, Catherine
corresponded with everyone from popes and royals to prisoners and peasants. Foremost among her written letters was her long correspondence with Pope
Gregory XI, from which he eventually heeded her advice and moved back to Rome – officially ending the Avignon Papacy in 1377.
Source Citation: “Letter to Pope Gregory XI,” Saint Catherine of Siena as Seen in her Letters, translated & edited with introduction by
Vida d. Scudder, 2005 EBook #7403, The Project Gutenberg EBook, http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7403/pg7403-
images.html
In the name of Jesus Christ crucified and of gentle Mary, mother of God's Son. Very loved and reverend father in Christ Jesus,
I Caterina, servant and slave of the servants of Jesus Christ and your poor wretched unworthy daughter, am writing to you in
his precious blood. I long to see you the sort of true gentle shepherd who takes an example from the shepherd Christ, whose
place you hold. He laid down his life for his little sheep in spite of our ingratitude. The hounding, the wrongs, the scorn, the
insults of the people he had created and so greatly blessed did not keep him from working out our salvation. No, as one in love
with the Father's honor and our salvation he ignores his own suffering and conquers our malice with his wisdom and peace and
kindness. Just so I am begging you, I am telling you, my dear babbo (an Italian term of affection for a father), in the name of
Christ crucified, to conquer with kindness, with patience, with humility, with gentleness the wrongdoing and pride of your
children who have rebelled against you their father. You know that the devil is not cast out by the devil but by virtue. Even
though you have been seriously wronged—since they have insulted you and robbed you of what is yours—still, father, I beg
you to consider not their wrongdoing but your own kindness. Don't let this keep you from working out our salvation. And this
will be their salvation: that you re-establish peace with them, for as long as a son is at war with his father he is dispossessed of
his inheritance. Ah, father, peace, for love of God, so that all these children may not lose the inheritance of eternal life! For you
know that God has placed in your hands the giving and the taking away of this inheritance as your kindness pleases. You hold
the keys, and to whomever you open it is opened, and to whomever you close it is closed. This is what the good gentle Jesus
said to Peter, whose place you take: ''Whatever you shall loose on earth will be loosed in heaven, and whatever you shall bind
on earth will be bound in heaven.''
So take a lesson from the true father and shepherd. For you see that now is the time to give your life for the little sheep who
have left the flock. You must seek and win them back by using patience and war—by war I mean by raising the standard of the
102
sweet blazing cross and setting out against the unbelievers. So you must sleep no longer, but wake up and raise that standard
courageously. I am confident that by God's measureless goodness you will win back the unbelievers and [at the same time]
correct the wrongdoing of Christians, because everyone will come running to the fragrance of the cross, even those who have
rebelled against you most.
_____________________________________________
1. What strikes you about this letter? What is the tone?
2. What does it suggest about Catherine within the context of women mystics?
_____________________________________________
C. Warren Hollister, Iberian States: Consolidation through Homogenization
Charles Warren Hollister (November 2, 1930 – September 14, 1997) was an American author and historian. He was one of the founding
members of the University of California Santa Barbara history department. He specialized in English medieval History, especially studies that
emphasized the interrelationship of England within the Anglo-Norman realm and the development of administrative kingship. The following
extract is taken from his Medieval Europe: A Short History.
Source Citation: C. Warren Hollister and Judith M. Bennett, Medieval Europe: A Short History, 9th Edition (Boston: McGraw-
Hill, 2002), 356-359.
When the Christian reconquest had rolled to a stop in the second half of the thirteenth century, the Iberian Peninsula
contained three strong Christian kingdoms - Castile, Aragon, and Portugal - along with the Muslim state of Granada in the
south. Castile was the largest, with an economy based on sheep-raising and the production of fine merino wool. Aragon itself
was rural and landlocked but because its crown controlled Catalonia, the rich port of Barcelona, and various Mediterranean
islands, Aragonese merchants played an important role in Mediterranean commerce. Portugal looked out toward the Atlantic,
and its sailors early began to sail westward and southward in search of trade. Granada was a small remnant of the once great
Muslim caliphate of al-Andalus, but it was home to the magnificent palace of Alhambra, a wonder of architecture, art and
irrigation. Portugal and Granada were relatively homogeneous with predominantly Christian and Muslim populations,
respectively; Castile and Aragon accommodated within their borders Jews and Muslims as well as Christians.
Like England and France, the three Christian kingdoms were plagued by wars - both civil conflicts and conflicts between
each other - during the Later Middle Ages. King Dinas I of Portugal (r. 1279-1325) brought prosperity, security, and a navy to
his realm, but his successes were undercut by later succession crises and wars with Castile. For its part, Castile was constantly
torn by aristocratic uprisings, disputed royal successions and border conflicts with Aragon and Portugal. And the Aragonese
monarchy strove with only limited success to placate its nobility and merchants by granting significant concessions to regional
representative assemblies, or cortes. A prolonged civil war in mid-fifteenth-century Catalonia - in which peasants had allied
with their king against aristocrats and merchants - was put down only with the greatest difficulty.
103
In 1469, a single marriage began to change at least some of these problems. In that year, Isabella of Castile (r. 1474-1504)
married Ferdinand of Aragon (r. 1479-1516), uniting their realms under one dynasty, while nevertheless preserving each
realm’s distinctive customs and laws. Isabella inherited her throne in 1474; Ferdinand inherited his in 1479. And thereafter -
despite the continuation of regional cortes, tribunals and customs - an efficient central administration governed the two
realms and eventually transformed them into the Kingdom of Spain.
Like their counterparts Henry VII in England and Louis XI in France, Isabella and Ferdinand were new monarchs, and they
consolidated the power of their dynasty in three primary ways. First, they undercut aristocratic influence, filling the royal
bureaucracy with middle-class lawyers rather than aristocrats, allying with towns against local landowners and reorganizing the
army to emphasize infantry over cavalry. Second, they acquired firm power over their natural church, securing the pope’s
agreement that they, not he, could appoint most prelates within Spain. And third, they fostered national unity through
religious zeal. For Isabella and Ferdinand, political obedience and national unity were tied to Christian orthodoxy.
The Jews and Muslims of Iberia had long faced worsening circumstances. The year 1391 had been particularly bad for Jews
who, in the face of murderous mobs, sometimes died, sometimes emigrated, and sometimes undertook perfunctory
conversion to Christianity. Muslins too had been hard pressed by their Christian rulers, slowly losing their separate law courts
and even, in some cases, their knowledge of Arabic. The situation went from bad to worse in 1492 when Isabella and
Ferdinand conquered Granada, finally placing all the Iberian peninsula under Christian control. In the flush of this victory,
they presented their Muslim and Jewish subjects with the choice of conversion or exile. Many left, leaving the new kingdom
a thoroughly Christian state but bereft of their knowledge and talents. Others converted, some genuinely and some in the
hope that they could privately maintain their traditional faiths while publicly conforming as Christians.
This proved a dangerous strategy, for as public Christians, these conversos fell under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. It also
created dangers for Isabella and Ferdinand, who feared that conversos were not true Christians and, hence, not loyal subjects.
The Dominican friars of the Spanish Inquisition provided a remedy, and in their search for false Christians they became
important allies of a new state worried about disloyal subjects. By 1500, Spanish had been born from a strategic marriage,
from the careful policies of Isabella and Ferdinand, and from a Christian militancy that would prove in future centuries to be
both a great strength and a terrible weakness.
_____________________________________________
1. What did the political map of Iberia look like in the late Middle Ages?
2. What were some of the problems faced by the Christian kingdoms of Iberia during the late Middle Ages?
3. What led to the creation of the kingdom of Spain?
4. How did Ferdinand and Isabella go about strengthening royal power in Spain in the late fifteenth century?
5. Why was 1492 an important turning point in the history of Islam and Judaism in Spain?
6. What was the role of the Inquisition?
_____________________________________________
104
Expulsion of the Jews from Spain, 1492
In the spring of 1492, shortly after the Moors were driven out of Granada, Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain expelled all the Jews from their lands
and thus, by a stroke of the pen, put an end to the largest and most distinguished Jewish settlement in Europe. The expulsion of this intelligent,
cultured, and industrious class was prompted only in part by the greed of the king and the intensified nationalism of the people who had just brought
the crusade against the Muslim Moors to a glorious close. The real motive was the religious zeal of the Church, the Queen, and the masses. The
official reason given for driving out the Jews was that they encouraged the Marranos, the Jewish converts to Christianity, to persist in their Jewishness
and thus would not allow them to become good Christians. The following account gives a detailed and accurate picture of the expulsion and its
immediate consequences for Spanish Jewry. It was written in Hebrew by an Italian Jew in April or May, 1495.
Source Citation: Jacob Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook (New York: JPS, 1938), 51-55.
And in the year 5252 [1492], in the days of King Ferdinand, the Lord visited the remnant of his people a second time [the
first Spanish visitation was in 1391], and exiled them. After the King had captured the city of Granada from the Moors, and it
had surrendered to him on the 7th of January of the year just mentioned, he ordered the expulsion of all the Jews in all parts
of his kingdom - in the kingdoms of Castile, Catalonia, Aragon, Galicia, Majorca, Minorca, the Basque provinces, the islands
of Sardinia and Sicily, and the kingdom of Valencia. Even before that the Queen had expelled them from the kingdom of
Andalusia [1483]
The King gave them three months in which to leave. It was announced in public in every city on the first of May, which
happened to be the 19th day of the Omer, and the term ended on the day before the 9th of Ab. [The forty-nine days between
the second of Passover and Shabuot are called Omer days. The actual decree of expulsion was signed March 31 and announced
the first of May, the 19th day of the Omer. The Jews were to leave during in May, June, and July and be out of the country by
August 1st, the 8th of Ab.]
About their number there is no agreement, but, after many inquiries, I found that the most generally accepted estimate is
50,000 families, or, as others say, 53,000. They had houses, fields, vineyards, and cattle, and most of them were artisans. At
that time there existed many [Talmudic] academies in Spain, and at the head of the greatest of them were Rabbi Isaac Aboab
in Guadalajara, Rabbi Isaac Veçudó in Leon, and Rabbi Jacob Habib in Salamanca [later author of a famous collection of the
non-legal parts of the Talmud, the En Yaakob]. In the last named city there was a great expert in mathematics, and whenever
there was any doubt on mathematical questions in the Christian academy of that city they referred them to him. His name
was Abraham Zacuto. [This astronomer encouraged the expedition of Vasco da Gama.] . . .
In the course of the three months respite granted them they endeavored to effect an arrangement permitting them to stay on
in the country, and they felt confident of success. Their representatives were the rabbi, Don Abraham Seneor, the leader of
the Spanish congregations, who was attended by a retinue on thirty mules, and Rabbi Meïr Melamed, who was secretary to
the King, and Don Isaac Abravanel, who had fled to Castile from the King of Portugal, and then occupied an equally
prominent position at the Spanish royal court. He, too, was later expelled, went to Naples, and was highly esteemed by the
King of Naples. The aforementioned great rabbi, Rabbi Isaac of Leon, used to call this Don Abraham Seneor: “Soné Or”
[“Hater of Light,” a Hebrew pun on Seneor], because he was a heretic, and the end proved that he was right, as he was
converted to Christianity at the age of eighty, he and all his family, and [his son-in-law] Rabbi Meïr Melamed with him.
[Ferdinand and Isabella were among the sponsors.] Don Abraham had arranged the nuptials between the King and the
105
Queen. The Queen was the heiress to the throne, and the King one of the Spanish nobility. On account of this, Don
Abraham was appointed leader of the Jews, but not with their consent.
The agreement permitting them to remain in the country on the payment of a large sum of money was almost completed
when it was frustrated by the interference of a prior who was called the Prior of Santa Cruz. [Legend relates that
Torquemada, Prior of the convent of Santa Cruz, thundered, with crucifix aloft, to the King and Queen: “Judas Iscariot sold
his master for thirty pieces of silver. Your Highness would sell him anew for thirty thousand. Here he is, take him, and barter
him away.”] Then the Queen gave an answer to the representatives of the Jews, similar to the saying of King Solomon
[Proverbs 2 1: 1]: “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water. God turneth it withersoever He will.”
She said furthermore: “Do you believe that this comes upon you from us? The Lord hath put this thing into the heart of the
king.”
Then they saw that there was evil determined against them by the King, and they gave up the hope of remaining. But the time
had become short, and they had to hasten their exodus from Spain. They sold their houses, their landed estates, and their
cattle for very small prices, to save themselves. The King did not allow them to carry silver and gold out of his country, so
that they were compelled to exchange their silver and gold for merchandise of cloths and skins and other things. [Ever since
1480, Jews and Gentiles were forbidden to export precious metal, the source of a nation’s wealth.]
One hundred and twenty thousand of them went to Portugal, according to a compact which a prominent man, Don Vidal bar
Benveniste del Cavalleria, had made with the King of Portugal [John, (1481-1495)], and they paid one ducat for every soul,
and the fourth part of all the merchandise they had carried thither; and he allowed them to stay in his country six months.
This King acted much worse toward them than the King of Spain, and after the six months had elapsed he made slaves of all
those that remained in his country, and banished seven hundred children to a remote island to settle it, and all of them died.
[The children were sent to the isle of St. Thomas, off the coast of Africa.] Some say that there were double as many. Upon
them the Scriptural word was fulfilled [Deuteronomy 28:32]: “Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people,
etc”. He also ordered the congregation of Lisbon, his capital, not to raise their voice in their prayers that the Lord might not
hear their complaining about the violence that was done unto them.
Many of the exiled Spaniards went to Mohammedan countries, to Fez, Tlemçen, and the Berber provinces, under the King of
Tunis. On account of their large numbers the Moors did not allow them into their cities, and many of them died in the fields
from hunger, thirst, and lack of everything. The lions and bears, which are numerous in this country, killed some of them
while they lay starving outside of the cities. A Jew in the kingdom of Tlemçen, named Abraham, the viceroy who ruled the
kingdom, made part of them come to this kingdom, and he spent a large amount of money to help them. The Jews of
Northern Africa were very charitable toward them. A part of those who went to Northern Africa, as they found no rest and
no place that would receive them, returned to Spain, and became converts, and through them the prophecy of Jeremiah was
fulfilled [Lamentations 1:13]: “He hath spread a net for my feet, he hath turned me back.” For, originally, they had all fled for
the sake of the unity of God; only a very few had become converts throughout all the boundaries of Spain; they did not spare
their fortunes; yea, parents escaped without having regard to their children.
106
When the edict of expulsion became known in the other countries, vessels came from Genoa to the Spanish harbors to carry
away the Jews. The crews of these vessels, too, acted maliciously and meanly toward the Jews, robbed them, and delivered
some of them to the famous pirate of that time who was called the Corsair of Genoa. To those who escaped and arrived at
Genoa the people of the city showed themselves merciless, and oppressed and robbed them, and the cruelty of their wicked
hearts went so far that they took the infants from the mothers’ breasts.
Many ships with Jews, especially from Sicily, went to the city of Naples on the coast. The King of this country was friendly to
the Jews, received them all, and was merciful towards them, and he helped them with money. The Jews that were at Naples
supplied them with food as much as they could, and sent around to the other parts of Italy to collect money to sustain them.
The Marranos in this city lent them money on pledges without interest; even the Dominican Brotherhood acted mercifully
toward them. On account of their very large number, all this was not enough. Some of them died by famine, others sold their
children to Christians to sustain their life. Finally, a plague broke out among them, spread to Naples, and very many of them
died, so that the living wearied of burying the dead.
Part of the exiled Spaniards went over sea to Turkey. Some of them were thrown into the sea and drowned, but those who
arrived, there the King of Turkey received kindly, as they were artisans. He lent them money and settled many of them on an
island, and gave them fields and estates.
A few of the exiles were dispersed in the countries of Italy, in the city of Ferrara, in the [papal] countries of Romagna, the
March, and Patrimonium, and in Rome. . . .
He who said unto His world, Enough, may He also say Enough unto our sufferings, and may He look down upon our
impotence. May He turn again, and have compassion upon us, and hasten our salvation. Thus may it be Thy will!
_____________________________________________
1. What event triggered the expulsion of the Jews from Spain?

