Chapter 45 Chapter Eleven Twelfth Century AD

There are four areas of particular interest to us in the twelfth century AD: (1) Constant conflict between the Empire and the Holy See; (2) The rise of the Lombard cities; (3) Crusaders; and (4) The growth of scholastic philosophy. All four of the above carried over into the next century.The Crusades gradually came to an ignominious end.With regard to the other three sports, however, the thirteenth century marked the highest development of those things which were in transition in the twelfth century.In the thirteenth century A.D., the pope had won a decisive victory over the emperor, the Lombard cities had gained a stable independence, and scholasticism had reached its apogee.All this is the result of preparations made in advance in the twelfth century AD.

Not only the first of these four movements, but also the other three are closely related to the growth of the power of the Pope and the Church.The pope and the Lombard cities allied against the emperor; Pope Urban II launched the first crusade, and successive popes were the main planners of the subsequent crusades; the scholastics were all monks, and the previous religious councils Take care to keep them true to orthodoxy, or chasten them when they go astray.They feel the church's political victory and identify themselves as part of this victor.This sense of triumph unquestionably fueled their intellectual initiative.

One of the oddities of the Middle Ages is that people were ingenious and didn't know it.All parties justify their tactics under the guise of archaic or quasi-archaic arguments. In Germany the emperors invoked the feudal principles of Charlemagne's time; in Italy they invoked Roman law and the authority of ancient emperors.The Lombard cities can be traced back to the Roman system in the Republican era.The Pope partly relied on the bogus gift of Constantine and partly on the relationship between Saul and Samuel recorded in the Old Testament as the basis of its power.The scholastics either quoted the Bible or first Plato and then Aristotle; and when they created something they also tried to hide the truth.The Crusades were such an attempt to restore the situation before the rise of Islam.

We should not be fooled by this literal archaism.Only the archaism on the part of the emperor corresponds to the facts.Feudalism was in decline, especially in Italy; the Roman Empire existed only in memory.So the emperor was thwarted.Some cities in northern Italy, in their later development, showed many characteristics very similar to the ancient Greek city-states. They reproduced the ancient forms, but not out of imitation, but because of the similarity of the environment: some small And the commercial society of a rich, highly cultured republic is surrounded by less cultured monarchies.As for the scholastics, however much they venerated Aristotle, they surpassed in originality any Arab--even, indeed, anyone since Plotinus, or at least Augustine.In politics, as in the field of thought, there was an equally remarkable originality.

Conflict between the Empire and the Holy See From Pope Gregory VII to the middle of the thirteenth century A.D., European history centers on the power between the church and secular kings—mainly emperors but sometimes kings of France or England. struggle.Gregory's papacy apparently ended in misfortune.But his policy was inherited in a more moderate manner by Urban II (AD 1088-1099). He reiterated his opposition to the decree that the priesthood be appointed by the lay world.And requires the election of bishops through the free election of monks and the masses. (There is no doubt that the participation of the masses is purely formal.) But in practice, if the laity's elect is good, he does not dispute.

At first Urban was safe only in Norman territory.However, Henry IV's son Conrad rebelled against his father in AD 1093 and allied with the Pope to conquer northern Italy, where the Lombard League - a confederation of cities headed by Milan - embraced pope.In 1094, Urban held a victory parade across northern Italy and France.He also defeated King Philip of France.Philip had been punished by the pope for asking for a divorce, and finally succumbed to the pope.Urban's declaration of the First Crusade at the Clermont Synod in AD 1095 sparked a religious uproar and led to the growth of the papacy—and a brutal pogrom.Urban's last years were spent safely in Rome.This is rare for past popes.

The next pope, Paschales II, was, like Urban, a descendant of the Cluny Abbey.He continued the struggle for investiture, winning victories in France and England.After the death of Emperor Henry IV in 1106 AD, Henry V succeeded to the throne.Pope Paschal was an extraordinary man, and he had done Henry V a disservice by allowing his holiness to outweigh his political sensibilities.The pope suggested that the emperor renounce his investiture, in exchange for the renunciation of secular property by bishops and abbots. The emperor assented; but when the agreement was made public, the pope met with violent resistance from the clergy.The emperor was in Rome at the time, and he took the opportunity to arrest the pope.Under threat, the Pope not only made concessions on the investiture rights but also crowned Henry V.

