History of the Middle Ages
GA 51
6 December 1904, Berlin
Translator Unknown
VI. Culture of the Middle Ages
The history of the Middle Ages is specially important for human study, because it deals with an epoch which we are able to investigate from its simple origin up to the rise of what we call “States.” And, moreover, we have here an interweaving of many factors. In simple circumstances, a complete form of culture, such as Christianity is, was living a full life. Out of a condition of barbarism, we see developing more and more the blossom of medieval culture—what we know as “discoveries.”
To those races, thrown confusedly together on the path of folk migrations, we see arriving by a complicated, roundabout way that which today we term “Science.” The Middle Ages had come into a great heritage. Yet, of what we have learnt to know of Greek culture, nothing has remained but a few traditions, seen through the spectacles of Christian conceptions. On the other hand, a very great inheritance has remained from the days of the Roman Empire, with its government and administration of justice, showing a serried unity such as had never before appeared in world history, nor is to be found elsewhere in the Middle Ages. It is only in the new age, otherwise so proud of its freedom, that we meet with such an expansion of the authority of the State. This, allied with that other idealistic culture movement by which the Roman Empire had gradually been penetrated and absorbed, came to people who know nothing of any such education and who, moreover, had been uprooted by the folk migrations. All these tribes—Goths, Heruleans, Longobards, Franks, Saxons, etc.—were in quite a different position from the Romans; they had remained completely at the stage of childhood.
They led a kind of Nature-life, confined to hunting and waging war, without settled law or justice. A great transition now took place in the relationship and conceptions of these tribes, who lived together in small groups.
What held these separate tribes together? The memory of some ancestor, who had given the tribe its name—the memory of mighty generations which had distinguished themselves in ancient wars or at the conquest of new land, handing down to the tribe the titles of count, prince and duke.
The transition was expressed in a liking for communal ground. Men began to attach more value to community of land ownership than to blood relationship.
Instead of tribal membership, appeared what we call the village community. The whole of material life was based on land and soil. There was still neither trade nor industry; all that was necessary in that line was looked after by the women, young people and slaves. The majority of the population knew nothing beyond agriculture and frequent military expeditions. They had no notion of what we call culture today, no idea of what we look upon as the first essentials: reading and writing. It is reckoned as a special merit of Charlemagne's that in his old age he took the trouble to learn to read and write. All the education there was in the conquered districts lay in the hands of the Roman population. From it sprang the civil service; hence the influence of the Roman conception of justice. Thus it was in the western regions; it was different in the east. There, in the districts which form the Germany of today, the original Germanic character had kept itself free from these influences. The unbroken strength of the Thuringian and Saxon tribes was something with which everyone had to reckon on, in the Middle Ages.
The only thing which brought education to them was Christianity. Yet the actual Sciences—such as Mathematics, Natural Science, etc.—were not included in it. To have added moral, ethical concepts was the merit of Christianity. Especially among the Frankish tribes, the influence of the clergy, particularly of the immigrant Celtic monks, was very strong. Among these tribes, which had been led by favourable circumstances into a free land, where, in regions still to a large extent uncultivated, they could develop their own particular character—we can best see how this metamorphosis was accomplished. The metamorphosis of small communities to larger ones came about here. Counts and princes conquered more and more territories and enfeoffed to small proprietors, parts of their property. By this means, the power of the large landowner extended farther and farther. A kind of jurisdiction and constitution arose out of this transfer of relationships belonging originally to purely civil law. What the Irish and Scottish monks originally instigated was a religious zeal, a holy inspiration, to work for the salvation of mankind. All that was changed. The Franks could only think of Christianity as a means to obtaining power. Charlemagne, in particular, made use of the Church to increase his dominion. Any bishop instituted by him was generally chosen as a tool for his government. In the beginning the Church was led only by those who were zealous for the faith, those who were genuinely convinced; later, under the influence of external authority, the Church itself sought to obtain power relationships. Thus the bishop was first a ministering member of the Church, later himself a ruler and landowner. It is thus we see the Middle Ages at about the time of Charlemagne. But we cannot speak of an empire of Charlemagne, as we speak of empires today. The ownership of large territories made it possible to transfer landed property. New territory was conquered and produced new transfers. Thus, the justiciaries of the court came into existence. Instead of the old canton tribunals, court tribunals arose, with the imperial counts, or—if they were appointed by bishops—provosts.