2. What does this source tell us about the nature of the Jewish community in Spain at the time of the expulsion?
3. How did the Jewish community attempt to remain in Spain?
4. How did Queen Isabella justify the expulsion of the Jews?
5. What was the fate of the Jews who were expelled from Spain?
_____________________________________________
107
Giovanni Boccaccio, Decameron
Giovanni Boccaccio (1313- 1375) was an Italian author, poet, correspondent of Petrarch, and important Renaissance humanist. Boccaccio wrote a
number of notable works, including the Decameron, from which the passages below are taken. Boccaccio began work on the Decameron around
1349, shortly after the Black Death swept through Europe. The work was largely complete by 1352. It was Boccaccio’s final effort in literature and
one of his last works in Italian. Boccaccio revised and rewrote the Decameron in 1370–1371. This manuscript has survived to the present day.
Except for a touch of civic pride, Boccaccio writes with remarkable objectivity.
Source Citation: “Boccaccio, The Decameron,” Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, accessed August 13th, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/decameronintro.asp
Thirteen hundred and forty-eight years had passed since the fruitful Incarnation of the Son of God, when there came into the
noble city of Florence, the most beautiful of all Italian cities, a deadly pestilence, which, either because of the operations of
the heavenly bodies, or because of the just wrath of God mandating punishment for our iniquitous ways, several years earlier
had originated in the Orient, where it destroyed countless lives, scarcely resting in one place before it moved to the next, and
turning westward its strength grew monstrously. No human wisdom or foresight had any value: enormous amounts of refuse
and manure were removed from the city by appointed officials, the sick were barred from entering the city, and many
instructions were given to preserve health; just as useless were the humble supplications to God given not one time but many
times in appointed processions, and all the other ways devout people called on God; despite all this, at the beginning of the
spring of that year, that horrible plague began with its dolorous effects in a most awe-inspiring manner, as I will tell you. And
it did not behave as it did in the Orient, where if blood began to rush out the nose it was a manifest sign of inevitable death;
but rather it began with swellings in the groin and armpit, in both men and women, some of which were as big as apples and
some of which were shaped like eggs, some were small and others were large; the common people called these swellings
gavoccioli. From these two parts of the body, the fatal gavoccioli would begin to spread and within a short while would
appear over the entire body in various spots; the disease at this point began to take on the qualities of a deadly sickness, and
the body would be covered with dark and livid spots, which would appear in great numbers on the arms, the thighs, and
other parts of the body; some were large and widely spaced while some were small and bunched together. And just like the
gavoccioli earlier, these were certain indications of coming death.
To cure these infirmities neither the advice of physicians nor the power of medicine appeared to have any value or profit;
perhaps either the nature of the disease did not allow for any cure or the ignorance of the physicians (whose numbers,
because men and women without any training in medicine invaded the profession, increased vastly) did not know how to
cure it; as a consequence, very few were ever cured; all died three days after the appearance of the first outward signs, some
lasted a little bit longer, some died a little bit more quickly, and some without fever or other symptoms. But what gave this
pestilence particularly severe force was that whenever the diseased mixed with healthy people, like a fire through dry grass or
oil it would rush upon the healthy. And this wasn’t the worst of the evil: for not only did it infect healthy persons who
conversed or mixed with the sick, but also touching bread or any other object which had been handled or worn by the sick
would transport the sickness from the victim to the one touching the object. It is a wondrous tale that I have to tell: if I were
not one of many people who saw it with their own eyes, I would scarcely have dared to believe it, let alone to write it down,
even if I had heard it from a completely trustworthy person. I say that the pestilence I have been describing was so
contagious, that not only did it visibly pass from one person to another, but also, whenever an animal other than a human
108
being touched anything belonging to a person who had died from the disease, I say not only did it become contaminated by
the sickness, but also died literally within the instant. Of all these things, as I have said before, my own eyes had experience
many times: once, the rags of a poor man who had just died from the disease were thrown into the public street and were
noticed by two pigs, who, following their custom, pressed their snouts into the rags, and afterwards picked them up with their
teeth, and shook them against their cheeks: and within a short time, they both began to convulse, and they both, the two of
them, fell dead on the ground next to the evil rags.
Because of all these things, and many others that were similar or even worse, diverse fears and imaginings were born in those
left alive, and all of them took recourse to the cruelest precaution: to avoid and run away from the sick and their things; by
doing this, each person believed they could preserve their health. Others were of the opinion that they should live moderately
and guard against all excess; by this means they would avoid infection. Having withdrawn, living separate from everybody
else, they settled down and locked themselves in, where no sick person or any other living person could come, they ate small
amounts of food and drank the most delicate wines and avoided all luxury, refraining from speech with outsiders, refusing
news of the dead or the sick or anything else, and diverting themselves with music or whatever else was pleasant. Others, who
disagreed with this, affirmed that drinking beer, enjoying oneself, and going around singing and ruckus-raising and satisfying
all one’s appetites whenever possible and laughing at the whole bloody thing was the best medicine; and these people put into
practice what they heartily advised to others: day and night, going from tavern to tavern, drinking without moderation or
measure, and many times going from house to house drinking up a storm and only listening to and talking about pleasing
things. These parties were easy to find because everyone behaved as if they were going to die soon, so they cared nothing
about themselves nor their belongings; as a result, most houses became common property, and any stranger passing by could
enter and use the house as if he were its master. But for all their bestial living, these people always ran away from the sick.
With so much affliction and misery, all reverence for the laws, both of God and of man, fell apart and dissolved, because the
ministers and executors of the laws were either dead or ill like everyone else, or were left with so few officials that they were
unable to do their duties; as a result, everyone was free to do whatever they pleased. Many other people steered a middle
course between these two extremes, neither restricting their diet like the first group, nor indulging so liberally in drinking and
other forms of dissolution like the second group, but simply not going beyond their needs or satisfying their appetite beyond
the necessary, and, instead of locking themselves away, these people walked about freely, holding in their hands a posy of
flowers, or fragrant herbs, or diverse exotic spices, which sometimes they pressed to their nostrils, believing it would comfort
the brain with smells of that sort because the stink of corpses, sick bodies, and medicines polluted the air all about the city.
Others held a more cruel opinion, one that in the end probably guaranteed their safety, saying that there was no better or
more effective medicine against the disease than to run away from it; convinced by this argument, and caring for no-one but
themselves, huge numbers of men and women abandoned their rightful city, their rightful homes, their relatives and their
parents and their things, and sought out the countryside, as if the wrath of God would punish the iniquities of men with this
plague based on where they happened to be, as if the wrath of God was aroused against only those who unfortunately found
themselves within the city walls, or as if the whole of the population of the city would be exterminated in its final hour.
109
_____________________________________________
1. What were the initial symptoms of the Black Death?

