A Discussion of Papal Authority in the High Middle Ages (Paper)

A Discussion of Papal Authority in the High Middle Ages

The following paper will discuss papal authority as viewed by Ivo of Chartres and will include a discussion on the Concordat of Worms as read in: Miller, Maureen C..Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. 

Power in Europe in the 11^th and 12^th Centuries was split between the nobility and the church in a murky power arrangement that neither side clearly understood. In the latter half of the 11^th century the Bishops of Rome began to accumulate more direct power over the various sees in Western Europe placing them in direct conflict with the presiding Emperors and Kings. The most notable of these transgressions was with the Holy Roman Emperors of the German States which erupted into a wider battle with both sides claiming the right to appoint bishops and other church officials. What has been termed ‘The Investiture Conflict’ would culminate in the Concordat of Worms in 1122 with the Emperor Henry V coming to terms with Pope Calixtus II.¹ In the agreement the Emperor gives up all claims to investing Bishops in his lands with symbols of spiritual power and returns all lands and goods taken from the church by himself and his father. In return he was granted the right to invest bishops with secular power.² Some years previous to this Ivo of Chartres raised a few fundamental points on the relationship between King and Church in his letter of rejection sent to one Hugh of Lyon, an apostolic legate appointed by the Pope. In his letter he states that papal authorities have been asserting the power of the Bishop of Rome in ways that hinders the church or does not improve the church at all. He further states that it would be much easier for the local councils to vote for new bishops themselves rather than have them appointed to their posts by the Pope. Ivo also argues against the entire investing conflict because he does not see the harm in a king instating a bishop as it does not involve preforming any sacraments.³ While all these claims were made in Ivo’s Correspondence the only one actually addressed in the Concordat is the issue of the actual investing of bishops therefore, the issues presented by Ivo of Chartres were, for the largest part, left unaddressed in the Concordat of Worms.

In Ivo’s letter to the papal legate he asserts many points. The first and most important of these is the request not to be bound so tightly by papal laws that, according to Ivo, are not necessarily within the canonical laws that are exercised by the bishop of Rome. One may view this as a sign that while the Church was united they did not yet view the Bishop of Rome as the supreme power of the church. This is in spite of the fact that The Dictatus papae was written almost 30 years prior claiming more widespread authority for the Pope.⁴ This neglecting of the Pope’s authority can provide the historian with a glimpse into how the church in the High Middle Ages worked. Judging by the fact that many German bishops during the 1070s and 1080s rejected the authority of Gregory VII and called actively for his abdication until his death in 1085, one might say that the church was not centrally controlled by Popes at the time.⁵ This is fundamental to understanding why this conflict came about in the first place. In Ivo’s opinion the Pope was overstepping his authority by trying to broadly increase his authority not only over Emperors like Henry but also over bishops like Ivo. Central to the Pope’s aims was his claiming succession from St. Peter. In the eyes of Gregory VII this gave him the power to bar kings from heaven, appoint bishops from afar, and create new canon law. According to Ivo and his view on earlier church fathers, this should not be the case but rather the see of Rome should act in reference to the writing of predecessors instead of making up laws which benefit itself instead of the entire church.⁶

The second point made by Ivo inquires whether or not investiture by kings is truly a problem. This almost argues for the king to appoint the bishops otherwise, in effect, the church was saying that the kings and emperors were not holy. This was a direct contradiction to the populist ideas of the time as promulgated by Guibert of Nogent shortly after the letter by Ivo. In this account kings were able to miraculously heal their subjects with the slightest touch.⁷ This is powerful evidence for the social acceptability of Kings investing bishops. If kings were holy how could you deny them that power? At the same time Ivo states that it shouldn’t matter whether or not kings took part because in the end the bishop was invested by God himself. In this objection the historian may see why so many bishops supported the German Emperor in the first place. If the King or Emperor were seen as a holy figure in and of themselves as suggested by the tomb of Edward II and subsequent description in which bones of dead rulers where dispersed amongst his kingdom, the Bishops of his territory would naturally support him as: A-he was the one to invest them originally and B- They saw him as a way to contact god, as with saints.⁸

Ivo also argues that it is the power of the local clergy to appoint a bishop by election and that the pope should not interfere with this right unless that power had been granted by ancient rights of church fathers, which it had not. ⁹ Later, this power will be usurped by the pope as shown in the account of a disputed election in Auxerre. In other words the power of the popes is almost insured by the vague wording in the Concordat. Any power not expressly denied to the pope is still open for Papal rulers to somehow take as their own.

