The Value of History: Values and Beliefs

By Paul F Frank Beisbier

The work that is about to be surveyed by the reader represents decades of painstaking work to provide him or her with the most positive and freshest perspective with respect to what the discipline of history teaches him or her to improve the quality of not only his or her daily life but also those of all other whom he or she comes into contact with. This task is accomplished when he or she becomes aware of the fact that the greatest possible good can only be achieved through the promotion of the adequate satisfaction of the greatest number of needs of the maximum number of people within the context of its being mutually beneficial to all parties involved. Furthermore, the reader of this volume gains the widest perspective on how the above assertion is valid for and has a positive impact on all fields of human endeavor, individual human lives, and human institutions, since the content of historical subject matter consists of nothing less than the past and present record of all the events and developments of the above entities. Thus, since everything that people learn is through past and present experiences, history teaches them everything and nothing can be perceived outside the framework of its subject matter. To present a graphic example to the reader of this volume to clearly illustrate the truth and validity of the above points, the author has used the comparison and contrast of the values, beliefs, and cultures of two very different societies in variant times and places to do so. The retrograde valuing of power and wealth placed on them by a small elite in European medieval society, resulting in limited social mobility in a primarily agrarian society, is in marked contrast to the emphasis on limited individual freedom within the framework of the rule of law as espoused by modern America. Within the latter framework, it was possible to develop a modern industrial and postindustrial community to provide individual social advancement through educational and employment opportunities as well as through the availability of quality health care. Finally, through all that has been stated above, it is worthwhile for society at large as well as the academic community to peruse through the contents of this volume in order to accomplish the above objectives.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Page Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Jul 9, 2019
• ISBN: 9781645446385

Book preview

cover.jpg

The Value of History

Values and Beliefs

Paul Frank Beisbier

Copyright © 2019 Paul Frank Beisbier

All rights reserved

First Edition

PAGE PUBLISHING, INC.

New York, NY

First originally published by Page Publishing, Inc. 2019

ISBN 978-1-64544-637-8 (Paperback)

ISBN 978-1-64544-638-5 (Digital)

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Chapter I

Chapter II

Chapter III

Chapter IV

Preface

In recent years, there has been a noted lack of interest in the study of history on the part of many people within society as a whole as well as within academic and intellectual circles. Many people have attributed this to a narrow definition of the discipline in which historical content pertains only to the past. Furthermore, as is so frequently and unfortunately the case, to many, history is only about the political and military aspects of human culture; thus, they feel that it is irrelevant and invalid to their personal lives. They feel that it should be consigned to a worthless dust heap.

The purpose of my writing this book is to prove that nothing is further from the truth than the above assumptions. In particular, I wish firstly and foremost to substantiate that a study of history leads to a significantly important conclusion. This consists of the fact that the greatest possible good is the mutual and sufficient satisfaction of the greatest number of needs of the greatest number of people. When the student of history comes to realize this, he or she will see the hope and positive meaning attached to human existence. Indeed, the very core reason and purpose for the existence of our species, as well as the record of its cultural development, is embodied in this conviction. Secondly, I wish to prove that a survey of both the conceptual features and subject matter characteristics of history clearly shows that this discipline is totally encompassing in the scope and depth of its content. The latter contains a written as well as unwritten record of the events and developments of every field of human endeavor as well as those of every personal life and human institution, both past and present. Because of this fact, the adequate and mutual satisfaction of human needs is relevant to all the features of the historical concepts and valid for all the content characteristics of history.

Finally, the author of this historiography wants to make it known that his fondest wish is that this volume be a lasting contribution to the betterment of humankind. It is hoped that the knowledge and comprehension gained about the applicable aspects of history will give the reader a fresh, positive, and constructive perspective on the subject, giving him or her the reason for mankind’s existence contained in its mission to further its well-being. This supersedes any desire for personal gain, whether it is recognition by the public at large or the community of historians. Moreover, financial gain is not the top priority in my writing this tome.

Acknowledgments

I wish to personally thank my parents, the late Andrew Beisbier and my deceased mother, Ruth Beisbier, for their generous financial and moral support toward my efforts in writing this book. The main ideas and concepts presented in this volume would not possibly have appeared without the knowledge and understanding imparted to me in my social studies methods course at the University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh, at the behest of Dr. Patricia Kohl.

Furthermore, opportunities for publication as well as motivation toward courage and persistence in pursuing this endeavor were also provided by Dr. Clarence Davis, professor emeritus of history at Marian University, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.

Chapter I

Values and Beliefs: Main Points and Medieval Notions

When one conducts a survey of the unique features of each of the concepts of history as well as their relationships to one another and their relevance to the historical subject matter characteristics, he or she becomes aware of just how powerful a tool each becomes in proving the practical value of that discipline. This can be well substantiated by examining the unique features of the historical concept of values and beliefs. The first is that the very core or foundation upon which cultures or societies have been and are being built rests upon their values and beliefs. Secondly, from the above premise, it follows that a culture’s or society’s values and beliefs determine the reasons for which, the methods by which, and the extent to which every human need has been and is being met. Thirdly, and most importantly, one realizes that the greatest possible good is the sufficient and mutual satisfaction of the greatest number of needs of the greatest number of people. Indeed, in the above statement is contained the most fundamental and basic essence of human existence and historical meaning. Without this fact, the human species is totally incapable of promoting its own well-being, much less rather its very existence. Implicit in this assertion is the balance and harmony claimed and advocated by Plato, Socrates, and Galen in nature as well as with regard to the meeting of human needs.