In the meantime, there were still always independent tribes, who clung to their old dukes, their self-chosen justiciaries.
So was it still at the death of Charlemagne, and so it remained under his son, Louis the Pious. This we see from his relations with his three sons, Lothair, Pepin and Louis. He divided his empire among the three, as if it were a private property, and when he had another son, by a second marriage, and was about to alter the division, his elder sons rose against him, conquered him at the battle of Lügenfeld and compelled him to abdicate, so that their property should not be reduced. This gives us clear insight into what mattered most in such a State. We see, too, what a false picture is given in the histories dealing with this period. The fighting which took place was for purely private rights, and though the actual populace was, of course, disturbed and harassed by the military expeditions and massing of troops, yet, for the progress of mankind, all these struggles in the post-Carlovingian epoch, were really of no significance.
That, however, which had real significance was the opposition that had developed between the empire of the Franks and the empire which comprised Germany and Austria. In the Western Empire a struggle had gradually arisen between the secular nobility and the ruling ecclesiastical power. The educated clergy supplied what had formerly been provided by those who were left from the Roman population: the higher court officials, the clerks of the law courts, etc. These all possessed a quite uniform education, issuing from the monasteries. Side by side with the educated clergy were the uneducated masses, who were entirely dependent on these cultured ecclesiastics. The whole education of those days proceeded from what was taught in the monastery schools. Christian theology embraced a septuple of sciences, three lower and four higher.
Thus we see, outside, on the land, a race entirely engaged in war and agriculture; whereas in churches, schools and offices, that which sprang from the monastery schools, the sciences were taught. The three lower ones were: Grammar, Logic and Dialectics. Grammar was the science of speech, Logic of thinking—and they have persisted in the same form, since they were taught, from Greece, in the monasteries of the Middle Ages up to the 19th century; whereas now they are considered superfluous. Next to Logic came Dialectics, which has completely disappeared from the scientific curriculum of today. Medieval education was based on Dialectics, which everyone who hoped to achieve anything in intellectual life had to learn and master. Dialectics is the art of defending a truth against an attack, according to the correct rules. In order to do this, the laws of reason had to be known. Sophism could not be emplolyed when it was a question of permanently defending a truth; it was not the age of newspapers, where reasons which were valid today, are not accepted tomorrow.
From Dialectics springs what we may call the scientific and scholarly conscience; and that everyone should have, who wishes to join in scientific work. Not everything can be defended in a rational way; hence the great importance of this training, to be able to make conscientious distinctions. Later, however, this teaching degenerated, so that, towards the end of the Middle Ages, it might happen that someone might volunteer to defend any truth, for 24 hours long, against the attacks of assembled professors, students and layman from Paris.
Those who aspired to the vocation of judge were trained by Dialectics—not so much the presidents of the law courts as those who drew up the verdicts.
When, at the beginning of Faust, Goethe makes him say:
“True, I've more with than all your solemn fools,
Priests, doctors, scribes, magisters of the schools. ”
he is characterising the dignities and offices to which, in these days, a man might attain through a scientific education. A “Doctor” was one who could make independent use of his knowledge. A “Master” had the right to teach in the universities. “Clerks” were all those who were engaged in civil service, whether in a high or low position. “Parsons” were all clergymen. The word Pfaffe (parson) was not in those days a term of contempt, but an honorary title. Thus, as late as the 14th century, Meister Eckhardt calls Plato the great Greek “Pfaffe.”
The four higher sciences were: Geometry, Arithmetic, Astronomy and Music.
Geometry is the science of space. Arithmetic is a higher form of counting. Astronomy, too, represented more of less what we understand by it today. Music was not the same as that which we call music today.
Music was the science of harmony of the spheres. It was believed that the whole universe stood in harmonious relationship to its individual constituents. All these relationships, expressed in figures, men sought to discover. As also, indeed, colours, notes, etc. are based on certain numbers. In music they sought clarity concerning the laws of harmony, of rhythmic relationships; the concord of cosmic laws was taught.