2. How did people believe that the Black Death was spread?
3. How did people respond to the devastation caused by the Black Death?
4. What steps did people take to avoid the Black Death?
_____________________________________________
Jean Froissart, Chronicles
Jean Froissart (c. 1337-c. 1405) was a medieval French author, who wrote several works, including Chronicles and Meliador, a long
Arthurian romance, and a large body of poetry, both short lyrical forms, as well as longer narrative poems. For centuries, Froissart’s Chronicles
been recognized as the chief expression of the chivalric revival of the 14th century Kingdom of England and France. His history is also an important
source for the first half of the Hundred Years’ War. In France, economic hardship and noble incompetence in the Hundred Years’ War provoked a
revolt of the peasants known as the “Jacquerie.” This rebellion became known as “the Jacquerie” because the nobles derided peasants as “Jacques”
or “Jacques Bonhomme” for their padded surplice called a “jacque.” Their revolutionary leader, Guillaume Cale, was referred to by Froissart as
Jacques Bonhomme (“Jack Goodfellow”) or Callet. The word jacquerie became a synonym of peasant uprisings in general in both English and
French. During the Jacquerie, French peasants expressed their anger in a bitter outburst of ferocity.
Source Citation: “Jean Froissart, On the Jacquerie, 1358,” Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, accessed August 13th, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/froissart2.asp
After the deliverance of the king of Navarre there began a marvelous tribulation in the realm of France, in Beauvoisin, in
Brie, on the river of Marne, in Laonnois, and about Soissons. For certain people of the common villages, without any head or
ruler, assembled together in Beauvoisin. In the beginning they passed not a hundred in number they said how the noblemen
of the realm of France, knights and squires, shamed the realm, and that it should be a great thing to destroy them all: and
each of them said it was true, and said all with one voice: “Shame have he that cloth not his power to destroy all the
gentlemen of the realm!”
Thus they gathered together without any other counsel, and without any armor saving with staves and knives, and so went to
the house of a knight dwelling thereby, and broke up his house and slew the knight and the lady and all his children great and
small and burned his house. And they then went to another castle, and took the knight thereof and bound him fast to a stake,
and then violated his wife and his daughter before his face and then slew the lady and his daughter and all his other children,
and then slew the knight by great torment and burnt and beat down the castle. And so they did to divers other castles and
good houses; and they multiplied so that they were a six thousand, and ever as they went forward they increased, for such like
as they were fell ever to them, so that every gentleman fled from them and took their wives and children with them, and fled
ten or twenty leagues off to be in surety, and left their house void and their goods therein.
These mischievous people thus assembled without captain or armor robbed, burned and slew all gentlemen that they could
lay hands on, and forced and ravished ladies and damsels, and did such shameful deeds that no human creature ought to
think on any of it, and he that did most mischief was most praised with them and greatest master. I dare not write the
110
horrible deeds that they did to ladies and damsels; among others they slew a knight and after did put him on a spit and
roasted him at the fire in the sight of the lady his wife and his children; and after the lady had been enforced and ravished
with a ten or twelve, they made her eat of her husband and then killed her and all her children.
They made among them a king, one of Clermont in Beauvoisin: they chose him that was the most uncouth of all other and
they called him king Jacques Goodman, and so thereby they were called companions of the Jacquerie.
They destroyed and burned in the country of Beauvoisin about Corbie, and Amiens and Montdidier more than sixty good
houses and strong castles. In like manner these unhappy people were in Brie and Artois, so that all the ladies, knights and
squires of that country were willing to fly away to Meaux in Brie, as well the duchess of Normandy and the duchess of
Orleans as divers other ladies and damsels, or else they had been violated and after murdered. Also there were certain of the
same ungracious people between Paris and Noyon and between Paris and Soissons, and all about in the land of Coucy, in the
country of Valois, in the bishopric of Laon, Nyon and Soissons. There were burned and destroyed more than a hundred
castles and good houses of knights and squires in that country.
The better people of those afflicted regions sought help from their friends in Flanders, Brabant, Hainault and Hesbaye. So
foreign gentlemen joined with those of the region, and attacked these people wherever they found them, and slew them in
heaps, or hanged them upon trees. And the rest were rounded up, for they had all assembled together, and there were more
than a hundred thousand of them. When they were asked why they did such evil deeds, they could not explain, only that they
did what they saw others do, and that they thought they could destroy all the nobles and gentlemen of the world.
_____________________________________________
1. What did those involved in the Jacquerie hope to achieve?