In the Concordat of Worms, the king gives up his ability to invest members of the clergy with symbols of Divine power such as the Staff and Ring. By doing this he has now limited his power to strictly temporal possessions and is therefore reliant on the church to provide him with divine absolution. In return for his cessation of investing with divine symbols Henry receives the ability to invest church officials in a more secular way with a scepter representing the power he is giving them over his lands. In this sense the clergy have now separated themselves further from the nobility by retaining more power for themselves in the form of divine investment which is done at the cost of the Kings and Emperors. The clergy will now solely hold the power to allow people into heaven. This is seen when Gregory VII excommunicates Henry IV, in essence barring him from heaven as the Pope is the direct successor to St. Peter, the Gatekeeper of Heaven.

In addition to the Emperors not investing clergy with divine symbols, the Concordat also states that any property that was seized by Henry or his father was to be given back to the church.¹⁰ This is actually a major setback for the nobility because large tracts of land that were previously granted to the nobility have since fallen into the hands of the Church through bequeathments and wills. This only served to strengthen the demands that the church made on the nobility.

Adjudicating the dispute between the church and the nobility is not an easy task for the brightest of men at the time of The Investiture Conflict and Ivo of Chartres is no exception. While many of his points about the differences in opinion between the two parties is spot-on the only actual point that is resolved in the Concordat of Worms is in regards to investment of actual bishops and leaves unresolved the issues of Papal authority, clergy autonomy, and the holiness of kings.

1 Miller, Maureen C. “The Agreements of Worms” Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. 120-121

2  ibid Miller, "Power and the holy..." pp.120-121

3 Miller, Maureen C.”A Letter to the Apostolic Legate Hugh of Lyon”Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 115-119

4    Miller, Maureen C.. "Pope Gregory VII, The Dictatus papae." In Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. 81.

5 Miller, Maureen C. Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. p. 105

6 Miller, Maureen C.”A Letter to the Apostolic Legate Hugh of Lyon”Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 115-119

7 Miller, Maureen C. “On Royal Powers” Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 162-163

8 Miller, Maureen C. “The Tomb of Edward II, Foreword” Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 168-170

9 Miller, Maureen C.”A Letter to the Apostolic Legate Hugh of Lyon”Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 115-119

10 Miller, Maureen C. “The Agreements of Worms” Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 120-121

The Black Death (Paper)

A think that another academic post is in order and have decided to display one of my papers on the Black Death. I hope you enjoy it.

            The Black Death that swept across the Mediterranean in the middle of the 14^th century resulted in different responses among various portions of the population.  The responses to the Plague range greatly throughout the Mediterranean Basin. In The Italian States we have evidence of a limited response by certain parts of the populace which saw an increase in moral laxity. In Germany and the Low Countries, however this was counteracted by an increase in penitential flagellants who became known for a strong, yet misguided, piety bordering on hysteria.  Therefore moral laxity was not a contributing factor in the development or spread of the disease but was, along with other more religious acts, a response to the Plague.

            In order to gauge the differences in morality before and after the Plague one must first provide a description of morality before the plague. In medieval society in the high to late middle ages, morality was normally something that was closely monitored in society. Women were expected to be modest and clothed in a manner as to reveal as little skin as possible. The family unit was the basic economic factor which led to an expectation of family supporting each other. Fathers were the head of household and were responsible for the care of the wife, children, and, at times, extended family. Priest played a major part in the morality of society by providing direction to lost souls and preaching sermons on the correct way in which to worship and please an angry God.[1] They were also responsible for the burying of the dead and last rites at funerals.[2] People also respected their neighbors property and assets in accordance with the Ten Commandments. After the coming of the Plague c. 1348 many of these moralities would fall by the wayside as people struggled to cope with the Black Death.