Thus I have tried to give you an idea of the activities of the class which ruled on account of its education. More and more did this education gain the upper hand in the western realm which we now call France. It was different in Germany. There the tribes had remained independent; they had retained their simple customs, had preserved their freedom to a large extent. The seamy side of these primitive relationships, however, was that here the clergy were uneducated, and allowed themselves to be used as a means to power in the hands of the dukes and emperors.
The dominion of the western empire remained with the Carlovingians. Yet the rulers of this house were never of much value. Eventually the inefficiency of these Carlovingian rulers became especially clear when the Normans—the warlike pirates from the north—harassed the land. These Normans forced their way into the country from the mouths of the rivers Elbe and Weser, plundering the coasts everywhere, especially in France, where they took possession of the northern regions, and pressed forward as far as Paris. At that time Charles III was reigning; he himself proved utterly incapable of undertaking anything against the Normans. Hence it was easy for an unknown Austrian duke, Arnulf of Cairinthia, to put an end to the Carlovingian rule and to usurp the government himself. At first he enjoyed great respect, since he had succeeded in conquering the Normans. But the jealousy among the princes was so great that Arnulf was obliged to appeal to the Church and to conclude an alliance with it. He had to make an expedition into Italy, and in general to submit to ecclesiastical authority at many points. The consequence was that, after his death, the Church, as we shall see, made use of its power. It was not a secular prince or count, but the Archbishop of Mainz, who became the guardian of his son, Louis the Child. In this way the Archbishop assumed all the privileges of government, and henceforth we see the foundations laid for the rule of the Church, which was no longer merely exploited by the secular rulers, but was more and more united in the exercise of secular government and secular jurisdiction. The result of this was that the struggle between secular and ecclesiastical power relaxed, and this introduced that important period of history—the struggle between the Emperor and the Pope. Conventional historical descriptions, which picture these two powers as quite distinct from each other are incorrect. They were only rivals in the fight for external authority, but they were equal powers working in the same direction. We are only dealing with a quarrel between a Church grown secular, and a secular power. We see power expanding in two directions; and as a third, we see the rise of the “free cities,” spreading over the whole of Europe.
Sechster Vortrag
Die Geschichte des Mittelalters ist deshalb für die menschliche Betrachtung so außerordentlich wichtig, weil wir es mit einem Zeitraum zu tun haben, den wir schon besser erforschen können, in dem wir die menschliche Entwickelung verfolgen können vom einfachen Ursprung aus bis zur Entstehung dessen, was wir Staaten nennen. Und außerdem haben wir hier ein Ineinandergreifen der mannigfaltigsten Faktoren. Innerhalb einfacher Verhältnisse lebt sich ein fertiges Kulturgebilde ein, wie es das Christentum ist. Aus dem Zustande der Barbarei sehen wir immer mehr das sich entwickeln, was als Blüte der Kultur des Mittelalters erscheint, was wir als Erfindungen kennen.
Zu diesen auf dem Wege der Völkerwanderung durcheinandergewürfelten Völkerschaften sehen wir auf einem komplizierten Umwege dasjenige kommen, was man heute mit «Wissenschaft» bezeichnet. Das Mittelalter hatte eine große Erbschaft angetreten. Zwar war von dem, was wir als griechische Kultur kennengelernt haben, nichts vorhanden geblieben als einige Traditionen auf Plato zurückgehend und durch die Brille der christlichen Anschauungen gesehen. Dagegen war ein mächtiges Erbe aus der Zeit des römischen Reiches geblieben: das mächtige Staatengebilde mit seiner Verwaltung und Rechtspflege von einer Einheitlichkeit und Geschlossenheit, wie sie nie zuvor in der Weltgeschichte aufgetreten waren, wie wir sie im ganzen Mittelalter auch nicht finden; erst in der Neuzeit, die sich sonst so viel auf ihre Freiheit einbildet, begegnen wir einer solchen Ausdehnung der Staatsgewalt. Das, verbunden mit jener anderen idealistischen Kulturbewegung, die allmählich das römische Reich durchdrungen und aufgesogen hatte, kam zu Völkern, die nichts hatten von irgendeiner ähnlichen Bildung, und dazu von der Völkerwanderung entwurzelt waren. Alle diese Völkerstämme, Goten, Heruler, Langobarden, Franken, Sachsen und so weiter, waren etwas ganz anderes, völlig im Kindheitsstadium geblieben, im Vergleich zu jenen Römern.