2. What evidence is there that the Jacquerie was an early example of a class struggle?
_____________________________________________
Joan of Arc’s Trial of Condemnation
At Compiègne in May, 1430, Joan was captured and imprisoned by the Burgundians, allies of the English king. After two failed attempts to
escape from enemy hands, Joan was turned over to Pierre Cauchon, a Burgundian and the Bishop of Beauvais. Joan spent eight months in prison
before interrogations commenced in February of that year. The trial had numerous violations in ecclesiastical court procedure. Under the guise of
charitably saving her soul Cauchon built a case against her. The trial was conducted and transcribed in French by court recorders, then
subsequently translated into Latin for the official record. This section begins with her recantation, which she later renounces.
Source Citation: W.S. Scott, The Trial of Joan of Arc (Westport, Connecticut: Associated Booksellers, 1956), 78.
111
On Thursday, May 24th, in the afternoon.
We (the judges) did repair to the place in the prison where Joan was to be found. . . .
We told her to leave off her man’s dress and to take a woman’s garments, as the Church had ordered her. In all our
observations Joan did reply that she would willingly take woman’s garments, and that in all things she would obey the
Church. Women’s garments having been offered to her, she at once dressed herself in them, after having taken off the man’s
dress she was wearing; and her hair, which up to this time had been cut “en ronde” above her ears, she desired and permitted
them to shave and take away.
Monday, May 28th, the day following Trinity Sunday.
We, the aforesaid Judges, repaired to the place of Joan’s prison, to learn the state and disposition of her soul. . .
And because Joan was dressed in the dress of a man—that is to say, a short mantle, a hood, a doublet and other effects used
by men—although, by our orders, she had, several days before consented to give up these garments, we asked her when and
for what reason she had resumed this dress.
She answered us: “I have but now resumed the dress of a man and put off woman’s dress.”
“Why did you take it, and who made you take it?”
“I took it of my own free will, and with no constraint: I prefer a man’s dress to a woman’s dress.”
“You promised and swore not to resume a man’s dress.”
“I never meant to swear that I would not resume it.”
“Why have you resumed it?”
“Because it is more lawful and suitable for me to resume it and to wear a man’s dress, being with men, than to have a
woman’s dress . . . “
And as We, the Judges, heard from several persons that she had returned to her old illusions on the subject of her pretended
revelations. We put to her this question: “Since last Thursday have you heard your voices at all?”
“Yes, I have heard them.”
“What did they say to you?”
“They said to me: ‘God had sent me word by St. Catherine and St. Margaret of the great pity it is, this treason to which I
have consented, to abjure and recant in order to save my life! I have damned myself to save my life!”
“Do you believe that your voices are St. Catherine and St. Margaret?”
112
“Yes, I believe it, and that they come from God.”
“Tell us the truth on the subject of this crown which is mentioned in your Trial.”
“In everything I told you the truth about it in my Trial, as well as I know.”
. . . After hearing this we retired from her to act and proceed later according to law and reason.
Wednesday, May 30th, towards 9 o’clock in the morning.
We, the Bishop and Vicar aforesaid, having regard to all that has gone before, in which it is shown that this woman had never
truly abandoned her errors, her obstinate temerity, nor her unheard of crimes; . . . we have at last proceeded to the Final
Sentence on these terms:
For the causes, declaring thee fallen again into your old errors, and under the sentence of excommunication which you have
formerly incurred we degree that you art a relapsed heretic, by our present sentence which, seated in tribunal, we utter and
pronounce in this writing; we denounce thee as a rotten member, and that you may vitiate others, as cast out from the unity
of the Church, separate from her Body, abandoned to the secular power, so far as concerns death and the mutilation of the
limbs, to moderate its judgment towards thee, and, if true signs of penitence should appear in thee (to permit) that the
Sacrament of Penance be administered to thee.
_____________________________________________
1. How did clothing - symbol of gender roles and obedience - play a significant part in the proceedings?
2. Why do you think Joan took back her confession and dressed in men’s clothing again?
3. What does the sentence laid down by the tribunal reveal about the Church, the political situation, etc.?
4. How do you think Joan of Arc would be treated today?
_____________________________________________
Charles Ross, The Wars of the Roses in Historical Tradition
Charles Ross (1924-1986) was Professor of Medieval History at the University of Bristol. His best-known works are his biographies of Edward
IV and Richard III in the Yale English Monarchs series. These influential books were the first modern comprehensive studies of the Yorkist
kings’ politics, retinues and landownership. The following passage, however, is taken from his The Wars of the Roses: A Concise History.
Source Citation: C. Ross, The Wars of the Roses: A Concise History (London: Thames and Hudson, 1986), 7.
What misery, what murder and what execrable plagues this famous region hath suffered by the division and dissension
of the renowned houses of Lancaster and York, my wit cannot comprehend nor my tongue declare, neither yet my
pen fully set forth. For what noble man liveth at this day, or what gentleman of any ancient stock or progeny…whose
lineage hath not been infested and plagued with this unnatural division.
113
In these words the Tudor historian and publicist, Edward Hall, writing in 1548, set forth the peculiar horror which sixteenth-
century Englishmen felt for civil strife. This revulsion sprang largely from the fears and perils of their own time: repeated
rebellions, dynastic uncertainties, religious divisions and the stresses imposed by economic and social changes. But it was also
encouraged by generations of official Tudor apologists, anxious to impress upon the fellow-countrymen how the
establishment of the Tudor dynasty had saved England from the vicious and damaging civil conflict which had wracked the
country during the quarrels between the Houses of Lancaster and York. They tended to see the whole of fifteenth-century
English history as a drama directed by God. The first Lancastrian king, Henry IV, had sinned by his unrighteousness in
deposing Richard II. Eventually his sins were visited on the third generation of his family in the person of Henry VI, who
was brought down, in a welter of blood, by the agents of divine retribution, the House of York. The Yorkists were
themselves sinful, and reached a climax of wickedness in Richard III. Divine justice intervened again, and this time the
saviour of England was Henry VII, whose marriage to Princess Elizabeth of York united the warring Houses, and made
possible the triumphant reign of their son, Henry VIII.
_____________________________________________
1. It is commonly said that history is written by the victors. How does this passage support this view?
2. History has often been used by politicians to justify an agenda. Why was it important to Henry VII and his successors
that they present themselves as the instruments of a divine plan?
_____________________________________________
Christine de Pizan, The Book of the City of Ladies
Christine de Pizan was an important and prolific writer in late 14th century and early 15th century France. Widowed at the age of twenty-five, with
three small children to support, Christine turned to writing to earn her living. She was recognized as an accomplished lyric poet and served as the
official biographer of the French king, Charles V. Between 1390 and 1429 she produced a vast corpus of works in verse and prose, whose range
shows a technical mastery of the various well-established literary genres of her day. Written in 1405, The Book of the City of Ladies is an
allegory which sets out to rewrite the history of Western civilization from the point of view of women. In this work Christine created a symbolic city
in which women are appreciated and defended. She constructed three allegorical figures – Reason, Justice, and Rectitude – in the common pattern of
literature in that era, when many books and poetry utilized stock allegorical figures to express ideas or emotions.
Source Citation: Christine de Pizan. The Book of the City of Ladies, translated by Earl Jeffrey Richards (New York: Persea
Books, 1982), 3-10.
HERE BEGINS THE BOOK OF THE CITY OF LADIES, WHOSE FIRST CHAPTER TELLS WHY AND FOR WHAT
PURPOSE THE BOOK WAS WRITTEN.
One day as I was sitting alone in my study surrounded by books on all kinds of subjects, devoting myself to literary
studies, my usual habit, my mind dwelt at length on the weighty opinions of various authors whom I had studied for a long
time. I looked up from my book, having decided to leave such subtle questions in peace and to relax by reading some light
114
poetry. With this in mind, I searched for some small book. By chance a strange volume came into my hands, not one of my
own, but one which had been given to me along with some others. When I held it open and saw from its title page that it
was by Maltheolus, I smiled, for though I had never seen it before, I had often heard that like other books it discussed
respect for women. I thought I would browse through it to amuse myself . . . Because the subject seemed to me not very
pleasant for people who do not enjoy lies, and of no use in developing virtue or manners, given its lack of integrity in dictions
and theme, and after browsing here and there and reading the end, I put it down in order to turn my attention to more
elevated and useful study. But just the sight of this book, even though it was no authority, made me wonder how it
happened that so many different men—and learned men among them—have been and are so inclined to express both in
speaking and in their treatises and writings so many wicked insults about women and their behavior. Not only one or two
and not even just this Matheolus (for this book had a bad name anyway) but, more generally, judging from the treatises of all
philosophers and poets and from all the orators—it would take too long to mention their names—it seems that they all speak
from one and the same mouth. They all concur in once conclusion: that the behavior of women is inclined to and full of
every vice. Thinking deeply about these matters, I began to examine my character and conduct as a natural woman and,
similarly, I considered other women whose company I frequently kept, princesses, great ladies, women of the middle and
lower classes, who had graciously told me of their most private and intimate thoughts, hoping that I could judge impartially
and in good conscience whether the testimony of so many notable men could be true when compared to the natural behavior
and character of women. Yet I still argued vehemently against women, saying that it would be impossible that so many
famous men—such solemn scholars, possessed of such deep and great understanding, so clear-sighted in all things, as it
seemed—could have spoken falsely on so many occasions that I could hardly find a book on morals where, even before I had
read it in its entirety, I did not find several chapters or certain sections attacking women, no matter who the author was. This
reason alone, in short, made me conclude that, although my intellect did not perceive my own great faults and, likewise, those
of other women because of its simpleness and ignorance, it was however truly fitting that such was the case. And so I relied
more on the judgment of others than on what I myself felt and knew. I was so transfixed in this line of thinking for such a
long time that it seemed as if I were in a stupor. Like a gushing fountain, a series of authorities, whom I recalled one after
another, came to mind, along with their opinions on this topic. And I finally decided that God formed a vile creature when
He made woman, and I wondered how such a worthy artisan could have deigned to make such an abominable work which,
from what they say, is the vessel as well as the refuge and abode of every evil and vice. As I was thinking this, a great
unhappiness and sadness welled up in my heart, for I detested myself and the entire feminine sex, as though we were
monstrosities in nature.
. . . [F]or a very long time in sad reflections, and in my folly I considered myself most unfortunate because God had made
me inhabit a female body in this world.
HERE CHRISTINE DESCRIBES HOW THREE LADIES APPEARED TO HER AND HOW THE ONE WHO WAS
IN FRONT SPOKE FIRST AND COMFORTED HER IN HER PAIN.
So occupied with these painful thoughts, my head bowed in shame, my eyes filled with tears, leaning on the pommel of
my chair’s armrest, I suddenly saw a ray of light fall on my lap, as though it were the sun. I shuddered then, as if wakened
from sleep, for I was sitting in a shadow where the sun could not have shone at that hour. And as I lifted my head to see
where this lights was coming from, I saw three crowned ladies standing before me, and the splendor of their bright faces
115
shone on me and throughout the entire room. . . Fearing that some phantom had come to tempt me and filled with great
fright, I made the Sign of the Cross on my forehead. Then she who was the first of the three smiled and began to speak,
“Dear daughter, do not be afraid, for we have not come here to harm or trouble you but to console you, for we have taken
pity on your distress, and we have come to bring you out of the ignorance which so blinds your own intellect that you shun
what you know for a certainty and believe what you do not know or see or recognize except by virtue of many strange
opinions. You resemble the fool in the prank who was dressed in women’s clothes while he slept; because those who are
making fun of him repeatedly told him he was a woman, he believed the false testimony more readily than the certainty of his
own identity. Fair daughter, have you lost all sense? Have you forgotten that when fine gold is tested in the furnace, it does
not change or vary in strength but becomes purer the more it is hammered and handled in different ways? Do you not know
that the best things are the most debated and the most discussed? If you wish to consider the question of the highest form
of reality, which consists in ideas or celestial substances, consider whether the greatest philosophers who have lived and
whom you support against your own sex have ever resolved whether ideas are false or contrary to the truth. Notice how
these philosophers contradict and criticize one another, just as you have seen in the Metaphysics where Aristotle takes their
opinions to task and speaks similarly of Plato and other philosophers. And note, moreover, how even Saint Augustine and
the Doctors of the Church have criticized Aristotle in certain passages, although he is known as the prince of philosophers in
whom both the natural and moral philosophy attained their highest level. It also seems that you think that all the words of
the philosophers are articles of faith, that they could never be wrong. As far as the poets of whom you speak are concerned,
do you not know that they spoke on many subjects in a fictional way and that often they mean the contrary of what their
words openly say? . . . Thus, in conclusion, I tell you, dear friend, that simplemindedness has prompted you to hold such
an opinion. Come back to yourself, recover your senses and do not trouble yourself over such absurdities. For you know
that any evil spoken of women so generally only hurts those who say it, not women themselves.
HERE CHRISTINE TELLS HOW THE LADY TOLD HER HOW SHE WOULD CONSTRUCT A CITY WITH THE
HELP OF THESE THREE LADIES.
“. . . There is another greater and even more special reason for our coming which you will learn from our speeches: in
fact, we have come to vanquish from the world the same error into which you have fallen, so that from now on, ladies and all
valiant women may have a refuge and defense against the various assailants, those ladies who have been abandoned for so
long, exposed like a field without a surrounding hedge, without finding a champion to afford them adequate defense,
notwithstanding those noble men who are required by order of law to protect them, who by negligence and apathy have
allowed them to be mistreated. It is no wonder then that their jealous enemies, those outrageous villains who have assailed
them with various weapons, have been victorious in a war in which women have had no defense. Where is there a city so
strong which could not be taken immediately if no resistance were forthcoming, or the law case, no matter how unjust, which
was not won through the obstinance of someone pleading without opposition? And the simple, noble ladies, following the
example of suffering which God commands, have cheerfully suffered the great attacks which, both in the spoken and written
word, have been wrongfully and sinfully perpetrated against women by men who all the while appealed to God for the right
to do so. Now it is time for their just cause to be taken from Pharoah’s hands and for this reason, we three ladies, whom you
see here, moved by pity, have come to you to announce a particular edifice built like a city wall, strongly constructed and well
116
founded, which has been predestined and established by our aid and counsel for you to build, where no one will reside except
all the ladies of fame and women worthy of praise, for the walls of the city will be closed to those who lack virtue.”
_____________________________________________
1. What is typically medieval in this work? How so?

