It is true there were no sewer systems in most places, and this caused some complications. It's also true that garbage was tossed in streets, helping to foster disease. However, records indicate that there were work teams in towns which tried to haul out the garbage, and there were many lamentations about this job not getting done! So we know that medieval people were aware that this was a problem. When plagues struck a town, they knew enough to quarantine the sick, even if this didn't prevent transmission of the disease (as in the case of the bubonic plague).
It was not until the Renaissance when frequent bathing became frowned upon, and there was a good reason even for this. Europe's water supply had become contaminated by sewage, and bathing could expose one to disease. This is really the source of this myth.
While this sounds plausible, and has a certain romantic appeal, there is no evidence to support this. "Persecution" of heretics — "witches" among them — did not begin until very late, about the time of the Albigensian Crusade in the early 13th century. Even then, almost all of the persecution was against heretic Christian groups, or against Jews, not against pagans or witches. The order of the Knights Templars was wiped out, using accusations of "witchcraft" as a pretext, but evidence is strong that this was a fabrication and that they were not actually doing any "witchcraft." The Templars were destroyed for economic and political reasons, not theological ones — despite the theological pretext for it.
Another well-known occasion when accusations of witchcraft were leveled against someone, during the Middle Ages, was when the English captured Joan of Arc. Again, though, this was not because anyone actually believed that Joan was a witch — this was merely a pretext for her execution.
While many medieval commoners were poorly educated in religion — serfs, after all, need only to till the soil, not understand theology — and were highly superstitious, there is strong evidence that they were overwhelmingly Christian, at least in intent. When Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless preached the Crusades to the common folk, almost all of them knew of the Holy Land by name, and Jerusalem in particular. They clearly understood the most basic tenet of Christianity — that God had lived for a time on earth, and that he had died and was resurrected. All records of the period make it clear that people at all levels of society held these beliefs. Even great lords who stood up to the Church — as its political rivals — clearly did so in a measured way, as if in fear of actually offending God.
Part of the reason for this myth is the definition of "witchcraft." Today we see it as ritualized, supernatural manipulation of nature, and frequently, we identify it with the modern religion known as Wicca. In the Middle Ages, however, the term "witchcraft" applied to anyone with any apparent supernatural ability, even if this was in a passive form. (People who claim to be psychics today would have been called "witches" in the Middle Ages.) Furthermore, heretics were often accused of witchcraft, along with other ecclesiastical charges; this appears to have been simply a way to "turn up the heat" on them, as it were, and make them appear more malignant than they actually were.
Also of note is the fact that the word "witch" hasn't always been applied to mean evil, old women with supernatural power. It comes from a Germanic root word meaning "wise," and early in the Middle Ages, a "witch" was someone with specialized arcane knowledge. (Even today, using divining rods to locate underground water is called "water-witching.")
Neo-paganism as it is today, is not the modern descendant of an underground movement that survived for two thousand years. There is no documentation of any pagan religion being practiced during the Middle Ages, other than the speculation of Churchmen. Occasionally — especially late in the Middle Ages, and more frequently during the Renaissance — individuals or small secretive groups practiced what we might think of as witchcraft or even Satanism. But these were isolated, and didn't acquire their knowledge from a single, unbroken chain of tradition. Moreover, there was no particular effort by the Church to root them out.
Instead, the Church was far more concerned with heresy — that is, Christians whose doctrine differed from the Church. They were considered much more of a threat to the Church than isolated pockets of possible "witches." In fact, in nearly all instances where someone was tried in ecclesiastical court for "witchcraft," the "witchcraft" charge was in addition to one or more charges of heresy (i.e. a Christian doctrine not in agreement with that of the Church). Clearly, the Church didn't see witchcraft as a problem, or even commonplace. Rather, they used the rumor of its existence, as an additional weapon against heretics.
The Salem witch trials were not medieval in origin — having taken place a couple of centuries after the Middle Ages were over — and in any event, they were anomalous. While there has been a great deal of speculation about why they happened, even witnesses at the time, had trouble explaining the zeal with which the "witches" of the Salem area were prosecuted. To most, it seemed quite odd, and out-of-character. They stopped as abruptly as they began. Nothing like them had ever happened before — in the colonies or in Europe — and nothing like them has happened, since.
Furthermore, modern paganism bears little resemblance to any actual, practiced ancient religion. Ancient religions were propiative in nature — that is, the purpose of the religion was to placate the gods, to keep them from destroying mankind, and in order to entice their cooperation. Neo-paganism, on the other hand, is a redemptive religion, in which individual spiritual enhancement is the goal. These are two fundamentally different things.
Neo-paganism is actually a Victorian invention, best known to us via the works of Aleister Crowley and Gerald Gardner. While they claimed to be transmitting "ancient" knowledge, kept secret for two millenia and entrusted to them, there is no real evidence that this was the case. Their source documents are nowhere to be found, and in fact there's no evidence they ever existed. Moreover ... if this knowledge was supposed to have been "secret," why did they expose it, in their writings?
