Where exactly people worked 150 days a year?
Why would religious authorities even have power over secular authorities, this sounds like complete nonsense or extreme cherry picking.
Update:
In 1986 economist Gregory Clark wrote a working paper that (according to citers) contained this estimate. It doesn’t appear he published it, but it got cited. He actually did for real publish a new paper in 2018 raising that number up to an estimate of 250-300 days.
Why would religious authorities even have power over secular authorities?
Because they didn’t want to go to hell. It’s easy to think in modern times that every person in power was as cynical about religion as they are now, but back then even the lords were true believers. A lot of them were illiterate and the ones that were weren’t well versed enough in Latin and the Bible to question anything the church said, so if the church said you’re going to hell if you work your peasants on Saint Michael’s feast day then your going to believe them.
Along with this is the church’s role as a sort of mediator between the lords and the peasants. The church gave legitimacy to the rulers and consecrated the peasants labor and suffering as part of God’s plan. If the lord ignored the church then the Sunday mass would change from “get back to the fields and work for your glorious lord” to “your lord has given himself to the devil” and now you have a bunch of angry rebellious subjects.
Religion can be the opiate of the masses, but it can also be the meth of the masses if you cross the church
You really misunderstand who was at the top (it’s not clergy), this doesn’t exclude faith from equation, it’s just they were in most places under secular authority, not vice versa.
Not saying the clergy are on the top, more that they shared power with secular authorities. Saying the secular authorities are on the top is like saying the president is. Yes, they have executive power and control of the military, but they need congress to legitimate the laws they enforce. If the president ignores congress and starts enforcing their own laws contrary to congress, then they’ll lose legetamacy and risk a rebellion. Either by the people or by their underlings who can use it as a reason to not follow orders.
Same thing with the church state relations in the middle ages, the church provided legitimacy to the secular authorities. Without that legitimacy, the people you rule are less likely to respect your authority and more likely to rebel against it, especially if you’re told your rebellious action could get you into heaven.
Agreed on most of the points. True, church provided some legitimacy not all of it and not even majority, secular rulers had a lot of power over local clergy due to many factors and by the 10th century rulers tried to usurp church completely (e.g. emperor named new pope after old one dies). Bishops literally sworn fealty to HR emperor, and in some places monarch chose or at least had ability to choose who will become abbot or bishop or whatever.
From late antiquity to high middle ages popes were chosen by the closest ruler more often then not. Them crowning emperors weren’t a sign of authority but subservience, lol. When popes chose to oppose secular rulers, they either changed their minds or there were new pope.
Probably nowhere. They had eventually 80 days off per year (holidays) – including Sundays. Additionally craftsmen and farmers (but probably not peasants) worked also on the ‘free’ days.
Well apart from kings or nobility or landowners or city authorities, town authorities…
Were you thinking of in terms of a king acting by the grace of God or something? Because there definitely were secular authorities in the typical sense.
All of those needed to play ball with the church. Let me remind you of all that pope and counterpope business, all the religious wars in Europe, the Crusades, excommunications as power moves, the church as landouners, etc.
Secular means separation of church and state. That didn’t exist in medieval Europe. Otherwise, the enlightenment wouldn’t have been necessary.
I think you’re confusing “secular” with “worldly”. Secular means that the church and the state are separated. Or that the state is neutral regarding religion. That definetly wasn’t the case in medieval Europe. That’s part of why the US/French revolution happened.
Secularity, also the secular or secularness (from Latin saeculum, ‘worldly’ or ‘of a generation’), is the state of being unrelated or neutral in regards to religion.
So, while you might be technically correct as it comes to what the literal translation is: that’s not how it’s used in political discourse.
This is exactly how it is and was used when talking about middle ages. There were secular and religious power, secular and religious courts, and in religious courts church only held authority in spiritual and religous matters. Exceptions to these rules are prince-bishops in HRE and other such examples (papal states) where bishops or pope were civil rulers of secular prinicpalities/states.
Secular means that the state is neutral to the church
It does not. dictionary, and yes Henry VIII is a great example of what I’m talking about, when he didn’t get what he wanted he just changed the rules. Also he doesn’t belong to middle ages in any way or form, lol.
Where exactly people worked 150 days a year? Why would religious authorities even have power over secular authorities, this sounds like complete nonsense or extreme cherry picking.
