Poor people had more rights in medieval times than now. And trust was the basis in dealing with others.
It was a widespread idea: the period between 500 and 1500 was the time of the Dark Ages. After the grand culture of classical antiquity, European humanity fell into decline. It was a time devoid of great cultural developments and of scientific stupidity. It was also a society of exploitation, poverty and all sorts of other terrible conditions. Fortunately, the Renaissance rediscovered classical culture and the Enlightenment brought the bright light of reason to put an end to all such conditions. We should just quickly leave the Middle Ages behind and even forget about them - they are the Middle Ages for a reason: an irrelevant intermediate stage in the great European culture. For those who want to: the dominance of the church, of course, had everything to do with it.
Meanwhile, the picture has thankfully been adjusted. The Middle Ages were not as dark as enlightened minds wanted it to be. They had their own culture, different from that of antiquity and enlightenment, but less?
Even though I knew this, I recently came to a surprise about the Middle Ages. That was while reading at the book Villains and saints by John Dickson. That is about the behaviour of Christians throughout church history. In it, there is a piece on social regulation in the mid-medieval period. Indeed: there were social regulations in those times. And these were not rules for exploited poor who had to be humble to those who had power and money - with cap in hand for the rich lords. On the contrary. They were about the rights of the poor. Rights indeed.
Social legislation served to protect the poor. And that extends very far. If a poor person has a rich neighbour, it is not virtuous. The neighbour apparently did not give him enough. Anyone who has more than he needs is committing theft - especially if there are others who have less than they need. In such a case, the poor can even sue his rich neighbour and legal aid is free. When the poor don't ask, but take, that is their right. If you don't have bread for your children, stealing is not a crime but righting injustice.
There were also rules for the government to help people - social services. People could appeal to those. They had to be met generously. If people were suspected of abusing the benefits, the burden of proof was on the benefit agency. It had to make it abundantly clear that fraud was taking place. If there was any doubt, the benefit had to be given anyway. There was a rule: 'When in doubt, it is better to do too much than to do nothing at all.'
How dark medieval times? You had more rights as a poor person then than now. And trust was the basis for dealing with others, instead of the distrustful enlightened 'See first, then believe.' After the enlightened Middle Ages, the European elite switched off the light and turned on the artificial light of their own reason - which only illuminates their own little circle, especially when that reason has managed to discover such great things as digital algorithms.
The Middle Ages were not ideal, but different. And legislation was more social than that of the enlightenment - and that damned church had everything to do with it. When Bishop Muskens said that someone who has no bread may steal it, he was completely in line with the Church's tradition. Only now there are too many enlightened citizens who have more than enough - and so forbid it.
Column by Bram van de Beek, published in the Dutch newspaper on 2 March 2024 and reproduced with permission.