2. What characteristics could be identified as Renaissance humanism? Explain.
3. What does this work reveal about late medieval/early Renaissance society?
_____________________________________________
Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469-1527) was an Italian historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist, and writer based in
Florence during the Renaissance. He was for many years an official in the Florentine Republic, with responsibilities in diplomatic and military
affairs. He was a founder of modern political science, and more specifically political ethics. His personal correspondence is renowned in the Italian
language. He was Secretary to the Second Chancery of the Republic of Florence from 1498 to 1512, when the Medici were out of power. He wrote
his masterpiece, The Prince, after the Medici had recovered power and he no longer held a position of responsibility in Florence. This short selection
from The Prince includes the dedication Machiavelli made to Lorenzo de Medici which explains his motivation for undertaking this work.
Source Citation: Niccolo Machiavelli, “The Prince,” Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, Paul Halsall, ed.,
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/Halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.asp
Dedication
To the Magnificent Lorenzo Di Piero De' Medici:
Those who strive to obtain the good graces of a prince are accustomed to come before him with such things as they hold
most precious, or in which they see him take most delight; whence one often sees horses, arms, cloth of gold, precious
stones, and similar ornaments presented to princes, worthy of their greatness.
Desiring therefore to present myself to your Magnificence with some testimony of my devotion towards you, I have not
found among my possessions anything which I hold more dear than, or value so much as, the knowledge of the actions of
great men, acquired by long experience in contemporary affairs, and a continual study of antiquity; which, having reflected
upon it with great and prolonged diligence, I now send, digested into a little volume, to your Magnificence. And although I
may consider this work unworthy of your countenance, nevertheless I trust much to your benignity [compassion] that it may
be acceptable, seeing that it is not possible for me to make a better gift than to offer you the opportunity of understanding in
the shortest time all that I have learnt in so many years, and with so many troubles and dangers; which work I have not
embellished with swelling or magnificent words, nor stuffed with rounded periods, nor with any extrinsic allurements or
117
adornments whatever, with which so many are accustomed to embellish their works; for I have wished either that no honour
should be given it, or else that the truth of the matter and the weightiness of the theme shall make it acceptable.
Nor do I hold with those who regard it as a presumption if a man of low and humble condition dare to discuss and settle
the concerns of princes; because, just as those who draw landscapes place themselves below in the plain to contemplate the
nature of the mountains and of lofty places, and in order to contemplate the plains place themselves upon high mountains,
even so to understand the nature of the people it needs to be a prince, and to understand that if princes it needs to be of the
people.
Take then, your Magnificence, this little gift in the spirit in which I send it; wherein, if it be diligently read and considered
by you, you will learn my extreme desire that you should attain that greatness which fortune and your other attributes
promise. And if your Magnificence from the summit of your greatness will sometimes turn your eyes to these lower regions,
you will see how unmeritedly [undeserved] I suffer a great and continued malignity of fortune.
Excerpt from The Prince