Eleven years later, in 1122 A.D., Pope Calextus made Henry V give up the right of investiture by means of the agreement of Worms, and handed over the jurisdiction of electing bishops in Burgundy and Italy. right. The final result of the struggle was that the pope, who had been subordinate to Henry III, had since become equal to the emperor.At the same time, the pope became a more general ruler in the church, administering it through the papal legates he sent.The increased power of the pope reduced the relative importance of the bishops.Pope election was now free from lay control, and monks were generally more virtuous than before the Reformation.

The Rise of the Lombard Cities The next stage concerned the emperor Friedrich Barbarossa (AD 1152-90).He was a man of talent and energy, who would succeed in any business where it was possible to succeed.He was well-educated, and took pleasure in reading Latin, though he found it difficult to speak it.His knowledge of the Classics was considerable, and he admired Roman law.He saw himself as the heir to the Roman emperors and expected the powers they enjoyed.But he was not popular in Italy as a German.The cities of Lombardy—except those which feared Milan and begged for his protection—were willing to recognize him as official prince, but objected to his meddling in their internal affairs.The Patalinian movement in Milan continued, with a more or less democratic tendency; most cities in northern Italy sympathized with Milan and were united against the emperor.

Hadrian IV, a vigorous Englishman who had been a missionary in Norway, became Pope two years after the accession of Emperor Barbarossa, with whom he was at first on good terms.The reason for their reconciliation is because they have a common enemy.The city of Rome made independent claims to both the pope and the emperor, and invited a saintly heretic, Arnold of Brescia, to come to his aid in the struggle.His heresy was serious: he affirmed that a monk with property, a bishop with land, and a monk with property could not be saved.He held this view because he believed that monks should devote themselves exclusively to spiritual causes.Although he was considered evil because of his heresy, no one ever doubted his sincere asceticism.St. Bernard, who once strongly opposed him, said: "He neither eats nor drinks, but like a devil, he only thirsts for the blood of the soul." Hadrian's predecessor Pope once wrote to Barbarossa accusing Arnold of supporting Rome The popular faction, these people demanded the election of one hundred members of the Senate, two consuls, and one emperor by themselves.Friedrich was on his way to Italy at that time, and he was naturally very indignant when he heard about it.Rome demanded Zemstvo, and a riot, instigated by Arnold, killed a cardinal.So the newly elected Pope Hadrian immediately ordered to stop all religious activities held by churches in Rome.It was the week before Easter, and superstition triumphed over the Roman citizens; they succumbed, and promised to exile Arnold.Arnold went into hiding, but was finally captured by the Emperor's army.They burned him, and threw his ashes in the Tiber, lest they should be preserved as sacred.The coronation was delayed for some time by Emperor Friedrich's reluctance to rein and stirrup the pope when he dismounted.In 1155 the pope crowned the emperor amid popular revolt; this revolt was crushed by a massacre.