The validity of the above three points becomes readily apparent when comparing and contrasting the values and beliefs of European medieval society from 500 CE to 1500 CE to those of American society in the last half of the twentieth century and in the early part of the twenty-first. In the former, a system of privileges and obligations among noble lords, vassal knights, peasants, and serfs called feudalism dominated the entire community, whether it be a manor or town, and the life of every individual. The entire scheme emerged as a result of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire during the course of the Dark Ages, after 476 CE. In the absence of any effective political as well as military control of people as well as territory, it filled a vacuum left by the absence of Roman power. Like all other political and social orders before it, particularly the Roman one, this entire scheme was based on the desire of the top political leadership and nobility for wealth and power as well as on the need for security and well-being for the rest of the population, which in this case included the peasants and serfs. Similar to previous cultures and societies, there was a dichotomy between land on the one hand and power and wealth on the other. The top political leaders and nobility used the wealth and income derived from the agricultural produce and animals of the land to financially support military organizations and equipment in order to maintain their political power by controlling as much territory and people as they could. Feudalism was particularly adept at functioning in the hostile, barbarous, and anarchic environment of the so-called Dark Ages. Thus, it became predominant not only in Western Europe but also in the Eastern Roman Empire, which later became the Byzantine Empire. That it functioned well there can be attested to by the fact that this regime lasted until the Turkish sacked Constantinople in 1453.

Within the context of this political and social arrangement, knights swore oaths of loyalty to God and to members of an agricultural and landowning nobility, whose role as in antiquity was based on military and political leadership and whose power and wealth were based on the association between the free man and the warrior. The aristocracy was perceived as a social warrior class. Vassals and administrators swore allegiance and provided military and civil services to sovereigns and lords for either or both land and sustenance. Out of this concept emerged a common aristocratic culture that was respected and adhered to by most members of this social group, from emperors and kings all the way down to landless vassals. The latter, who received a better sustenance, and the landed vassals, who received a parcel that supported themselves and their families as well, shared a love of cultivation of the martial arts, such as swordsmanship and riding, appreciation of poetry and music, hunting, chess, and a command of a changing code of fashion and etiquette with the top political leaders and highest nobility. This culture evolved over a millennium and came to include the commercial classes in its ranks toward the end.

The Middle Ages can be roughly divided into three periods. The first, called the early medieval period, lasting from 500 CE to the middle 1200s CE, was characterized by the establishment of a new political stability, a new economic order and intellectual life all based on the rise of feudalism, the need to quell barbarism, leading to constant warfare and the growing power and control of the Roman Catholic Church. The second, called the High Middle Ages, from the 1000s CE to the early 1300s CE, saw new developments in urban life and secular culture, with an accommodating decline in monasticism. The third and last, called the late Middle Ages, from the early 1300s to the late 1400s, commenced with catastrophes such as the Black Death Plague of 1347–1350 and witnessed advances in military technology. These two developments undermined the power relationships and traditional structures of the feudal system, weakening them to the point that they could not cope with a substantially changed environment, which in turn produced an ongoing series of social and religious crises. Thus, the medieval millennium was not characterized by total benightedness and stagnation, as some classical historians have portrayed it.

Just as there was some social and cultural progress against the backdrop of a situation otherwise characterized by almost-total scleroticism, so, too, the hard-and-fast rule that all commoners were hopelessly and helplessly bound to an inferior social status due to its hereditary nature as well as the oath taken by them to perform farming tasks for an inferior remuneration was not always the case. The revenue administrators of kings, emperors, and dukes, chiefly clerks who made sure that their sovereigns and lords received their generous dues, hailed from humble stock for the most part. Thus, there were always ways of getting around the rules of a system that was for the most part quite rigid and unyielding. Even in some instances, there were wealthy commoners whose net worth was more than the poorest landed vassal. However, in an aristocracy that was entirely based on heredity from the very top, starting with emperors and kings, all the way down to landless vassals, and whose ancestors primarily came from Germanic barbarians who had plundered the Western Roman Empire, there was a high degree of stratification as far as income was concerned. For instance, in thirteenth century CE England, the wealthiest aristocrat might have had an income of approximately five thousand British pounds in 1999 currency, five hundred times that of the poorest noble.1 Moreover, that opportunities for commoners of lower social rank to enter the aristocracy were severely limited can be well attested to by the fact that as late as the High Middle Ages, the latter group constituted only about 1 percent of the total population.2 In spite of their small numbers, this class dominated the institution of feudalism, serving as the framework of medieval law and government. In so doing, its power and influence far exceeded its numbers. That the above was the case can be significantly substantiated when taking into consideration that commoners, whose function constituted providing the agricultural labor necessary to maintain the military machine that provided all the power and wealth to the sovereigns and nobility for inferior sustenance in exchange, consisted of over nine-tenths of the population at approximately 98 percent.3 Aside from the fact that traditional historians have exaggerated the misery, poverty, immobility, and hopelessness of this social class caused by the desire of kings, emperors, and lords to amass as much power and wealth for themselves as possible, and also because they did not value the dignity, worth, and well-being of the individual commoner due to his or her little perceived value in obtaining that power and wealth, most lived a daily lifestyle and experienced a standard of living that were markedly inferior to that of the nobility.

Due to the power and influence of both the Roman Catholic Church in the West and the Byzantine Orthodox Church in the East, whose hierarchy was largely made up of men from the royalty and nobility of Europe, most clergy enjoyed a sustenance and standard of living comparable to those of kings, emperors, and lords. Like the secular upper classes, their social clout also far exceeded their proportion of the total population, standing only at 1 percent also.4 Furthermore, as was the case with the secular nobility, power and wealth were more valued than the well-being of ordinary people, resulting in not only very little real and substantial charity for the poor but also religious education of such low quality that even many priests did not know the ultimate theological meaning of many church doctrines. Thus, temporal power and wealth were substantially more valued by both secular and religious hierarchies than was the mutual and adequate satisfaction of the majority of commoners, including peasants and serfs. What’s more, serfs were virtually enslaved to the point where they had to ask permission if they wanted to leave the manor where they were employed. In spite of this, however, only the rights to their services could be bought and sold. They themselves were not the personal property of someone else, as was the case with slavery later on. It was not considered ethical for one Christian to own another. Moreover, aside from the shortcomings of institutionalized religion at this time, a clerical vocation was one of only a very few avenues one could travel out of the poverty and hopelessness of the ordinary person.