Eine Art Naturleben, beschränkt auf Jagd und Kriegführung, führten sie ohne festes Recht und Gesetz. Ein großer Übergang fand nun statt in den Verhältnissen und Anschauungen dieser Völkerschaften, die in kleinen Verbänden zusammenlebten.
Was hielt diese einzelnen Stämme zusammen? Das Andenken an irgendeinen Ahnen, der dem Stamme den Namen gegeben hatte, an mächtige Geschlechter, die sich in alten Kämpfen oder bei Eroberung des neuen Landes hervorgetan hatten, und dem Stamm das geliefert, was man Grafen, Fürsten, Herzöge nennt.
Dieser Übergang drückt sich nun darin aus, daß man den gemeinsamen Boden liebt. Sie fangen an, mehr Wert auf die Gemeinsamkeit des Landbesitzes zu legen als auf die Blutsverwandtschaft.
An die Stelle der Stammeszugehörigkeit tritt das, was wir Dorfgemeinschaft nennen. Auf dem Grund und Boden beruht das gesamte materielle Leben. Handel und Gewerbe gibt es noch nicht. Was diese Menschen davon nötig haben, wird nebenbei besorgt von den Frauen, den jungen Leuten und Sklaven. Der größte Teil der Bevölkerung kannte gar nichts anderes als den Ackerbau und häufige Kriegszüge. Sie hatten keine Ahnung von dem, was wir heute Kultur nennen, keine Ahnung von dem, was wir als die erste Forderung derselben ansehen, von Lesen und Schreiben. Es wird Karl dem Großen als besonderes Verdienst angerechnet, daß er sich bemühte, im Alter noch Lesen und Schreiben zu lernen. Alles, was an Bildung vorhanden war, lag in den Händen der römischen Bevölkerung in den Gegenden, die erobert worden waren. Aus ihnen ging das Beamtentum hervor, daher der Einfluß der römischen Rechtsanschauungen. So war es in den westlichen Gegenden; anders im Osten. Dort, in den heutigen deutschen Gebieten, hatte sich das ursprüngliche germanische Wesen von diesen Einflüssen frei gehalten. Die ungebrochene Kraft der thüringischen und sächsischen Stämme war etwas, mit dem alles im Mittelalter zu rechnen hatte.
Das einzige, was hierher eine Bildung brachte, war das Christentum. Doch eigentliche Wissenschaft, wie Mathematik, Naturwissenschaft und so weiter war nicht darin einbegriffen. Moralische, religiöse Bildung brachte es. Die moralischen, ethischen Begriffe hinzugefügt zu haben, war das Verdienst des Christentums. Namentlich innerhalb des am meisten begünstigten Frankenstammes war der Einfluß des Klerus, besonders der hereinziehenden, gelehrten keltischen Mönche, ein sehr großer. Bei diesem Stamme, der durch die Gunst der Umstände in ein freies Land geführt wurde, wo er seine Eigenart in noch großenteils unbebauten Gegenden ausleben konnte, sehen wir am besten, wie diese Umwandlung sich vollzieht. Die Umwandlung von kleineren zu größeren Gemeinschaften kam hier zustande. Grafen und Fürsten eroberten immer neue Gebiete, und belehnten kleine Besitzer mit Teilen ihres Besitzes. Dadurch breitete sich die Macht der großen Grundbesitzer immer mehr aus. Eine Art Gerichtsbarkeit und Verfassung entstand aus der Übertragung ursprünglich rein privatrechtlicher Verhältnisse. Was ursprünglich die irischen und schottischen Mönche antrieb, war der heilige Glaubenseifer, der Gedanke, für das Heil der Menschheit zu wirken. Das alles änderte sich. Das Frankentum konnte auch das Christentum nur als Machtmittel begreifen.