Having said all of this — do not interpret my comments as a diatribe against neo-paganism. I know many neo-pagans and their beliefs are as valid as anyone else's. I just want to correct the historical record. Many neo-pagans authors, themselves, have recently started to acknowledge the relative modernity of their movement. Far from being a bad thing, I believe this is a good sign, a sign that the neo-pagan movement is thriving, and introspective enough to review itself, and correct any notions which have no basis in fact. Too many religions would, instead, cling tenaciously to false notions, even in light of the truth. (As an example, the Catholic Church excommunicated Galileo for proving that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and clung to the Earth-centric Ptolemaic model of the Solar System, even for years after science had demonstrated otherwise.)
The lowest level of nobility were the knights and seigneurs of the manors. Their income came from the serfs who worked the lands they held. They typically lived on those same lands. While in many places they received up to two-thirds of their serfs' production, and this may sound like a lot, knights in particular had numerous expenses — they had to pay to keep horses, and a squire and pages, they had to purchase and maintain arms and weapons, they often had to fund accompanying footsoldiers, and they constantly had to stay in ready condition for battle if called to do so. Seigneurs and knights also had taxes of their own to pay to their higher-ups, and these in turn paid taxes to people above them; and so on up the ladder, to the highest level of nobility, the kings (or in Germany, the Holy Roman Emperor). Then, of course, everyone had to tithe, or send a portion (usually one-tenth) of their income to the Church.
Planting and harvest times were particularly busy. Lower-level nobles were usually found in the fields with their serfs, directing and assisting these efforts. Other times of year they also helped out. The lady of a manor typically directed the efforts of all the women, who usually weaved cloth, while the men were out in the fields.
Life was harsh, even for the lower-level nobility, who naturally suffered drought and famine right along with their own serfs. Only at the very highest levels of nobility — counts and above in France and Italy, earls and above in England, landgrafs and above in Germany — did anyone live in what could be called "luxury."
During the Middle Ages there was a strong division amongst the clergy. The secular clergy — parish priests, monsignors, bishops, archbishops, and up the line, constituted only one part of the Church. The regular clergy — monks, and later, the friars — was another part. The Pope generally had more control of the secular clergy, however, many bishops and lower clergy only loosely reported to the Popes, and their dictates weren't always obeyed. The Popes had even less control over the several orders of regular clergy, which typically governed themselves, according to their own rules. The Benedictine monks began as a monastic order which adhered strictly to the Rule of Benedict, a long code of conduct for monks. While they theoretically reported to the Pope — who approved creation of the order and approved of the Benedictine Rule — the Benedictines really did things their own way.
The monks of the abbey Cluny in France saw the fundamental flaws in this division of the Church, and moreover, they foresaw a great deal of trouble which might result from it. They undertook a series of reforms to try to weld the Church into a single body, one which reflected their own monastic ideals (they saw the secular clergy as generally wayward and not true to Christ). As they rose to prominence — an abbot of Cluny eventually became Pope Gregory VII — they were able to enact some of their ideas. One of these "Cluniac reforms " was an order of celibacy for all clergy (until then, secular clergy could marry!).
Cluniac Popes such as Gregory VII and Innocent III were responsible for the political ascendancy of the Church — they believed the Church should be the sole power of Europe, and tried to make that happen (and very nearly succeeded). Their efforts were later undone by Boniface VIII, who antagonized the kings of Europe (especially Philip IV "the Fair" of France).
As a result of the Cluniac Reforms, the Benedictine Order grew powerful and influential. Some of their monasteries became effectively freeholds, and the monks and abbots who lived in them behaved as lords of manors. They even began to dabble in trade and commerce. This bothered some of the Benedictines, who believed their Order had strayed from its ideals. Additional monastic orders, such as the Cistercian, were founded. Eventually, a more extreme movement arose. These were the friars, or mendicants. They believed that the pious should give up all of their property and live only off the charity of those whom they encountered. Two mendicant orders, the Franciscan and the Dominican, were recognized. The mendicant orders became rivals not only of the monastic orders, but of each other, all of them assuming to be living up to the ideals of "true" faith.
The papacy lost a great deal of credibility, both inside the Church and in the secular world, as a result of the "Babylonian Captivity," the period during which the Popes resided in Avignon, France, rather than Rome, & these Popes often obeyed the dictates of the monarchs. Although the papacy was restored to Rome, a brief schism ensued, creating more turbulence in the Church. In the wake of this, reformers appeared — advocating various changes — such as Hus, Wyclif, William of Ockham, Erasmus, and later, Martin Luther, Zwingli, Melachthon, & Calvin.
The iconic Catholic Church arose only later on, in the wake of the Reformation. Reforms cleaned up clerical practices, and the rivalries among the monastic and mendicant orders were set aside, as the Church tried to stave off collapse, under the barrage of new protestant ideas.
Back up to Dennis's Medieval History Information Page.