As far as the legal rights of the king, emperor, and baron were concerned, they were accorded better representation in court than that of the ordinary citizen. Commoners were protected by the discretion of sovereigns and aristocrats as well as by the judgments of juries, and it was a rare instance where the overbearing nature of the sovereign gained the upper hand. The same may be said of the ecclesiastical courts of both the Roman Catholic Church as well as those of the Byzantine Eastern Orthodox Church. Here, in spite of the fact that members of the church hierarchy would get a fairer shake than the ordinary member of the flock, the rules with regard to matters such as divorce, marriage, adultery, and fornication were strictly adhered to, to a fairly significant extent, regardless of what class the defendant came from or position he or she held in the church.

From what has been said about the culture of medieval society above, one can come to the conclusion that a small elite consisting of kings, emperors, lords, and religious hierarchs had as its main concern and ambition the acquisition and retention of as much wealth and power as possible. Since most commoners were not very useful or contributory toward this endeavor, they were marginalized, and consequently, there was very little concern on the part of the upper classes for their well-being. There was no substantial middle class that represented the interests and well-being of the ordinary person as there has been in contemporary America. In that society, as will later be seen, individual freedom and opportunity in the quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were, and still are, the most treasured things in life among the greatest segment of society. As a consequence of an absence of middle-class institutions as well as the lack of modern technology that would manufacture and deliver many everyday amenities and services, many of the needs of many medieval commoners were not sufficiently and mutually satisfied.

Chapter II

Medieval Needs Satisfaction

That this was the case can be verified when examining the events and developments associated with their nutritional needs. The ruling oligarchy was concerned about the nutritional needs satisfaction of their own class as well as that of the lower classes only to the extent that it would provide them with a sumptuous life, and the latter with just barely a sufficient amount of food, in order for them to acquire and maintain the maximum amount of power and wealth. Furthermore, there was neither any incentive for the sovereigns and nobility nor the existence of a self-serving middle class to give rise to a technology that would result in the preparing, preservation, marketing, and transport of a food supply that was comparable in quantity and quality to what American society in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century had and does have. Aside from the possibility of foods such as meats, vegetables, and fruits to be salted, dehydrated, and frozen in winter, as well as the availability of a fairly good variety of foods from vendors and short distances, commodities from the New World and Asia such as tomatoes, potatoes, cassava, rice, and pasta were not yet obtainable due to the lack of desire on the part of a significant merchant class to explore these areas. Thus, the reasons for which, the methods by which, and the extent to which nutritional needs were met throughout medieval society reflected the core values of the ruling classes throughout the Middle Ages, and it was demonstrated that the state of affairs with regard to this matter did not result in the mutual and adequate satisfaction of the greatest number of needs of the greatest number of people nowhere nearly to the extent that it did in American society later on. That this was the case can clearly be demonstrated by the following: Both economic strictures in terms of income level and social restrictions in terms of social class led to the availability of all food categories on a regular basis to the sovereigns and nobility alone. However, many types of nourishment could be obtained by commoners most of the time. The medieval diet for the ordinary person was not restricted to just roast meats and gruel. Despite this, the food supply was erratic, subject to the restriction of medieval technology and the whims of seasonal weather. As a result, food production per capita and per acre was only one-tenth of modern rates.5 These factors affected the diets of all social classes.

The advantages of the economic as well as the social statuses of the sovereigns and nobility mitigated the effects of the above factors. They generally could afford to purchase fresh meat year-round and definitely had a preference for wild game. Aside from the usual staple of beef, mutton, pork, and chicken, they devoured boar, stag, deer, hare, rabbit, and bear as well as ducks, geese, pheasants, partridges, pigeons, bitterns, swans, cranes, spoonbills, eagles, curlews, and European bustards—in short, anything money could buy. As a result, their diets were far less healthy than those of the average commoner due to the high fat content in them. The imbalance in their diet due to deficiencies in grains, legumes, and vegetables compounded this problem, but this was offset by an abundance of freshwater and saltwater fish as well as shellfish. Again, bread made of refined wheat flour as well as food seasoned with costly Near Eastern and Asian spices made the aristocratic diets unhealthier than were those of commoners due not only to a high fat content in them but also a notable lack of fiber, vitamin A, and vitamin C in them. Even so, vegetables such as lettuce, spinach, beans, peas, onions, turnips, carrots, cabbages, and parsnips, as well as fruits such as peaches, grapes, plums, apples, pears, strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, apricots, cherries, oranges, and lemons, were occasionally included in the royal and aristocratic diets. Within this context, like that of the ordinary person, the sovereign and aristocrat had two meals a day, namely breakfast in the morning and dinner in the evening. For the early repast, the upper-class man or upper-class woman had a breakfast of plentiful bread, ale, or cider, a cold slice of meat, cheese, and wine. Everyday dinners were of two or three courses, which included fruits, cheeses, nuts, wafers, spiced wine, cooked meats, pastries, and vegetables. To top off their dinners, the privileged few had cheeses, cakes, cookies, waffles, and jellies for dessert. Most of the populace did not have such delights on a regular basis to grace their palates. Another feature that distinguished aristocratic dining from the common or ordinary variety was the feast with the accommodating aristocratic food features of spices and game meat. Held in the luxurious great hall of the manor castle, this culinary event was part of elaborate ceremonies held to mark significant personal and political events or simply to demonstrate and reinforce hierarchical status and bonds with their subordinates, peers, and superiors. Potpies of different meats and cheeses as well as beverages such as ale, beer, rose water, and spiced wines were also featured at these banquets. Accompanying these functions was a code of ethics that included seating arrangements; the placement of salt cellars; having clean fingernails; washing hands clean; chewing with the mouth closed; handling a piece of food only if it was to be eaten; no gorging; no picking of teeth, fingernails, or noses; no drunkenness; and turning away if sneezing or coughing. This feature dispels an image of medieval society as being unrefined, benighted, and crude.