Besonders Karl der Große benutzt die Kirche dazu, sein Gebiet zu vergrößern. Irgendein Bischof, den er einsetzte, war zumeist bestimmt, ein Werkzeug seiner Herrschaft zu sein. Anfangs wurde die Kirche nur von Glaubenseifer, von wirklicher Überzeugung geleitet, später unter dem Einfluß der äußeren Gewalt, suchte sie selbst ein Machtverhältnis zu erringen. So war der Bischof erst ein dienendes Glied der Kirche, später selbst ein Herrscher und Grundbesitzer. So zeigt sich uns das Mittelalter etwa zur Zeit Karls des Großen. Aber wir dürfen nicht von einem Reiche Karls des Großen sprechen, wie wir heute von Reichen sprechen. Der Großgrundbesitz gibt die Möglichkeit, Grundbesitz an andere zu übertragen. Neue Gebiete werden erobert und ergeben neue Möglichkeiten, die Macht zu vergrößern durch neue Übertragungen. So entstehen höfische Gerichtsbeamte. An die Stelle der alten Gaugerichte treten Hofgerichte mit kaiserlichen Grafen, oder wenn sie von Bischöfen ernannt werden, Vögten.
Dazwischen haben wir immer noch unabhängige Stämme, die an ihren alten Herzögen, ihren selbstgewählten Gerichten festhielten.
So war es noch beim Tode Karls des Großen, so blieb es unter seinem Sohne Ludwig dem Frommen. Das sehen wir aus seinem Verhältnis zu seinen drei Söhnen Lothar, Pippin und Ludwig; er teilt sein Reich wie einen privaten Besitz unter die drei. Und als er aus einer zweiten Ehe noch einen Sohn erhält und eine abermalige Teilung vornimmt, erheben sich seine älteren Söhne gegen ihn, besiegen ihn in der Schlacht auf dem Lügenfelde und zwingen ihn, dem Thron zu entsagen, um sich ihren Besitz nicht schmälern zu lassen. Wir ersehen deutlich, was es mit einem damaligen Staate auf sich hatte. Wir sehen auch, welch falsches Bild das gibt, was in der Geschichte von dieser Zeit gewöhnlich erzählt wird. Es waren rein privatrechtliche Streitigkeiten, die Kämpfe, die sich damals abspielten, und die eigentlichen Völker wurden zwar bei solchen Feldzügen durch die Heeresmassen gestört und beunruhigt, aber für den Fortschritt der Menschheit haben alle diese Kämpfe in der nachkarolingischen Zeit keine wirkliche Bedeutung.
Dasjenige, was aber eine wirkliche Bedeutung hatte, war der Gegensatz, der sich herausgebildet hatte zwischen dem Frankenreiche und dem Reiche, das Deutschland und Österreich umfaßte. Im Westreiche war allmählich ein Kampf entstanden zwischen dem weltlichen Adel und der herrschenden kirchlichen Macht. Der gebildete Klerus lieferte dasjenige, was man früher aus den Resten der römischen Bevölkerung entnommen hatte: die höheren Hofbeamten, die Schreiber bei den Gerichten und so weiter. Sie alle besaßen eine ganz gleichförmige, aus den Klöstern hervorgehende Bildung. — Neben diesem gebildeten Klerus gab es eine große ungebildete Masse, die ganz abhängig war von den so ausgebildeten Geistlichen. — Es war die ganze Bildung jener Zeit, die hervorgegangen war aus dem, was in den Klosterschulen gelehrt wurde. Die christliche Theologie umfaßte eine Siebenzahl der Wissenschaften, drei niedere und vier höhere.
So sehen wir draußen im Lande ein nur Krieg und Ackerbau treibendes Volk; in Kirchen, Schulen und Ämtern lebt das, was den Klosterschulen entstammt. Hier in den Klerikerschulen werden diese Wissenschaften gelehrt; die drei niederen waren: Grammatik, Logik und Dialektik. Die Grammatik war die Lehre von der Sprache, die Logik, die Denklehre, die sich in der gleichen Gestalt von Griechenland aus in den Klöstern des Mittelalters bis in das 19. Jahrhundert erhielt, während man sie heute für überflüssig erachtet. An die Logik reihte sich dann die Dialektik, die ganz aus dem Bestande der heutigen Wissenschaft verschwunden ist. Die mittelalterliche Bildung ruhte in der Dialektik, die mußte jeder lernen und beherrschen, der etwas in dem geistigen Leben leisten wollte. Die Dialektik ist die Kunst, gegenüber Angriffen eine Wahrheit in regelrechter Weise zu verteidigen. Die Gesetze der Vernunft müssen gekannt werden, um dies tun zu können. Nicht mit Scheingründen konnte gearbeitet werden, wo es galt, eine Wahrheit dauernd zu verteidigen; es war nicht die Zeit der Zeitungen, wo Gründe von heute nur bis morgen gelten.
