- This topic has 4 voices and 7 replies.
-
Posts
-
I just finished watching a lecture which discussed the use of “trial by ordeal” (determining guilt/innocence or settling disputes through “miraculous intervention”) in the Middle Ages. At first glance I think it's identified with religious zealotry because it requires people to go through painful or dangerous activities that are seemingly unrelated to actual guilt or innocence. Examples include the “ordeal by boiling water” (reaching into a pot of boiling water to remove a stone at the bottom; after three days the person's hand is inspected to see if the hand was starting to heal or get worse), the “ordeal by cold water”, the “ordeal by cross”, etc. From the lecture I watched, it seems that trial by ordeal was adopted more as a political or folk belief than one which had significant religious support behind it. The archbishop Agobard of Lyons, for example, argued against it in the early 9th century because it was not biblical in nature and didn't have a solid theological foundation. If God protects the innocent, why would God make the innocent sink to the bottom of water and make the guilty float on top? And who is man to force God to perform miracles to settle disputes? The later suppression of trial ordeal in 1215 by the papal council further illustrates religious opposition to this.So why was it used? Because the powers that be, most importantly the Carolingians, wanted it to be used. They were the ones in charge and so they called the shots.
I agree. It became an important cultural institution even though it was thought of to have a religious or spiritual basis.
I think maybe it began as part of religious culture, then it just became about power. Maybe a reminder who was in control? A way to keep people from getting too out of control?
Yes, I think it started as a religious practice, or at least one which was spiritual. After all, the concept of trial by ordeal centers on the idea that God will show whether or not a person was innocent or guilty, or which of two parties to a disagreement is in the right. But it lost support from by the likes of the Archbishop Agobard, and more persuasively in the 13th century (I believe the Lateran Council) which put an end to the practice. The reason why it continued for all those centuries was due to the fact that it was embedded into the culture.
I agree with both of you. I think it's quite difficult to imagine how the whole society at the time was involved with religion. Religion seemed to be ruling all aspects of life: daily, political and even economic (remember the status of the Jews during that time when money was considered as impure even if necessary… although this deserves a new chapter…)
I agree with both of you. I think it's quite difficult to imagine how the whole society at the time was involved with religion. Religion seemed to be ruling all aspects of life: daily, political and even economic (remember the status of the Jews during that time when money was considered as impure even if necessary… although this deserves a new chapter…) The Jews florished during the reigns of Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, and Charles the Bald despite hostility from andcomplaints by certain bishops. Christians in many cases preferred sermons by rabbis to their priests. Market days in many communities were changed to Sunday to accomodate those who wanted to attend synagogues. Jews could own land and pagan slaves same as the Christians. More than a few nobles and clergy converted to Judaism. Paganism and Arianism had not been completely eliminated in the empire, and Roman Catholics were debating over Adoptionism and Iconoclasts vs. Iconodules. No surprise that Judaism appealed to many not sure of their Christianity.? the reign of Louis the Pious was a golden age for the Jews of his kingdom such as they had neverenjoyed, and were destined never again to enjoy inEurope. Heinrich Hirsh Graetz, History of the Jews, Volume III
I agree with both of you. I think it's quite difficult to imagine how the whole society at the time was involved with religion. Religion seemed to be ruling all aspects of life: daily, political and even economic (remember the status of the Jews during that time when money was considered as impure even if necessary… although this deserves a new chapter…) The Jews florished during the reigns of Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, and Charles the Bald despite hostility from andcomplaints by certain bishops. Christians in many cases preferred sermons by rabbis to their priests. Market days in many communities were changed to Sunday to accomodate those who wanted to attend synagogues. Jews could own land and pagan slaves same as the Christians. More than a few nobles and clergy converted to Judaism. Paganism and Arianism had not been completely eliminated in the empire, and Roman Catholics were debating over Adoptionism and Iconoclasts vs. Iconodules. No surprise that Judaism appealed to many not sure of their Christianity.? the reign of Louis the Pious was a golden age for the Jews of his kingdom such as they had neverenjoyed, and were destined never again to enjoy inEurope. Heinrich Hirsh Graetz, History of the Jews, Volume III
Yes, and … ?
I was trying to explain that Jews were more than merchants and moneylenders during the Carolingians. Does that answer your and? Perhaps my glitching the response was confusing?