As has been mentioned before, another misconception of medieval society was that the commoner lived a life that was filled for the majority his or her time on this earth with almost complete misery, privation, and poverty. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the nutritional ingredients mentioned above that were readily available to the aristocracy were also, for the most part, attainable to the general population also. Fruits, both fresh and preserved, vegetables of all kinds, eggs, cheese, nuts, butter, wine, verjuice, poultry, fish, herbs, livestock, grain breads, and legumes filled the tables of most common households, both at breakfast and at dinner. Because of this, ordinary diets were healthier and more balanced than those of sovereigns, aristocrats, and even contemporary Americans. They consisted of large portions of carbohydrates on a daily basis from grains either boiled whole in soups or stews or ground into flour for bread. Besides, plain wheat, oats, barley, and spelt were consumed by ordinary people. Unrefined flour made for a higher nutritional content. Legumes such as beans, peas, and lentils also occupied a major portion of the common diet. These proteins were supplemented by eggs and dairy products. With freshwater and saltwater fish being included in some areas, meat was relatively rare even in inland regions. Poultry was the most common type, and red meat was the rarest element in the commoner’s nutritional regimen except in areas ill-suited to raising grain. To round out the ordinary diet, garden fruits and vegetables were consumed. For flavoring, salt, onions, garlic, and mustard were employed to liven up daily menus. To wash down meals, since water supplies were both unreliable and unsafe, consumption of alcoholic beverages in moderate amounts was commonplace, with beer, ale, and wine being the most ordinary. Thus, aside from the quantity and frequency of availability, virtually all the above dietary items were just as much a part of the commoner’s diet as well as that of the oligarchy’s, with the exceptions of spices and game meats. Finally, the peasant’s diet rated good even by modern standards, even much better than that of the aristocracy.

The situation with regard to clothing needs throughout the Middle Ages was very similar. Wardrobes, like diets, had many common features among all social classes, but there were distinctions and differences between oligarchs and commoners in fashion and style as well as availability and quality of clothing that were even enforced by fashion laws and fashion police. Here again, the values and beliefs of the upper classes with regard to wealth and power prevailed over concern and consideration by them for the well-being of the general population, leading to a somewhat less-luxurious and comfortable life for commoners that was not as hopeless and as miserable as has previously been presented. Throughout most of the period, garments were made of linen from flax or sheep’s wool for inner clothing because of its softness and ability to soak up sweat and oils as well as its ease of being cleaned, properties that made it both comfortable and serviceable to be worn against the skin. Because wool resisted water, retained body heat better, kept out the external cold more efficiently, and held dye better, it was frequently the fabric of choice for outer garments. Within this context, men’s and women’s clothing differed markedly. The former wore linen breeches similar to modern pajama trousers with no elastic at the waist to hold them up. A leather belt or shoelace-like string held them up. The next item of men’s apparel consisted of a pair of hose, namely two long stockings of woolen cloth covering both legs entirely. To cover his torso, a man would wear a linen shirt going down to the thighs or knees. Finally, a tunic made of wool covered all the aforementioned garments. For women, undergarments usually consisted of a linen breastband around the torso comparable to a modern bra and a linen shirt that was longer than a man’s. These were accompanied by shorter hose fastened in place with a lace or a buckled leather garter. A woman’s tunic was longer more frequently, reaching to the ankles or feet, and might have triangular tapering the full length of the garment or gores instead of gussets, which were triangular inserts in the seam from hem to crotch. Rounding out the wardrobe of both sexes were overtunics, allowing not only for a fashionable look but also worn for extra warmth, footwear such as leather shoes and low boots and headgear. The latter differed in style between men and women in that the masculine sector of the population wore a coif, a linen bonnet that covered the hair and tied underneath the chin, and in that, the latter frequently covered their heads with a simple linen head wrap, usually consisting of a long rectangle of fabric, either tucked into itself or secured in place with a band wrapped twice around the head. Women of higher status wore veils, oval or rectangular pieces of fabric that lay atop their hair. This was secured in place with a fillet, also consisting of fabric, either worn on top of the veil or, more frequently, as an anchor underneath to which the veil could be pinned. Finally, in the late twelfth century, the wimple accommodated the other pieces of women’s clothing. This item consisted of a large piece of fabric that was draped underneath the chin covering the front of the neck and being secured with pins to the fillet.

Within the framework of the common features and styles in clothing mentioned above among the social classes, there were distinctions between the sovereigns and aristocrats on the one hand and commoners on the other in what each wore for modesty and comfort. Headgear was the most significant mark of social distinction during the course of the Middle Ages. Working men of common extraction usually wore the coif alluded to above. This head covering kept the head warm and clean. Moreover, ordinary men put on straw hats when doing agricultural work in the summer and occasionally wore hoods made of either wool or leather. Men of more aristocratic bearing donned a variety of caps and hats made of cloth or felt or, possibly, knitted. In addition, common women frequently wore a simple head wrap referred to above, while ladies of higher social status donned the more extravagant garb. Within this framework, the rest of the clothing of the wealthy differed from that of commoners in material, detailing, decoration, and cut. For everyday wear, oligarchs wore wool or linen like ordinary people, but higher quality versions of both types of material. They also could afford to purchase silk and decorated the edges of their clothing with furs like ermine, sable, and various kinds of squirrel. The cloths of the ruling oligarchy were also more brightly colored with superior dyes and re-dyed as they faded. Young aristocrats of the Middle Ages encouraged a fashion for parti-color outfits, with each side of either the tunic or the hose consisting of different-colored cloth. Clothes of the aristocracy were also cut differently from those of ordinary people during the medieval period to conform to the latest fashions that only they could afford to wear and that only they were permitted to wear according to the fashion laws that were enforced by fashion police. This was the situation in a society that was so immobile that in some places in the mid-eleventh century, serfs still constituted 90 percent of the population, and 45 percent by the early fourteenth century.6 Through lacing up the back of their tunics, aristocratic women in the twelfth century wore tight-fitting garments around their torso. Furthermore, tunic cuffs were suddenly flared at the wrist, and young German men of the late twelfth century wore tunics that had their bottom edges cut into long strips. Moreover, embroidery embellished many royal and aristocratic garments. Finally, rings, brooches, decorative belts, and gloves accompanied the abovementioned garments to embellish them.