Aus der Dialektik stammt, was man wissenschaftliches und gelehrtes Gewissen nennen kann, und das sollte jeder haben, der in der Wissenschaft mittun will. Nicht alles und jedes läßt sich in vernunftgemäßer Weise verteidigen; darin lag die große Bedeutung dieser Schulung, hier gewissenhaft zu unterscheiden. Später ist das allmählich ausgeartet, so daß es im späteren Mittelalter dahin kommen konnte zum Beispiel, daß sich jemand erbot, irgendeine Wahrheit vierundzwanzig Stunden lang gegen die Angriffe sämtlicher Professoren, Studenten und Laien von Paris zu verteidigen.
Geschult durch die Dialektik waren diejenigen, die zum Richterberuf kamen, weniger die Vorsitzenden der Gerichte, als diejenigen, die die Urteile ausfertigten.
Wenn Goethe im Anfang des «Faust» ihn sagen läßt: «Zwar bin ich gescheiter als alle die Laffen, Doktoren, Magister, Schreiber und Pfaffen», so kennzeichnet er damit die Würden und Ämter, zu denen man damals durch eine wissenschaftliche Ausbildung gelangte. «Doktor» war derjenige, der sein Wissen selbständig verwenden konnte. Magister war derjenige, der an den Hochschulen unterrichten durfte. Schreiber waren alle, die im weltlichen Dienste beschäftigt waren, gleichviel ob in höherer oder niederer Stellung. Pfaffen waren alle Geistlichen. Das Wort Pfaffe war in jenen Zeiten noch kein Schimpfwort, sondern ein Ehrentitel. So nennt noch im 14. Jahrhundert der Meister Eckhart Plato den großen griechischen Pfaffen.
Die vier höheren Wissenschaften waren Geometrie, Arithmetik, Astronomie und Musik.
Geometrie ist Raumlehre. Arithmetik ist höheres Rechnen, auch Astronomie entsprach ungefähr dem, was wir heute darunter verstehen. Musik aber war nicht das gleiche, was wir heute so nennen. Musik war die Wissenschaft von der Harmonie des Weltenalls. Man glaubte, daß das gesamte Weltenganze in harmonischen Verhältnissen zu seinen einzelnen Bestandteilen stehe. Alle diese Verhältnisse, die sich durch Zahlen ausdrückten, suchte man aufzufinden. Wie auch in der Tat die Farben, Töne und so weiter auf bestimmten Zahlen beruhen. Man suchte nun in der Musik überall die Gesetze der Harmonie, die rhythmischen Verhältnisse; der Zusammenklang der Weltgesetze wurde gelehrt.
So habe ich versucht, Ihnen eine Vorstellung zu geben von dem, was der durch Bildung herrschende Stand trieb. Diese Bildung gewann immer mehr die Oberhand in dem Westreich, das wir jetzt Frankreich nennen. Anders in Deutschland. Diese Stämme waren ungebrochen geblieben, sie hatten sich ihre einfachen Sitten gewahrt, ihre Freiheit größtenteils erhalten. Die Schattenseite dieser primitiven Verhältnisse aber war, daß hier der Klerus ungebildet war, und daher sich dazu verwenden ließ, ein Machtmittel in den Händen der Herzöge und Kaiser abzugeben.
