In The Medieval Mind, William Manchester charts the rationality of the medieval period and how it clashed and ultimately fell prey to the new rationality of reason with the Reniassance.

The medieval rationality was predicated on certainty. The scriptures were perfect and could guide the individual in both life and death. This gave the Pope in Rome absolute power and the politics of the christian kingdoms in Germany (Holy Roman Empire), England, France, Spain and Portugal followed the politics of Rome. The grace of the Pope could be politically positive but Rome's ire could be equally negative, often with the threat of excommunication.

The monarchs and Bishops were egotistic oddities. The medieval person was not an individual and was not imbued with an ego. The architects and builders of the great cathedrals are anonymous; even more so as they were often built across up to thirty generations of workers. They were glorfying God, not themselves.

Peasants did not carry names beyond Hans, Jacques, or Carlos. Their world was intimately familiar and small - not extending beyond the terrifying boundary of the village. It was a violent world both internally and externally. Manchester writes:

In the medieval mind there was also no awareness of time, which is even more difficult to grasp [than the lack of ego]. Inhabitants of the twentieth century are instinctively aware of past, present and future. ... In all Christendom there was no such thing as a watch, clock or calendar. Generations succeeded one another in a meaningless, timeless blur.

As an example I can remember my grandfather saying he saw his first car in 1911 when he was a kid in Helensburgh, NSW and that it had a gas bag on its roof. In the next sentence he said he saw a man on the moon in 1969. I can even claim to having the internet change modern life in my small time on this earth; but someone born in 791 would live the exact same life as someone born in 991. It is no wonder that we cannot understand the timelessness and static nature of life in the Dark Ages and Medieval period. Manchester continues:

Any innovation was inconceivable; to suggest the possibility of one would have invited suspicion, and because the accused were guilty until they proved themselves innocent by surviving impossible ordeals - by fire, water, or combat - to be suspect was to be doomed.

The Christendom of the Medieval period was built on the rituals of paganism. However, ironically the Renaissance also came back to the fore by rediscovering and disseminating the learnings and teachings of the pagan civilizations prior to European Christendom; namely Greek and Roman which had been libraried by the Muslim world.

Before reason could replace dogma and certainty the political power of Rome had to be broken. It was long known that Rome and the papalcy was depraved, corrupt and given to every sin and vice known to humankind. The Church was a hotbed of simonism, debauchery and arbitrary vengeance.

It was the increasing power of the rising nation-states of England and German which provided protection for the outspoken critics of the Papalcy. England was sufficiently remote and wealthy enough that it could protect Erasmus who pillorised the depravity of the Holy See to the amusement and nodding heads of all Europe.

The Holy Roman Empire was also converting to the modern Germanic nation and was able to provide political protection to Martin Luthar when he had a run in with the elixor-like salesman Johann Tetzel who would sell 'letters of remission' that would forgive anything in the Pope's name for a price.

It helped that when England and Germany broke with Rome they quickly confiscated the existing Catholic properties inside their nations; increasing their own wealth immeasureably.

Utlimately though it was reason that shook faith. The nature of the scientific mind is that everything is temporal and any theory is only as good until another comes along that is more accurate. This is in complete contrast to the medieval mind which is largely static and secure in the dogma of the unchanging world being a reflection of God's perfectibility.

Rationality changes mean that an individual from another period cannot understand ours, just as we cannot understand theirs. To be without ego and time in a liberal democratic market economy is unfathomable just as the unchanging permanence and certainty of the Medieval period would be inconceivable to us.
adam : I remember being struck in some random German museum by a sense of how filled with symbolic meaning each act of a medieval life could be. There was a catalogue of medieval social symbology, eg putting a belt on a child meant you were becoming their guardian, standing under x was for weddings, etc etc. There was a massive list of them and I had this sudden sense of living in a way where every action had a social consequence ...

Now I'm not a scholar of the period so perhaps I am exaggerating my own personal response. But it does make it easier to explain how eg Umberto Eco could transition so easily from a medievalist into semiotics - because so much of the medieval world is all about interpreting shared cultural symbols.
cam : It was interesting how conservative the change over to christianity from paganism was. The church allowed people adopting christianity to continue the same rituals from paganism just in the name of christ or with catholic (or the competing christianity versions from Constantinople times) approval. The glory to changed just not the ritual. That was true of medieval times which was largely superstitious still.
adam : Amazing how patient you can be when you think of time in seasons I guess ...
cam : Heh good point. I am having all sorts of problems getting used to Hawaiin time here. They are just slow. It was the same when I moved from NY to Virginia. Virginian time was an order of magnitude less than NY time. Wonder if the medieval mind was imbued with great patience.
David S. Landes argues that the Medieval era, often seen as a dark period of stagnation between the Roman Empire and the Renaissance, was a period of important technological innovation. It produced advances in the water wheel, spectacles, the mechanical clock, printing and gunpowder. Landes writes that the decentralised nature of European politics meant that there was greater impetus for political and economic advantage through technological innovation. (more)
Dave Bath :

Optics is an interesting example to bring up. I'd suggest that no small part of improvements in optics (and many other things) was due to re-introduction of classical ideas to Europe via Spain, together with newer developments in the Islamic world.

Al-Hasan in particular is relevant to optics: (see Wikipedia article on his book ).

Even the word "albedo" (proportion of light reflected), a pretty basic concept in optics, is a bit of a giveaway of arabic influence, along with many other words such as algorithm, alcohol, algebra, azimuth, alchemy, alkali, which shows where post-dark-age europe learned of the concepts.
cam : Dave, Yeh one of the interesting things about Landes' thesis is that Europe, Islam and China were all producing technological innovation, but because Europe had a decentralised political structure, and consequent economic system, the impetus to compete economically and in wealth was much higher, as political power came from wealth.

So where Islam and China were not interested in upsetting the political status quo - they had large established mono-political empires - Europe was, because their political competitor was in some instances only thirty miles away.

So that political and economic competition helped drive Europe into the renaissance - as well as seek productivity innovations in the medieval area.

Interesting take I thought.
Dave Bath :

Perhaps the effect was not directly attributable to the economic competition with decentralized power-bases in Europe but the prevalence of war across the multitude of borders. War, as we've seen in the 20th century, pushes things ahead perhaps faster than anything else.

High price to pay!
cam : Dave, One of the dynamics he identified with the small city-state or principates was that their populations were periodically decimated by disease and needed to be replenished lest their population get too small and they cease to be a viable (or defendable) entity.

So they competed on property rights to attract a population. Their hook to wayfarers, opportunists, immigrants, etc was property enfranchisement. Which ultimately led to the British form of property rights and free trade in the 16thC, but which started with the collapse of Rome as a central and dominating political body.

I find it interesting that it Landes' claims it is political decentralisation which leads in the long term to greater technical and economic innovation.
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.