With regard to sanitation and health-care needs, the quality as well as quantity of water for cleanliness as well as medical services, prescription drugs, and facilities during the Middle Ages were both woefully insufficient and not mutually satisfying for the same reasons mentioned above. Not only were there class differences with regard to who got the best sanitary conditions to live in and who got the best medical care, but with respect to hygiene, life in general was more unpleasant due to body odors, dirt, filth, and disease caused by an inadequate supply of hot water to all social classes. Compared to daily baths and showers in contemporary America, even wealthy aristocrats and sovereigns bathed far less frequently, and monasteries allowed their residents only two or three baths a year.7 Also, the half-barreled wooden tubs that the upper classes used, as well as the necessity of having someone constantly pour hot water over the bather, were far less convenient and reliable than today’s tubs and shower stalls. On the other hand, due to a greater concern for power and wealth than for people among the upper crust of society, the common people lacked these facilities and bathed far less frequently than their peers, refreshing outside in good weather only. However, within this framework, people of all social stations engaged in partial washing more frequently, cleaning their faces and hands on a daily basis, especially before and after meals. Even hair was washed using a lye solution. As far as oral hygiene was concerned, green hazel twigs and woolen cloths were used in the absence and availability of dental floss and toothpaste. In such matters as shaving, because mirrors were of markedly inferior quality and reliability in comparison to what they are today, and because razors and shaving cream were not readily available commercially, even the wealthier and more powerful members of society had to rely on the services of a professional barber, who would render them only once a week. In contrast to this, any man in contemporary America who wants to shave can do so at home on a daily basis thanks to the ingenuity of a King Camp Gillette, who introduced such a convenience to the general public in the nineteenth century. Toilet facilities for everyone, from the king or emperor to the lowest serf, were also markedly inferior to what even the poorest and most ordinary American of today enjoys. Without indoor plumbing and running water, there were no flush toilets. The closest thing to a contemporary commode was a latrine built over a water conduit in many monasteries and in a few of the best appointed castles. For the commoner, the usual facility was an outhouse built over a cesspit. To clean their rectums, people used a clump of hay, grass, or straw instead of the comfortable and sanitary roll of toilet paper that everyone is familiar with today. Finally, from the most luxurious manor homes and castles to the humblest peasant huts, cats were used to dispose of vermin of all sorts who were constantly present. In spite of this and all that has been mentioned above with regard to personal and public hygiene, disease spread rapidly in an unchecked manner as the Black Death Plague of 1347–1349. Medical theory as well as medical technology and practice were light-years away from what they were and are in late-twentieth- and early-twenty-first-century America.

However, the historical record with regard to hygiene has been distorted in a manner similar to the way all other aspects of medieval daily life have been portrayed. As Paul B. Newman has stated, it wasn’t just one long wallow in a pig sty from the fall of Rome until the Rensissance.8 In fact, this author claims that throughout the Middle Ages, Europe’s population grew steadily up to the time of the Black Death Plague. With this as well as the fact that urban populations exploded up until this time, one can come to the conclusion that fairly effective sanitation systems were in place in an era traditionally presented as benighted, regressive, and sclerotic. During the medieval period, the Roman system upon which the contemporary water and sanitation systems were based continued to be used and expanded. Hence, fresh water for bathing and washing was brought in via the ancient and newly built aqueducts and human waste was handled and removed through a system of latrines that emptied into shafts through which waste flowed into a cesspit or into the nearest river, to be carried downstream. These types of facilities served not only monasteries but also many palaces and castles. However, as has been mentioned before, many commoners had no accessibility to such amenities, having recourse only to water buckets, tubs, waterskins, and public fountains for fresh water and only the outhouse for waste disposal. Not until the nineteenth century, with the introduction of indoor plumbing, did this system significantly improve. As was the case with the countryside, the systems by which fresh water was supplied and waste removed from medieval cities reflected careful thought and creativity in applying the contemporary technology to these problems but were woefully inadequate and not very mutually satisfying by modern standards. As a consequence of streams and rivers becoming more contaminated with wastewater pollution, fresh springs and new wells either supplemented or entirely replaced the older aquatic sources. Huge casks of spring water were brought in, or fresh water was brought in through newly constructed or old Roman water mains. Water pipe systems resembled modern ones, except that the pipes were made of lead or elm wood and the water pressure was much lower. Thus, the spring or well had to be at a higher level than the conveyance system. In light of the fact that low water pressure, limited amounts of water in the pipes, growing demand for fresh water due to population growth, and excessive drainage of water by those living closest to the water supply all contributed to an acutely inadequate water supply, the need for sufficient and mutually met hygiene went largely unsatisfied during the Middle Ages. This was brought about also by a lack of interest on the part of the ruling oligarchy to develop a technology capable enough to sufficiently and mutually satisfy this need.