Die Herrschaft des Westreiches blieb bei den Karolingern. Doch die Herrscher aus diesem Hause wurden immer minderwertiger. Zuletzt zeigte sich besonders die Unfähigkeit dieser karolingischen Herrscher, als von Norden her kriegerische Seeräuber, die Normannen, das Land beunruhigten. Diese Normannen drangen von der Mündung der Flüsse aus, der Elbe und Weser, in das Land, plünderten überall die Küsten, besonders in Frankreich, wo sie die nördlichen Gegenden besetzten und bis nach Paris vordrangen. Dazumal regierte Karl IL, der sich vollständig unfähig zeigte, etwas gegen dieses Volk zu unternehmen. Deshalb war es ein Leichtes, daß ein unbekannter Herzog in Österreich, Arnulf von Kärnten, der Karolingerherrschaft ein Ende machen und sich die Herrschaft aneignen konnte. Zuerst genoß er großes Ansehen, da es ihm gelang, die Normannen zu besiegen. Aber die Eifersucht unter den Fürsten war so groß, daß sich Arnulf bequemen mußte, sich an die Kirche zu wenden und einen Bund mit ihr zu schließen. Er mußte einen Zug nach Italien machen und sich überhaupt ihrer Herrschaft in vielen Stücken unterwerfen. Die Folge ist dann, daß wir nach seinem Tode sehen, wie die Kirche sich ihrer Macht bedient. Nicht ein weltlicher Fürst oder Graf, sondern der Erzbischof Hatto von Mainz wird der Vormund seines Sohnes, Ludwig des Kindes. Er tritt damit in all die Herrscherrechte ein, und von da an sehen wir den Grund gelegt für die Herrschaft der Kirche, die nicht mehr nur ausgebeutet wird von den weltlichen Herrschern, sondern sich immer mehr einfügt in weltliche Herrschaft und weltliche Gerichtsbarkeit ausübt. Die Folge davon war, daß jener Kampf zwischen weltlicher und kirchlicher Macht heraufdämmerte, und damit sich jene wichtige Geschichtsperiode einleitet, der Kampf zwischen Kaiser und Papst.
Es ist falsch, wenn herkömmliche Geschichtsbeschreibung diese beiden Mächte als etwas voneinander ganz Verschiedenes darstellt. Sie sind nur Rivalen im Streite um äußere Macht. Es sind gleiche Mächte, die in derselben Richtung wirken. Wir haben es nicht zu tun mit einem Streit zwischen geistlicher und weltlicher Macht, sondern mit einem Streit der weltlich gewordenen Kirche mit weltlicher Macht. Zwei sich ausbreitende Machtrichtungen sehen wir, und als dritte sehen wir die «freien Städte» entstehen, die über ganz Europa sich ausbreiten.
Sixth Lecture
The history of the Middle Ages is so extraordinarily important for human observation because we are dealing with a period that we can already explore more thoroughly, in which we can follow human development from its simple origins to the emergence of what we call states. In addition, we see an intertwining of the most diverse factors. Within simple circumstances, a complete cultural structure such as Christianity takes root. From a state of barbarism, we see the development of what appears to be the flowering of medieval culture, what we know as inventions.
Among these peoples, jumbled together in the course of migration, we see, through a complicated detour, the emergence of what we today call “science.” The Middle Ages had inherited a great legacy. Admittedly, nothing remained of what we know as Greek culture except a few traditions dating back to Plato and viewed through the lens of Christian beliefs. On the other hand, a powerful legacy remained from the time of the Roman Empire: the mighty state structure with its administration and judiciary of a uniformity and unity never before seen in world history, nor found throughout the Middle Ages; it is only in modern times, which otherwise prides itself so much on its freedom, that we encounter such an extension of state power. This, combined with that other idealistic cultural movement that had gradually permeated and absorbed the Roman Empire, came to peoples who had no similar education and who had been uprooted by the migration of peoples. All these tribes, Goths, Heruls, Lombards, Franks, Saxons, and so on, were something completely different, remaining entirely in their infancy in comparison to the Romans.
They led a kind of natural life, limited to hunting and warfare, without fixed laws and regulations. A great transition now took place in the circumstances and views of these peoples, who lived together in small groups.
What held these individual tribes together? The memory of some ancestor who had given the tribe its name, of powerful families who had distinguished themselves in ancient battles or in the conquest of new lands, and who had provided the tribe with what we call counts, princes, and dukes.