Now that the honest man has been dealt with, the pragmatic politicians are at liberty to resume their quarrels at will. Having made peace with the Normans, the pope dared to break with the emperor in 1157.Since then, the war between the emperor on the one side and the Pope and the Lombard cities on the other has lasted for almost twenty years.The Normans generally supported the Pope.Most of the campaigns against the emperor were fought due to the Lombard alliance.They sang "Freedom" and were inspired by a strong crowd feeling.The emperor besieged many cities and even captured Milan in AD 1162.He completely destroyed Milan, and at the same time forced its inhabitants to relocate elsewhere.But five years later the Lombard League rebuilt the city, and the former residents gradually returned.In the same year, the emperor marched on Rome with a prepared hostile pope.The Pope fled, and his condition seemed hopeless; for the epidemic had destroyed Friedrich's army, and he fled back to Germany alone.Despite the support of the Lombard alliance by Greek emperors outside Sicily, Barbarossa made another advance, which ended in defeat at the Battle of Regnano in AD 1176.After this battle he was compelled to make peace, and to give the cities all substance of liberty.The terms of the peace, however, did not bring total victory to either party in the struggle—the emperor and the pope. Barbarossa's ending wasn't too bad.He participated in the Third Crusade in 1189 and died the following year. In this long struggle, the rise of the free cities finally proved to be the most important.The emperor's power is linked with the declining feudal system; The power of the pope, though still growing, depended chiefly on the need of the world to make him a rival of the emperor; so the power of the pope declined as soon as the empire ceased to be prestige; but the power of the cities It is emerging, which is the result of economic development and a source of new political formations.Although this did not occur in the twelfth century, a non-monastic culture soon developed in the Italian cities, and reached an extremely high level in literature, art, and science.These achievements were achieved as a result of the successful rebellion against Barbarossa. All the big cities in northern Italy lived by doing business, and the relatively stable social environment in the 12th century made the business community more prosperous than before.Seaport cities like Venice, Genoa, and Pisa never had to fight for liberty, so they weren't as hostile to the Emperor as some cities in the Alps.The city under the Alps was the gateway to Italy, so it was very important to the emperor.It was for this reason that Milan was at that time the most important and interesting of the Italian cities. The Milanese followed their archbishop contentedly until Henry III.But, as mentioned in the previous chapter, the Patalin movement changed the situation: the archbishop was allied with the nobles, while on the other hand there was a powerful mass movement against the archbishop and these nobles.From this came the beginnings of some democracies, together with a constitution providing that the governors of the city should be elected by the citizens.In the northern cities, especially Bologna, there appeared a group of learned lay lawyers proficient in Roman law; moreover, from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D., the education of wealthy commoners was lower than that of feudal aristocrats north of the Alps. The education received is much better.Although these wealthy merchant cities sided with the Pope against the Emperor, their world outlook was not ecclesiastical.In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries many of them held a Puritan-like heresy, as did the English and Dutch merchants after the Reformation.Later they tended to be free thinkers, who supported the church in words, but had no real piety in their hearts. Dante was the last of the old school, and Boccaccio was the first of the new school. crusader Crusades are irrelevant to us as warfare, but they have a certain importance to culture.It was natural for the pope to lead the crusade, since the purpose of the crusade was (at least superficially) religious; increase.Another important impact is the massacre of a large number of Jews; the Jews who were not slaughtered were often deprived of their property and forced to be baptized.Many Jews were killed in Germany during the First Crusade, and the same thing happened in England during the reign of Richard the Lionheart during the Third Crusade. York, the birthplace of the first Christian emperor, happened to be the site of appalling anti-Semitic atrocities.Before the Crusades, the Jews almost monopolized the trade in oriental products throughout Europe; after the Crusades, as a result of the persecution of the Jews, most of this trade fell into the hands of Christians. A different influence of the Crusades was the promotion of scholarly exchanges with Constantinople.As a result of this exchange, many Greek texts were translated into Latin in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.A considerable amount of trade has always been going on between the people