As far as public sanitation was concerned, unlike as is classically portrayed, frequently occurring conditions such as open sewers existing in streets and gutters and the throwing of garbage out the window were not tolerated, and actions by citizens and their governments were taken routinely and often to prevent or abate their reoccurrence. But vigorous programs to combat deplorable sanitary conditions as well as self-help in maintaining one’s own individual wellness were not taken until the nineteenth century. An example of enforcement and encouragement of human waste pollution abatement during the Middle Ages was the action taken by London municipal officials in the early fourteenth century to tear down latrines emptying into the Walbrook. After the latrines and contamination problem returned, the city fathers agreed that latrines adjoining the Walbrook could dump human waste as long as no other kinds of contamination were unloaded and that an annual fee was paid by the household involved to cover the cost of keeping that stream clean and flowing. For those who lived farther away from streams and rivers, enforcement and encouragement of the use of cesspits were promoted in London to try to stop resident from throwing their bodily wastes from their chamber pots out the window or into the gutter. Not only were fines levied against those engaging in such practices, but also, filled cesspits were dug up and cleaned and public latrines were also cleaned at night to lessen inconvenience to passersby during the hours that these facilities were least used. Further evidence of civic pride and decency was to be found in the fact that as early as 1189, the city of London specified that cesspits had to be built at least five and a half feet inside the property line.9 Public toilets not only served the purpose of providing a convenient place for both nearby residents and passersby to defecate and urinate but also to keep streets safely sanitary and clean. The task of maintaining public toilets was valued in order to protect the public interest, as is evidenced by the inclusion in the wills of city dwellers for funds to be used to repair old ones and to build new ones. In outer, to keep city streets clean, municipalities levied fines to those with huge refuse piles in front of their doors and employed manual laborers to remove unsanitary garbage from urban thoroughfares. To further the cause of public health and sanitation, municipalities during the Middle Ages also protected harbor areas from pollution by garbage waste such as Marseilles, France, had done; regulated the dumping of caustic chemicals and wastes involved in preparing the meats of cattle, poultry, and fish; zoned certain parts of town to prevent the happening of these activities there; supervised the inspection and sale of foodstuffs to prohibit unfair pricing and food poisoning; and hired physicians acting primarily as licensing officials who verified the qualifications of persons seeking to practice medicine in the city. Finally, it may be said that the above facts with regard to medieval health and sanitation dispel the misconception that attitudes toward both matters were totally hostile and benighted. As a consequence of actions taken toward the achievement of both, populations in Europe grew at a steady rate up the time of the Bubonic contagion of 1347–1349, reaching levels that weren’t seen again in many parts until the eighteenth century.

That the state of affairs with regard to health and medical needs in the Middle Ages was in a pathetic state, being characterized by total backwardness and stagnation, can be proven false by the following evidence. Contrary to the popular image of medieval medicine being filled with quack doctors applying leeches to hapless patients, plagues spreading unchecked across Europe, and peasants resorting to home-brewed concoctions and appealing to magic and the divine, there was some progress and innovation in these field during this millennium. However, due to imbalanced diets, poor sanitation, infrequent bathing, and the general hardship of life, many diseases flourished. Lack of fresh fruit and vegetables resulted in scurvy. Inadequate sanitation led to the proliferation of contagion as well as fostering vermin that carried disease. Furthermore, the hard physical work required of both urban and rural workers resulted greatly to arthritis. One consequence of a lack of bathing was the spread of skin disease. In contrast to the treatment of today’s AIDS patients, who are cared for in comfortable hospices in their last months and given remission-reducing drugs beforehand, lepers in medieval times were social outcasts in constant flight or pilgrimage. Moreover, due to the lack of modern antibiotics, vaccines, and chemical blood tests, pathogens such as dysentery, influenza, diphtheria, typhoid, pneumonia, and smallpox were also rampant, and many other diseases were classified under the general description of being leprosy. The entire philosophy upon which both technology and practice were applied was based on that of Hippocrates as well as that of some Roman experts and the ancient Greek physiologist Galen, who believed that the body was composed of four humors, namely choler, phlegm, melancholy, and blood. Unfortunately, scholars and medical students of the time thought it was their duty to interpret and reconcile these ancient authorities rather than to test their theories against observed realities. As a consequence, the theories they expounded on topics such as anatomy, circulation, disease theory, and the medicinal uses of herbs remained standards for centuries. The four humors that Galen referred to corresponded to the four elements that all matter was believed to have been made of. According to Galenic medicine, all sickness was caused by an imbalance among these humors and all maladies could be cured by redressing this imbalance. In addition, astrological influences were also invoked and included into an intricate system of correspondences among the elements, zodiacal signs, planets, humors, and body parts. Medieval scholars produced a significant body of medical literature detailing ailments, symptoms, and cures according to the system, making the course of study to become a physician long and demanding. Diseases were also attributable to certain spiritual and magical causes, such as the visitation of sicknesses being due to a punishment from God, victimization of the innocent by Satan, or formation of certain miasmas or clouds of vapor in the atmosphere. Thus, even though the whole theory behind curing illness and healing injury was both false and ineffective, the efforts to understand these two human afflictions in the absence of employing the tenets of germ theory as espoused by Louis Pasteur in nineteenth-century France and modern medical technology in the form of blood tests, vaccines, and surgery indicate that the state of medical healing in the medieval period was far from the hopeless, benighted, and barbaric state that it has traditionally been portrayed to be. Added to this body of medical theory were the exposés by Arab scholars as well as Christians and Jews living in the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain who gave Europeans of both the West and the East not only a refreshing body of knowledge and understanding about ancient medical theories but also new insights gained from their observations, studies, and experiences. However, even this additional information was expressed in terms of humoral hypotheses and emphasized bleeding and cauterization as standard treatments for ailments sand injuries.

That the above assertion is true can be substantiated by the fact that the physician during the Middle Ages was a highly educated and well-respected figure in the community. Furthermore, among the upper classes in particular, physicians, whose principal duties it was to perform diagnoses and recommend prescriptions, as well as apothecaries, who functioned as medieval pharmacologists, and surgeons, who performed operations, were readily available to them. Even though they learned the duties of their professions by trade instead of through a university education, apothecaries and surgeons were still fairly well esteemed by the communities that they served and most were literate. On the other hand, no anesthesia or modern surgical procedures were available, and simple surgical instruments such as scissors, speculum, razor, scalpel, needle, and lance were used instead. Moreover, only a minute number of medical students could watch dissections. To make matters worse, the most influential institution of society, namely the church, outlawed surgery in the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Another group of healers consisting of the largest group of providers in medieval Europe and available to both oligarchs and ordinary people were the so-called empirics, who allegedly derived their cures from experience. On the contrary, they seem to have depended on home remedies, incantations, or prayers. Consisting of women as well as men, the former almost exclusively practiced gynecology and obstetric as well as general practice and surgery as their male counterparts did. The range of healers accessible to all social classes in the Middle Ages also included monks and nuns as well two groups accessible only to their aristocratic families and acquaintances, namely daughters of physicians trained by their fathers and noble women who received some formal education. Unfortunately, most commoners did not have access to the expensive services of a physician, surgeon, or apothecary. For them, surgical procedures might be performed by the local barber instead, and for curing diseases, most common folk relied on the services of a practitioner of folk medicine who, in some cases, was no more than a neighbor or family member. Moreover, some folk remedies were largely based on superstition. In the field of dentistry, surgeons carried out the duties and responsibilities of the modern dental hygienist or dentist for sovereigns and aristocrats, but for ordinary people, the local barber or an attendant at a booth in a fair or market was the only recourse. Peasant and serfs in particular pulled their own teeth. Finally, instead of having modern drills, ultrasonic cleaning devices, and anesthesia found in modern dental offices, medieval dental tools included scrapers, forceps, rasps, saws, spat mina, scalpels, and sales.

