H. Myers (Early Medieval Kingship) stresses the distinction between monarchy (political power in the hands of a king or single executive) and kingship (art of ruling well, wrapped in mystery/ charisma). He suggests that the early medieval notion of kingship emerged out of the encounter between Germanic and Roman cultures through the barbarian"invasions" or incursions into Roman space. In Germanic tribes, the king was seen as a leader of a kinship group whose actual power was limited but whose charisma and quasi-divine status kept the fabric of society whole. The ancient Roman aversion to "tyrants" made the notion of kingship (especially hereditary) problematic, and so an element of popular "election" was added to the transfer of imperial authority.
In considering the relationship between Church and State in the Middle Ages, we have to think in terms of hierarchies, and particularly in terms of kingship and papal authority. Real power was not always in the hands of these figures, but the power they did exercise enjoyed a theoretical support and therefore an aura of legitimacy that other power brokers (dukes, princes, feudal lords) did not enjoy. Remember that the power of kings was not understood in secular terms as we understand it today, but also had religious connotations.
The readings in Lynch contain the information you will need to make sense of the primary sources and also help communicate change over time. The relationship between Church and State when Pope Leo met with Charlemagne to crown him emperor was quite different than it was when Pope Gregory VII excommunicated Emperor Henry IV and tried to depose him.
The reading "On the Petrine Doctrine" provides the key arguments for papal power. These arguments would become very important during the eleventh-century Gregorian reform as churchmen debated the appropriate relationship between church authority and state authority. Though popes held little practical power for most of the early medieval period, the doctrine articulated here made it possible for the papacy to assert power at a later time.
The readings on Charlemagne provide a window into what it meant to be a "Christian King." Look for the way Einhard highlights various aspects of Charlemagne's persona (remembering that, like all hagiographers, Einhard is presenting specific information for a specific rhetorical purpose).
There are two sets of selections from Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State. The first centers around the problem of church reform in the eleventh century and contains theoretical arguments for papal power, for royal power and for the proper relationship between them. The eleventh-century crisis was resolved in a way that set the stage for a period of increasing papal authority sometimes called "papal monarchy. The second set of texts deals with the conflict between Pope Boniface VIII and King Philip the Fair of France at the end of the thirteenth century, during which a new balance of power between monarchy and papacy was achieved.
Paper
Topic: (For instructions on writing the short
papers, click here.) Write on any one of
the following: 1. How do medieval thinkers seem to view hierarchy? How does that impact upon Church-State relations? 2. Einhard presents Charlemagne as the ideal
king. How would you describe the relationship between Church
and State as depicted by him in The Life of Charlemagne? 3. Look closely at the opposing positions of the imperialists and the reformers in the first set of Tierney texts with respect to the three key offices of pope, king, and bishop. Compare each position (i.e., imperialist and reforming) on the three offices with respect to the following issues: Source of authority; nature of responsibility; limits on power. 4. Philip IV of France styled himself as Europe's "most Christian king." That being the case, how do you understand his conflict with Pope Benedict VIII? What was at stake in the dispute from the perspective of the king? from the perspective of the pope? |