            Woman’s modesty according to some sources became notably lessened in the wake of the Plague. Women after the Death had no qualms with showing more skin in public as illustrated in the account of Boccaccio. In addition to this lack of visual modesty it is also noted that women in some parts of Europe, instead of being 'barren', were instead marrying in great numbers and procreating in large numbers.[3] This might be seen as a natural reaction to the Death that was sweeping Europe. Women abandoned their previously 'moral' existences and instead joined together in what De Venette called 'wanton abandon'.[4]

            The family unit of Europe was a central figure in the lives of peasants and aristocrats throughout medieval Europe. Men were expected to provide for the family to the best of their ability. This included providing care to the sick. However, with the coming of the Plague this family unit began to disintegrate.  Husbands left wives, brothers left sisters, mothers left children.[5]  The basic unit of life in their world would disappear as each person sought to deal with the plague as they saw best. This change in social normalcy was brought on by the idea that death, being so rampant, it was only a matter of time, in the minds of people, before they each succumbed to it. This undoubtedly led to an increase in the wanton behavior many people displayed, moving from house to house or tavern to tavern drinking repeatedly to excess and treating their bodies as carelessly as their livers. Further evidence of moral laxity is present in several accounts in which there are descriptions of people liberally taking possession of the dead or dying's property. Even though no relation is held by those taking the 'movable items' it still occurred quite often.

            In order to atone for both original sin and the sin incurred by a single person there arose a sect of Christians who deemed it prudent to enact penance for their sins. This penance however, was extreme in nature and religiously unsanctioned. The participants of this sect, called 'Flagellants', would, as their name implied proceed to both whip themselves and be whipped by another with long leather straps to which were affixed thorns of wood or iron which tore at flesh as they were applied. These reactionaries believed that they were atoning for their sin as well as atoning for the sin of the community.[6] The penitents would travel through towns and cities enacting a procession which drew large crowds of spectators who all, “..felt pity for the said penitents.”[7] This form of self sacrifice however was not condoned by the church and the pope even went so far as to provide bishops license to excommunicate members of the sect, partially due to the fact that husbands were simply deserting their families in order to repent with the group.[8] The act of self-flagellation was simply another example of people acting against long-standing moralities.

            Priests in 14^th and 15^th century Europe during the Plague were seen by a wide swath of the population as lazy or greedy. It is noted that many priests were actually ordered back to their dioceses by their Archbishops in addition to being censured for extorting peasants.[9] The local populations were more apt to charge that the priests were not fulfilling their duties in regard to burying the dead with their last rights.[10] However being as the priests died at roughly the same ratio as the rest of the population the fact that there were simply just not enough of them to bury the massive amount of dead is a better explanation than that they were simply lazy. The priesthood also speaks out against the hysteria of the flagellants possibly even lowering their worth to the common people as the common people more than likely viewed the flagellants as at least attempting to do something to assuage the anger of God.

            Art also played a large role in depicting the lack of morality with regard to the Plague.  Worms begin to have an increasing presence in tombs particularly when illustrated as partaking of the flesh of the dead, yet even when not they could also be found in poems that where placed alongside the crypts.[11] This shows a marked departure from earlier forms of decoration, highlighting the perception of what life living with the Plague was like. The other common  sight seen in art is a sense of impending doom involving the figure of Death playing chess with participants in which the participants follow death into the afterlife after losing at his 'game'.[12] This sense of dread was used as a justification in abandoning normal ideas of morality.

            In all, the effect of the plague produced an era of relative licentiousness in which inhabitants freely abandoned previously established moralities. This was an effect of the Plague rather and not a cause of it. The laxity that is seen, such as lack of modesty, drunkenness, and lack of following proper religious protocol can all be seen in the accounts of post-Plague Europe.

---

[1]    Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005. Petrarch pg72

[2]    Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Boccaccio pg 79

[3]    Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Jean De Venette pg 83

[4]    ibid

[5]    Boccaccio pg 77

[6]    Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Fritsche Closener pg 133

[7]    Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Gilles Li Muisis pg 132

[8]    Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.King Philip VI of France. Pg 138, Muisis pg137 Heinrich of Herford pg 122

[9]    Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Hamo Hethe, Bishop of Rochester pg 106

[10]  Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Simon Islip, Archbishop of Canterbury pg 105, Hamo Hethe, Bishop of Rochester pg 106

[11]          Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005. A Disputacioun betwyx the Body and Wormes pg176

[12]          Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005. Death as Chess Player pg 168