and Constantinople, especially via the Venetians; yet the Italian merchants have never bothered with the Greek classics, any more than the Shanghai Anglo-American merchants have bothered with the Chinese classics. . (Europeans' knowledge of Chinese classics mainly comes from missionaries.) The growth of scholasticism Scholasticism, in its narrow sense, began as early as the beginning of the twelfth century AD.As a school of philosophy, scholasticism has certain distinctive features.First, it is confined by each author to what he regards as orthodox teaching; he often voluntarily withdraws his opinion if it is condemned by a synod.This is not at all due to personal cowardice; it is rather like a judge's obedience to the decision of a superior court.Second, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries AD, people gradually had a more comprehensive understanding of Aristotle, and Aristotle was increasingly recognized as the highest authority within the scope of orthodox doctrine; Plato The primacy can no longer be maintained.Thirdly, the scholastics were all great believers in "dialectic" and syllogistic reasoning; the general quality of the scholastics was rather tedious and polemical than mystical.Fourth, the issue is brought to the fore because it is found that Aristotle and Plato disagreed on the question of universals; But it could be wrong. The twelfth century, on this question as on others, opened the way for the thirteenth century, which produced many great men.Yet the early scholastics had a pioneering interest.Where dogma has not yet made speculation too dangerous, there is a spiritual confidence, and a free and lively use of reason, despite the admiration for Aristotle.The disadvantage of the scholastic method is the inevitable result of overemphasis on "dialectics".These are: a disregard for facts and science, a predisposition to reason in matters that can be determined by observation alone, and an overemphasis on linguistic distinctions and their subtle meanings.In the case of Plato we have spoken of defects in this respect, but among the scholastics they assume a more extreme form. The first who could be considered a true scholastic was Roscelin.Not much is known about him.He was born at Compiègne about 1050, and taught at Roches in Brittany, where Abelard was educated by him.He was accused of heresy at the Remus Synod in 1092 AD, but he withdrew his statement for fear that the lynching priests would stone him to death.He fled to England, but there he attacked St. Anselm in the most reckless manner.This time he fled to Rome, where he made peace with the Roman Church.Around 1120 AD his name is no longer found in historical books; the date of his death is pure speculation. With the exception of a letter to Abelard on the Trinity, all of Roscelyn's writings are lost.In this letter he belittles Abelard and ridicules Abelard for being castrated.This led to Huberwick, a man of few emotions, to criticize that he could not be a very good person.With the exception of this letter, Roscelyn's views are known mainly through the polemical writings of Anselham and Abelard.According to Anselm, Roscelyn said that the universals are only elatus vocis, the "voice."Literally, this means that a universal is a physical event, that is, it occurs when we pronounce a word.It is difficult, however, to imagine that Roscelyn ever made any such foolish assertions.According to Roscelin, man is not an individual, but only a common name, says Anselm, an opinion which Anselm, like a devoted Platonist, ascribes to Roscelin's acknowledgment only of the possible Perceived things have reality.In general, Roscelin seems to be arguing that a whole with parts has no reality of its own, but is only a word; reality resides in the parts.This view should have led him, and perhaps had led him, to an extreme atomism. At any rate, this insight had caused him difficulties with regard to the Trinity.He considers the three persons to be three distinct entities, and it is only by convention of language that we do not speak of them as three gods.According to him, another view, which he did not admit, was that not only the Son, but also the Father and the Holy Spirit were incarnated.All these speculations, so far as they were heretical, were withdrawn by him at the Synod of Remus in AD 1092.We cannot know exactly what he thought about the problems of universals.But in any case, he's clearly a nominalist of some sort. His pupil Abelard, or Abelard, was more talented and more famous than he.Abelard was born near Nantes in AD 1079. He was educated in Paris by the realist William of Chambo, and later served as a teacher in a Catholic school in Paris. Here he refuted William's point of view. And forced William to make amendments.He returned to Paris in A.D. 1113 after a period of specialization in theology from Anselm of Laon (not the Archbishop Anselm). And won a great reputation as a teacher in Paris.It was at this time that he became the lover of Eroise, Fulbert's niece, the dean of the Church.Fullebert had him castrated.He and Eloise had to live in seclusion.He went to Saint-Denis, she to a convent in Alpinteil.Regarding the famous correspondence between the two of