Mysteries of the Middle Ages

I just read Thomas Cahill's Mysteries of the Middle Ages: And the Beginning of the Modern World (Hinges of History). It is a very attractive book, and in easy, interesting, and informative read.

One way to understand the book is through its central metaphor, the pilgrimage. Cahill takes us on an intellectual journey which is fundamentally religious in which we meet and get to know a number of very interesting people, from Hildegarde of Bingen, to Saint Francis, to Giotto and Dante. They are, as he suggests, people who are very different than our daily associates, coming from very different places (in time). He sketches their contributions and the impacts they have had on the history of western civilization. But he tells human stories, such as the love stories of Abelard and Eloise, and Paolo and Francesca.

Cahill is also seeking to show how the Catholic religion during the Middle Ages has formed modern Western civilization, emphasizing its effects on the role of women in society, the emergence of modern science, and the emergence of representational art. He is quite explicit that it is not the hierarchical leaders of the church organization that interest him, but key individuals, most of whom are not formal church leaders but who are deeply influenced by the Catholicism of their time.

He describes the change in philosophy between Abelard and Thomas, attributing it largely to Thomas' access to the philosophy of Aristotle which had not been available to Abelard. He also talks about the switch from Byzantine iconography to the realist tradition in art introduced by Cimabue and Giotto. He doesn't explicitly suggest that in both cases the transformation is from "looking through reality toward the idea" to "appreciation of the reality and the ideal as consubstantial.

One might quibble that the story telling focusing on these few exceptional people may not be the best way to illuminate the relation between religion and social change. Perhaps not, but it makes for an interesting read.

I think the major criticism is in Cahill's assumptions about causality. Certainly the Catholic Church was there deeply affecting people in Western Europe during the whole of the Middle Ages. Changes in the church occurred as did changes in the larger society.

We know that A and B may be correlated by coincidence, by changes in A causing changes in B, by changes in B causing changes in A, or by changes in something else, say C causing changes in both A and B. Of course, there may be circular chains with any of the three pairs (A and B, A and C, and B and C) with changes in each causing changes in the other. Indeed there may be even more complicated patterns of causality, even among only three factors.

Cahill seems to be inferring that the church is driving changes in philosophy, gender roles, and art and leading to proto-scientific thinking. I would suggest that it is likely that social change, changes in the church, and changes in other factors are all driving changes in each other.

History is complicated. As I recall its history, there were angry confrontations for centuries among people with different views on theology, not to mention organization and governance. Moreover, in the Middle Ages most people were illiterate, poorly educated, and restricted to their very small local communities, depending on poorly educated priests and nuns for religious information and guidance. If the last 60 years of Catholic history are at all typical, the church can and does change rather quickly. I can see how the relatively small community of intellectuals writing in Latin during the period might be considered as a whole, but it seems much harder to consider the entire number of people who would call themselves Catholics could be seen as coherent.

Anyway, thanks to Mr. Cahill for an interesting read.