With respect to diagnostic techniques, blood and urine were regularly examined to determine which malady the patient was suffering from. However, the technology that we are familiar with today for obtaining meaningful information from these bodily fluids was not developed until the nineteenth century. Thus, instead of analyzing blood to determine its composition, its relative levels of antibodies, and other information germane to assessing a patient’s health, the medieval physician simply inspected the smell, warmth, texture, and even the taste as well as the strength of blood flow and blood-clotting strength afterward in an attempt to discern imbalances in the patient’s humors or presence of impurities in the blood. With regard to examining the urine, color was the chief indicator, along with texture, odor, and any sediment, in determining any unhealthy humoral imbalance and its nature in the patient’s system. Also, some medieval doctors, like their modern counterparts, examined stool or observed the strength and rapidity of the patient’s pulse to determine the type of contagion. However, some urological analyses relevant to what a modern physician would make today were made, such as attributing reddish discolorations to internal bleeding and the appearance of a gritty precipitate in the urine to kidney stones. But contrary to the objective and realistic diagnostic techniques of today, other physicians in the Middle Ages relied on astrological calendars and charts.

With respect to medical treatments, diet was an important part of the physician’s arsenal in combating disease. A case in point is when medieval physicians recommended foods that had moderately dry and warm qualities, such as dill and the meat of roosters, in order to restore the humoral balance, so that colic and cither gastronomic problems could be alleviated. This they did within the framework of charts and matrices of the humoral qualities of certain foods and which recommended applications without any meaningful explanations. Dating back to the apogee of the Roman Empire, bleeding was a technique that was employed by medieval practitioners to make possible the substitution of old harmful blood by a new, healthier variety that would more effectively maintain the humoral balance in the body. A small hole was drilled in a vein, and then some of the patient’s blood was drained off. Another technique applied during the Middle Ages was cauterization by the use of a hot iron to burn out the impurities from a patient’s blood supply and circulatory system that would result in humoral imbalance. In spite of this attempt to heal maladies such as headaches, pain in the joints, and respiratory ailments, it was a far cry from the chemical agents and lasers used today to burn out diseased and damaged tissue and then to sear the wound shut. To give a clear example that proves the fact that medieval medical technology was not as benighted and unsophisticated as has often been portrayed, during the course of the medieval era, surgeries were performed cutting gallstones, removing cataracts, removing nasal polyps, excising hemorrhoids, restoring dislocated shoulders and jaws to their proper place, cleaning, stitching, and bandaging up wounds, treating hernias, amputating severely damaged limbs, and setting broken bones. These procedures were practiced despite the fact that there were no blood transfusions or anesthesia and in spite of the primitiveness and crudeness of the surgical instruments described above that were used in medieval times. Thanks again to the lack of substantial concern on the part of the medieval ruling elite for the well-being of the commoner classes and the lack of a middle class to develop a better medical technology, most people in medieval society did not have their health and medical needs met in a sufficient and mutual manner.

As far as medieval pharmacology was concerned, even though it contained a wide variety of medicine to cure both illnesses and diseases, it contained none of the sedative drugs such as aspirin or any of the malady-fighting sulfa drugs that were developed in the course of the twentieth century, much less cancer- and AIDS-fighting drugs developed later on. However, based on the pharmacology of ancient Greece and Rome, many of the herbs, minerals, and other substances used to create medicinal compounds employed in conjunction with diet, bleeding, or cautery were seldom successful and, in some cases, harmful to the patient despite the fact that physicians, surgeons, and apothecaries or empirics tried to the best of their ability to make these ingredients into medicines to cure every human malady. This medieval pharmacopeia included herbs and other vegetable-based ingredients such as rosemary, sage, marjoram, mint, dill, as well as cumin, cardamom, ginger cloves, oils made from certain plants or their seeds, rhubarb, and lettuce. Nonvegetable elements of medieval pharmacological medicine included pig dung, raven droppings, animal teeth, animal fat, animal grease, as well as gold, powdered gem stones, and Egyptian mummy powder.

During the course of the Middle Ages, mental illness was looked upon as either stemming from physical conditions or from supernatural causes. If physical causes were thought to be the reasons for this affliction, a physician utilized humoral theory and treated the patient to restore him or her to a healthy mental and physical balance. For instance, since depression was attributed to the cold and dry humor black bile, a diet to infuse the patient with more warmth and moisture was recommended. If supernatural causes were deemed to be the reasons for a mental disorder, which were thought to be at the root of a mental problem many times, penance, prayer, and in some extreme cases, the services of an exorcist were enlisted to bring about a cure. This is certainly a far cry from the mental hospitals, psychiatric wards, professional psychiatrists and psychologists, as well as psychiatric medicines available to the mentally ill today.

As far as hospitals were concerned, they were either a so-called almshouse being supported by charity or hospices designed to provide food and shelter for pilgrims within the framework of providing care for sick and injured travelers. During the course of the Middle Ages, the number of medical hospitals that were dedicated primarily to healing the sick and the injured grew dramatically to the point where by the fifteenth century, the term hospital referred primarily to a medical facility. On the other hand, these institutions were nowhere near their modern counterparts, which are financed by private insurance, patient’s financial resources, and taxpayer money. Furthermore, they did not have the surgery rooms, diagnostic wards, waiting rooms, expert physicians and nurses, and medicines as well as professional administrative staffs that present-day hospitals have. Moreover, medieval hospitals were a lot smaller than modern ones, with the largest hospital in Florence accommodating only two hundred to three hundred patients and most servicing fifty patients at most.10 Also, even though hospital in the Middle Ages provided basic care consisting mainly of regular meals, regular cleaning, and rest in an airy and sunny setting and also served the medical needs of unwed mothers and lepers, they were no places for the anticipated cure or recovery to take effect. People who were blind, pregnant, crippled, or with leprosy or plague were very unfortunate.11 Hospitals were places where people were expected to die instead.