them, according to the research of a German scholar named Schmedler, it was completely created by Abelard as a literary work.Regarding the correctness of this statement, I have no ability to judge.According to Abelard's character, this is not impossible.He has been vain, argumentative, and contemptuous; He always felt humiliated and resentful after his misfortune happened.Eloise's letters are more dedicated than his.It is conceivable that he wrote these letters as an antidote to his battered pride. Even in his retirement he had had a great reputation as a teacher; young people liked his wit, his dialectical skills, and his arrogance over other older teachers.Some of the elders correspondingly disliked him, and in 1121 he was condemned at Swasan for departing from orthodoxy in a work on the Trinity.After a suitable capitulation, he was made abbot of Saint-Gilleta in Brittany.He found that the monks here were wild country people.Here he returned to the more civilized quarters after four years of miserable exile.Nothing is known of what happened thereafter, except that John of Salisbury testified that he continued to teach with great success.He was again condemned at Sens in 1141 on the initiative of St. Bernard.He then retired to the monastery of Cluny, where he died the following year. Abelard's most famous work is "Yes and Wrong" written in 1121-1122 AD.In this book he uses dialectical arguments to defend and refute many arguments, often without wanting to draw any conclusions; obviously, he just loves debate and believes that debate has the function of tempering wit.This book has done a great deal in rousing people from their dogmatic slumber.Abelard believes that dialectics is the only way to truth besides the Bible.Although no empiricist could accept this view, it was valuable in its day as a dissolver of prejudices, and it encouraged a bold exercise of reason.He said that apart from the Bible, nothing can be inerrant, and even the apostles and church fathers can make mistakes. His assessment of logic, from a modern point of view, is too extreme.He sees logic as primarily a Christian science, and plays with the word logic's etymology, the logos.The Gospel of John says "In the beginning was the Word" and he thinks this is enough to prove the sanctity of logic. Abelard's importance lies mainly in logic and epistemology.His philosophy is a set of critical analysis, mostly focusing on the critical analysis of language.When it comes to universals, that is, things that can be used to express many different things, he thinks that we are not expressing a thing, but a word.In this sense he is a nominalist.But against Roscelin, he points out that "voice" (elatus vocis) is a thing; and what we express is not the word as a physical event, but the word as meaning.Here he proves the doctrine of Aristotle.He says that things resemble each other, and that these similarities give rise to universals, but the resemblance between two similar things is not itself a thing; and this is where the error of realism lies.He also said something more hostile to realism, such as saying that universal concepts are not based on the nature of things, but are mixed images of many things.He does not, however, entirely deny a place to Plato's Ideas: the Ideas reside in the mind of God as models of creation; in fact, they are concepts of God. All of this, whether it is true or false, is certainly persuasive.Some of the most recent discourses on the question of universals have not gone further than he has. St. Bernard's holiness did not make him wise enough, so he not only failed to understand Abelard, but also accused Abelard unjustly.He affirmed that Abelard spoke of the Trinity like an Arius, of the charisms like a Phyracius, of the Person of Christ like a Nestorian; Proving that Plato was a Christian is enough to prove that he was a pagan; moreover, Abelard undermines the superiority of the Christian faith by arguing that God can be fully known by reason.In fact, Abelard never claimed the last item.Though, like St. Anselm, he believed that the Trinity could be proved rationally without the aid of revelation, he always left wide room for faith.Indeed, on one occasion he equated the Holy Spirit with Plato's world-soul, but when the heresy of this view was pointed out, he promptly abandoned it.He was accused of heresy less for his doctrine than for his militancy, and his habit of criticizing eminent scholars made him deeply unpopular among all powerful men. Most scholars at that time were not as enthusiastic about dialectics as Abelard.At that time, especially among the Chartres school, there was a humanist movement admiring antiquity and following Plato and Boethius.There was a renewed interest in mathematics: Adelard of Bath came to Spain at the beginning of the twelfth century and translated the works of Euclid. Against this dry scholastic method there was a powerful mysticism headed by St. Bernard.Saint Bernard's father was a knight who died on the First Crusade.He himself had been a Cistercian monk and was Abbot of the newly built Clarewood Abbey in AD 1115.He was influential in ecclesiastical politics—turning the tables against rival popes, combating heresy in northern