Update:
history stackexchange
Because they didn’t want to go to hell. It’s easy to think in modern times that every person in power was as cynical about religion as they are now, but back then even the lords were true believers. A lot of them were illiterate and the ones that were weren’t well versed enough in Latin and the Bible to question anything the church said, so if the church said you’re going to hell if you work your peasants on Saint Michael’s feast day then your going to believe them.
Along with this is the church’s role as a sort of mediator between the lords and the peasants. The church gave legitimacy to the rulers and consecrated the peasants labor and suffering as part of God’s plan. If the lord ignored the church then the Sunday mass would change from “get back to the fields and work for your glorious lord” to “your lord has given himself to the devil” and now you have a bunch of angry rebellious subjects.
Religion can be the opiate of the masses, but it can also be the meth of the masses if you cross the church
You really misunderstand who was at the top (it’s not clergy), this doesn’t exclude faith from equation, it’s just they were in most places under secular authority, not vice versa.
Not saying the clergy are on the top, more that they shared power with secular authorities. Saying the secular authorities are on the top is like saying the president is. Yes, they have executive power and control of the military, but they need congress to legitimate the laws they enforce. If the president ignores congress and starts enforcing their own laws contrary to congress, then they’ll lose legetamacy and risk a rebellion. Either by the people or by their underlings who can use it as a reason to not follow orders.
Same thing with the church state relations in the middle ages, the church provided legitimacy to the secular authorities. Without that legitimacy, the people you rule are less likely to respect your authority and more likely to rebel against it, especially if you’re told your rebellious action could get you into heaven.
Agreed on most of the points. True, church provided some legitimacy not all of it and not even majority, secular rulers had a lot of power over local clergy due to many factors and by the 10th century rulers tried to usurp church completely (e.g. emperor named new pope after old one dies). Bishops literally sworn fealty to HR emperor, and in some places monarch chose or at least had ability to choose who will become abbot or bishop or whatever.
About half of medieval history was dedicated to this question and you try to brush it off in a 3.5 word parenthesis? Lol.
Emperors were crowned by the pope.
From late antiquity to high middle ages popes were chosen by the closest ruler more often then not. Them crowning emperors weren’t a sign of authority but subservience, lol. When popes chose to oppose secular rulers, they either changed their minds or there were new pope.
Probably nowhere. They had eventually 80 days off per year (holidays) – including Sundays. Additionally craftsmen and farmers (but probably not peasants) worked also on the ‘free’ days.
https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/arbeitszeit-frueher-und-heute-die-hohe-anzahl-von-100.html (in German)
Yeah, I’ve looked it up, thank you.
Because secular authorities didn’t exist in medieval Europe? (/¯ ಠ_ಠ)/¯
Well apart from kings or nobility or landowners or city authorities, town authorities…
Were you thinking of in terms of a king acting by the grace of God or something? Because there definitely were secular authorities in the typical sense.
All of those needed to play ball with the church. Let me remind you of all that pope and counterpope business, all the religious wars in Europe, the Crusades, excommunications as power moves, the church as landouners, etc.
Secular means separation of church and state. That didn’t exist in medieval Europe. Otherwise, the enlightenment wouldn’t have been necessary.
Church was a limit to secular athority, not the authority itself, in most places.
I think you’re confusing “secular” with “worldly”. Secular means that the church and the state are separated. Or that the state is neutral regarding religion. That definetly wasn’t the case in medieval Europe. That’s part of why the US/French revolution happened.
Secular means worldly, sorry.
From Wikipedia:
So, while you might be technically correct as it comes to what the literal translation is: that’s not how it’s used in political discourse.
Are you unable to accept being wrong?
This is exactly how it is and was used when talking about middle ages. There were secular and religious power, secular and religious courts, and in religious courts church only held authority in spiritual and religous matters. Exceptions to these rules are prince-bishops in HRE and other such examples (papal states) where bishops or pope were civil rulers of secular prinicpalities/states.
R-r-right, and monarchs were part of the clergy or head of church (except eastern roman empire ofc)?
Also why would church need to play by laws set up by local authorities if they were all under the rule of the church?
Secular means that the state is neutral to the church. How was that possible when the church was the official justification of the state?
You’re confusing “secular” with “worldy”.
Does the name “Henry VIII” ring any bells?
It does not. dictionary, and yes Henry VIII is a great example of what I’m talking about, when he didn’t get what he wanted he just changed the rules. Also he doesn’t belong to middle ages in any way or form, lol.
Does, too
250 days would be 5 days a week 50 weeks a year, so seems similar to modern schedules.