In spite of the fact that poor health due to disease, injury, and bad diet was a factor in producing an expected life span of only forty years, at which it stood until the early twentieth century, medieval people were not the stunted and grotesque creatures that they have been traditionally portrayed to be. According to a survey of medieval English graves, the mean height for men was about five feet, seven inches, and five feet, two inches for women. The results for a Danish cemetery were pretty much the same, with five feet, seven inches for men and five feet, four inches for women. In addition, dental cavities among these cadavers were rare, with an average high rate of 7.6 percent of teeth missing from causes other than sugar.12 Thus, even though it can be discerned from all the examples above with regard to health and medical care in the Middle Ages that medieval medicine was not as benighted and sclerotic as has been classically presented, the health and medical needs of all social classes during the Middle Ages were not satisfied very adequately within the context of a mutual manner. That this was so can clearly be confirmed by the events and developments of a great seminal event of medieval times, namely the Black Death, or Bubonic Plague, that swept Europe from 1347 to 1349 CE. As a result of unsanitary conditions principally in the cities and towns of Europe with regard to the proliferation of rats, mice, fleas, flies, and lice, this contagion killed twenty-five to fifty million inhabitants in its first three or four years across the continent, representing about a third to one quarter of the entire population. So devastating were the consequences of a situation also brought about by the ignorance of how diseases were caused by bacteria, germs, and viruses as well as how contagion spread and the lack of preventative means, such as modern vaccines, that local mortality rose even higher in some cities such as Lubeck, Germany, where 90 percent of the population succumbed to this deadly disease.13 Furthermore, in the cases of both London and England, between 1348 and 1349 CE, about a third of the populations there was decimated by this scourge. Overall population loss for the entire continent of Europe in the fourteenth century was approximately 50 percent, and frequently occurring epidemics resulted in a continuous depressing of population levels until the late fifteenth century.14 This catastrophe with its attendant state of affairs resulted in the deaths of not only just commoners but also many sovereigns and noblemen, contributing significantly to the decline of feudalism at the dawn of the Renaissance.

To confirm that with respect to the meeting of housing and shelter needs during the Middle Ages, that while they were not as adequately satisfied and in a less mutual manner than has been the case in the modern era, most people did not live in squalor in wretched huts and hovels in the countryside or in decrepit shanties and lean-tos in the cities and towns. Contrary to this, whether the abode of an aristocrat or that of a commoner, many homes, while far from palatial, were sound and substantial buildings and quite fit for human habitation in their day. However, the differences in the materials used and the accommodations provided between manorial houses and those of commoners did, to a certain extent, reflect the oligarchic beliefs and values with regard to power and wealth and did determine the reasons for which, the methods by which, and the extent to which shelter needs were satisfied. That this was the case becomes obvious when taking into consideration the fact that a typical peasant house was a fairly simple structure built by materials and having the amount of accommodations and amenities limited by a meager income. This type of dwelling was typically made of wood since a simple wood structure required little in the way of specialized tools and also because wood was a more inexpensive material to purchase. The most common foundation for a peasant’s dwelling was a set of timbers set into postholes in the ground, improving the building’s stability but reducing its durability by allowing the moisture from the ground up to soak into the timbers, causing them to rot over time. Much rarer but better were frames set on padstones, large flat stones distributed at key weight-bearing points that assisted in keeping the wood dry. But best of all was a genuine stone foundation that kept the timbers from touching the ground at all. However, as a middle class developed from about the thirteenth century CE onward, and with it guilds of specialized builders supported by a growing market economy, stone houses among the medieval peasantry became more commonplace. Thus, the self-centered drive for power and wealth among the ruling elite, along with their apathy toward the well-being of the lower classes, became less of a factor in determining class differences in the styles and quality of everyday life among them. Materials used to fill in the walls varied according to availability by locale but, most importantly, according to the amount of financial resources at hand. With wood being too expensive in most areas, with the exception of heavily forested Northeastern Europe, more commonplace materials such as clay, slabs of turf, and dung with straw mixed with it were used when employing the technique of wattle and daub. When applying this method to house construction, a row of vertical stakes was secured in place along the line of the wall, and pliant wands were woven horizontally through them, making a basketlike surface that was covered with a mixture of clay, dung, and straw. Coating all this would be a layer of limewash, making the interior bright while protecting the outside from the rain. In addition, the roofs of commoner dwellings were made of thatched materials such as thick layers of reeds, straw, broom, and heather to make the overhead structures waterproof and so that they would not collapse under their own weight while not being beyond the peasant’s financial reach. On top of all this, a thatched roof was quite durable, lasting from ten to seventy years.15

Within the framework of a typical peasant house and home accommodating a nuclear family consisting of a married couple and their children as well as one or two hired hands and two pets within a space of two rooms or more measuring fifteen feet in length due to the spacing apart of the upright timbers to avoid overburdening the horizontal beams, the interior of this type of structure was quite spartan. With the floors being made of straw-covered dirt or clay, the door of plain wood with iron fittings, and small windows being glassless with wooden shutters to close at night, only the basic necessities as far as privacy and comfort were concerned were provided. Furthermore, the furnishings of these abodes were simple and few. Stools and benches provided the means for seating with the accommodating trestle table. In some cases, commoners ate their meals not at a table but with their bowls in their laps. Throughout most of the medieval period, straw was used as bedding, providing good insulation and a reasonable degree of comfort. However, this type of bedding was much harder than that provided by a modern bed, and it might have bread lice and bedbugs, which were combated by the