Italy and southern France, imposing the pressure of orthodoxy on bold philosophers; and instigating the Second Cross. military.He had always been successful in attacking philosophers; but since the collapse of the Second Crusade he had lost the confidence of Gilbert de la Beaury.Gilbert de la Beauy applauds Boiseus too much, to the displeasure of our saintly heretic.St. Bernard was a politician and a bigot, but a man of pure religious character.His Latin hymns are extremely beautiful.Among those under his influence mysticism gradually gained dominance, and finally became something of a heresy like Joachim of Flora (died 1202 A.D.).Joachim's influence, however, belongs to a later age.St. Bernard and his followers sought religious truth not in reasoning but in subjective experience and contemplation.Abelard and Bernard may have their own biases. Bernard, as a religious mystic, felt very sad that the Holy See was obsessed with secular affairs, but at the same time he was quite disgusted with the power of the secular world.Although he encouraged the crusade, he does not seem to understand that war needs to be organized and cannot be directed by religious zeal alone.He often complained that people were obsessed with "the code of Justinian, not the law of God." He was dismayed at the pope's use of force to protect his dominions.He believed that the Pope's role was spiritual and that he should not attempt to rule practically.But this view is combined with an infinite reverence for the Pope.He calls the pope "king of bishops, successor of the apostles, with the headship of Abel, the dominion of Noah, the patriarchy of Abraham, the rank of Melchizedek, the majesty of Aaron, the authority of Moses, and the authority of the judges." above Samuel, in authority Peter, and in anointing Christ." The general result of St. Bernard's activities was, of course, a great increase in the power of the Pope in secular affairs. John of Salisbury, though not an important thinker, has written a rambling account which is of great value to us in understanding his time.He was secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury three times, including Becket;He was a skeptical man about matters other than religious belief.He called himself an academic (as Augustine used the word in the same sense), and his respect for kings was limited. He said that "an illiterate king is but a crowned donkey." He looks down on St. Bernard, but knows that Bernard's attempt to reconcile Plato and Aristotle will eventually fail.He admired Abelard, but ridiculed his theory of universals, and he also held the same attitude towards Roscelin's theory of universals.Logic, he thought, was a good ladder of learning, but in itself lifeless and sterile.He said that Aristotle, even in logic, had room for improvement; respect for ancient authors should not interfere with the critical use of reason.For him Plato was still "the king of philosophers." He befriended most of the learned men of his day.And from time to time participated in some scholastic debates in friendship.Once he visited a philosophy school he had visited thirty years earlier, and found them still discussing the same issues, and he couldn't help laughing at it.The atmosphere of the society he frequented was very much like the after-dinner lounges of Oxford University thirty years ago.In his dying years the monastery schools gave way to the universities, which have continued - at least in England - to the present day. In the twelfth century AD, translators translated more and more Greek books for Western European students. There are three main sources of such translations: Constantinople, Palermo and Toledo.Among them, Toledo is the most important, but the translations from here are often not directly translated from the original Greek, but translated from Arabic.In the second half of the first half of the twelfth century AD, Archbishop Raymond of Toledo founded a college for translators, which received great results.In 1128 AD, Jacob the Venetian translated Aristotle's "Analysis", "Rectification", and "Refutation of Sophisms"; but Western philosophers felt that "Analysis Part II" was not easy to understand.The Catanian Henry Aristipas (died 1162 AD) translated Plato's Phaedo and Meno, but his translations had no immediate impact.Although people in the twelfth century A.D. did not know all about Greek philosophy, some learned people realized that there were still many things to be discovered in the West.There was then a desire to acquire the comprehensive knowledge of antiquity.The fetters of orthodoxy are not so severe as is sometimes imagined; books can be written, and the heretical parts of them can be withdrawn if necessary after ample public discussion.At that time, most philosophers were French, and France was very important to the Holy See as a pivotal force against the emperor.Whatever theological heresy there may have been among the learned priests they were almost all political orthodoxy.Only Arnold of Brescia was an exception, which made him all the more wicked.From a political point of view, we can regard the entire early scholastic philosophy as a derivative of the struggle for political power in the entire church.