Chapter XV
It remains now to see what ought to be the rules of conduct for a prince towards subject and friends. And as I know that
many have written on this point, I expect I shall be considered presumptuous in mentioning it again, especially as in
discussing it I shall depart from the methods of other people. But, it being my intention to write a thing which shall be useful
to him who apprehends it, it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of the matter than the imagination of
it; for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is
so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his
ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys
him among so much that is evil.
Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not
according to necessity. Therefore, putting on one side imaginary things concerning a prince, and discussing those which are
real, I say that all men when they are spoken of, and chiefly princes for being more highly placed, are remarkable for some of
those qualities which bring them either blame or praise; and thus it is that one is reputed liberal [generous], another miserly, .
. . one cruel, one compassionate; one faithless, another faithful; one effeminate and cowardly, another bold and brave; one
affable, another haughty; one lascivious, another chaste; one sincere, another cunning; one hard, another easy; one grave,
another frivolous; one religious, another unbelieving, and the like. And I know that everyone will confess that it would be
most praiseworthy in a prince to exhibit all the above qualities that are considered good; but because they can neither be
entirely possessed nor observed, for human conditions do not permit it, it is necessary for him to be sufficiently prudent that
he may know how to avoid the reproach of those vices which would lose him his state; and also to keep himself, if it be
possible, from those which would not lose him it; but this not being possible, he may with less hesitation abandon himself to
them. And again, he need not make himself uneasy at incurring a reproach for those vices without which the state can only
be saved with difficulty, for if everything is considered carefully, it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if
followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity.
118
Chapter XVII
Coming now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every prince ought to desire to be considered merciful and
not cruel. Nevertheless, he ought to take care not to misuse this mercy. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding,
his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be
seen to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia
to be destroyed. Therefore, a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of
cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to
arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which
originate with a prince offend the individual only.
Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that
one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved,
when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful,
fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property,
life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince
who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by
payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need
cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is
preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage;
but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Nevertheless, a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can
endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his
citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must
do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others,
because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away
the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what
belongs to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse. But when a prince
is with his army, and has under control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation
of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties.
Among the wonderful deeds of Hannibal this one is enumerated: that having led an enormous army, composed of many
various races of men, to fight in foreign lands, no dissensions arose either among them or against the prince, whether in his
bad or in his good fortune. This arose from nothing else than his inhuman cruelty, which, with his boundless valour, made
him revered and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, but without that cruelty, his other virtues were not sufficient to produce
this effect. And short-sighted writers admire his deeds from one point of view and from another condemn the principal
cause of them. That it is true his other virtues would not have been sufficient for him may be proved by the case of Scipio,
that most excellent man, not only of his own times but within the memory of man, against whom, nevertheless, his army
119
rebelled in Spain; this arose from nothing but his too great forbearance [tolerance], which gave his soldiers more license than
is consistent with military discipline. For this he was upbraided in the Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the corrupter of
the Roman soldiery. . . .
Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will
and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not
in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.
_____________________________________________
1. What does the dedication reveal about Machiavelli’s motivations for writing The Prince?
2. What does Machiavelli conclude about the need for a prince to have virtues?
3. What advice does Machiavelli give about the relationship between a prince and his people?
4. Machiavelli is well known for his stated belief that “the ends justify the means.” What are the “means” that he advocates
here, and what is the “end” that justifies them?
5. How does Machiavelli’s view of royal power differ from the medieval view of royal power as envisioned by Joinville’s
Life of St. Louis?
6. Should Machiavelli be considered a humanist?
_____________________________________________
Martin Luther, Ninety-Five Theses

Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) was a German monk, Catholic priest, professor of theology and seminal figure of the 16th-century movement in
Christianity known later as the Protestant Reformation. He strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God’s punishment for sin could be
purchased with monetary values. He confronted indulgence salesman John Tetzel, a Dominican friar, with his Ninety-Five Theses. The
Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences were written by Martin Luther in 1517 and are widely regarded as the
initial catalyst for the Protestant Reformation. The disputation protests against clerical abuses, especially nepotism, simony, usury, pluralism, and
the sale of indulgences. Luther’s refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor
Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the Pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor.
Source Citation: Martin Luther, “Ninety-Five Theses”, Internet Medieval History Sourcebook, accessed August 13th, 2014,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther95.txt
1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of
repentance.
2. This word [i.e. repent] cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction,
as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward
mortification of the flesh.
120
4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the
kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the
canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by
remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt
would certainly remain unforgiven.
21. Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal
indulgences.
22. As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have
paid in this life.
24. For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from
penalty.
27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of
purgatory.
28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church
intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.
32. Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally
damned, together with their teachers.
35. They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy
confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine.
36. Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters.
39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the bounty
of indulgences and the need of true contrition.
41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good
works of love.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys
indulgences.
44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of
indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.
45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does
not buy papal indulgences but God's wrath.
52. It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to
offer his soul as security.
53. They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches
in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
121
62. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.
76. We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.
79. To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up by the indulgence preachers is equal in worth
to the cross of Christ is blasphemy.
81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the
pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of the laity.
82. Such as: "Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there
if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church? The former reason
would be most just; the latter is most trivial.
83. Again, “Why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and why does he not return or permit the
withdrawal of the endowments founded for them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”
84. Again, “What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a consideration of money they permit a man who is impious
and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, because of the need of that
pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love’s sake?”
86. Again, “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one
basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?”
87. Again, “What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect contrition already have a right to full remission and
blessings?”
88. Again, “What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope were to bestow these remissions and blessings
on every believer a hundred times a day, as he now does but once?”
89. “Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences
and pardons previously granted when they have equal efficacy?”
90. To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose
the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.
91. If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be
readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist.
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations rather than through the false security of peace
(Acts 14:22).
_____________________________________________
1. Based on reading a sampling of Luther’s ninety-five theses, what were the underlying causes of the Lutheran
Reformation? What was the spark that set this Reformation in motion?
2. To what extent were Martin Luther’s action directed against abuses within the church?
3. What did Martin Luther hope to achieve by nailing these statements to the church door of Wittenberg in 1517?
_____________________________________________
122

Sourcebook (4th Edition)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Sourcebook (4th Edition)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sourcebook (4th Edition)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

World and Europe I: Sourcebook

Primary and Secondary Sources

Harvard-Westlake Middle School

Department of History and Social Studies

Source Analysis Sheet ……………………05

Arthur Marwick, The Fundamentals of History ……………………07

Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History ……………………09

Herodotus, Histories ……………………10

Plato, Allegory of the Cave ……………………13

Plato, The Republic ...…………………16

Livy, From the Founding of the City .…………………..19

XII Tables .…………………..23

Plutarch, Life of Tiberius Gracchus .…………………..27

Julius Caesar, Gallic Wars .…………………..29

Plutarch, Life of Julius Caesar .…………………..30

Res Gestae Divi Augusti .…………………..32

Augusto Fraschetti, Roman Women .…………………..37

Slavery in Antiquity .…………………..38

Exodus 20, The Ten Commandments …………………...42

Book of Acts .…………………..43

Tacitus, Annals .…………………..44

Pliny and Trajan, Letters .…………………..45

Minucius Felix, Octavius .…………………..47

Persecutions of Diocletian and Maximinus .…………………..48

Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine .…………………..49

Edict of Milan .…………………..50

Nicene Creed .…………………..51

St Augustine, City of God .…………………..52

St. Jerome, Epistle .…………………..56

Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire . ………….………..57

Procopius of Caesarea, Secret History and History of the War .…………………..58

Charlemagne and Pope Leo III .…………………..65

Strasbourg Oaths .…………………..66

Concordat of Worms .…………………..67

Fiefs and Vassals .…………………..68

The Crusades .…………………..70

York Civic Ordinances, 1301 .…………………..76

Peter Abelard, Sic et Non .…………………..77

Geoffrey Chaucer, Canterbury Tales .…………………..78

Domesday Book .…………………..81

Alixe Bovey, Women in Medieval Society .…………………..82

Peter of Blois, Letter to Eleanor of Aquitaine .…………………..84

Constitutions of Clarendon .…………………..86

Gervase of Canterbury, History of the Archbishops of Canterbury .…………………..88

Magna Carta .…………………..89

Parliamentary Summons, 1295 .…………………..93

Jean de Joinville, Life of Saint Louis …………………...97

Clifford R. Backman, Mysticism ………………….. 99

Unam Sanctam ………….……… 101

Catherine of Siena, Letter to Pope Gregory XI ………………… .102

Expulsion of the Jews from Spain, 1492 ………………….105

Giovanni Boccaccio, Decameron ………….………108

Jean Froissart, Chronicles ………….………110

Joan of Arc’s Trial of Condemnation ………….………111

Charles Ross, The Wars of the Roses in Historical Tradition ………….………113

Christine de Pizan, The Book of the City of Ladies ………….………114

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince ………….………117

Martin Luther, Ninety-Five Theses ………….………120