This transition is now expressed in a love for the common land. They begin to place more value on the commonality of land ownership than on blood relations.
Tribal affiliation is replaced by what we call village community. The entire material life is based on land. Trade and commerce do not yet exist. What these people need is provided incidentally by the women, young people, and slaves. Most of the population knew nothing but agriculture and frequent military campaigns. They had no idea of what we now call culture, no idea of what we consider its first requirement, reading and writing. Charlemagne is credited with the special merit of having made an effort to learn to read and write in his old age. All the education that existed was in the hands of the Roman population in the areas that had been conquered. From them emerged the civil service, hence the influence of Roman legal concepts. This was the case in the western regions; in the east, it was different. There, in what are now German territories, the original Germanic character had remained free of these influences. The unbroken power of the Thuringian and Saxon tribes was something that everyone had to reckon with in the Middle Ages.
The only thing that brought education here was Christianity. But it did not include actual science, such as mathematics, natural science, and so on. It brought moral and religious education. The addition of moral and ethical concepts was the merit of Christianity. Especially within the most favored Frankish tribe, the influence of the clergy, particularly the incoming, learned Celtic monks, was very great. In this tribe, which was led by favorable circumstances to a free land where it could live out its unique character in largely undeveloped areas, we can best see how this transformation took place. The transformation from smaller to larger communities took place here. Counts and princes conquered ever new territories and enfeoffed small landowners with parts of their possessions. As a result, the power of the large landowners spread more and more. A kind of jurisdiction and constitution arose from the transfer of what were originally purely private law relationships. What originally drove the Irish and Scottish monks was holy zeal, the idea of working for the salvation of mankind. All that changed. The Franks could only understand Christianity as a means of power.
Charlemagne in particular used the Church to expand his territory. Any bishop he appointed was usually destined to be a tool of his rule. Initially, the Church was guided only by religious zeal and genuine conviction, but later, under the influence of external forces, it sought to gain power for itself. Thus, the bishop was first a serving member of the Church, later a ruler and landowner himself. This is how the Middle Ages appear to us at the time of Charlemagne. But we cannot speak of Charlemagne's empire as we speak of empires today. Large landholdings make it possible to transfer land ownership to others. New territories were conquered, creating new opportunities to increase power through new transfers. This led to the emergence of court officials. The old district courts were replaced by court courts with imperial counts or, if appointed by bishops, bailiffs.
In between, we still have independent tribes that held on to their old dukes and their self-appointed courts.
This was still the case at the death of Charlemagne, and it remained so under his son Louis the Pious. We can see this from his relationship with his three sons Lothar, Pippin, and Louis; he divided his empire among the three as if it were his private property. And when he had another son from a second marriage and divided it up again, his older sons rose up against him, defeated him in battle at the Field of Lies, and forced him to renounce the throne so as not to diminish their possessions. We can clearly see what a state was like at that time. We also see what a false picture is presented by what is usually told in the history of this period. The battles that took place at that time were purely private disputes, and although the actual peoples were disturbed and unsettled by the armies during such campaigns, none of these battles in the post-Carolingian period had any real significance for the progress of humanity.
What really mattered, however, was the contrast that had developed between the Frankish Empire and the empire that encompassed Germany and Austria. In the Western Empire, a struggle had gradually arisen between the secular nobility and the ruling ecclesiastical power. The educated clergy provided what had previously been taken from the remnants of the Roman population: the higher court officials, the clerks in the courts, and so on. They all had a very uniform education, which came from the monasteries. — Alongside this educated clergy, there was a large uneducated mass that was completely dependent on the clergy who had been trained in this way. — It was the entire education of that time that had emerged from what was taught in the monastery schools. Christian theology encompassed seven sciences, three lower and four higher.
Thus, we see a people outside the country engaged only in war and agriculture; in churches, schools, and offices, what originated in the monastery schools lives on. Here in the clerical schools, these sciences are taught; the three lower ones were: grammar, logic, and dialectics. Grammar was the study of language, logic the study of thought, which remained in the same form from Greece to the monasteries of the Middle Ages until the 19th century, whereas today it is considered superfluous. Logic was followed by dialectic, which has completely disappeared from today's science. Medieval education was based on dialectic, which everyone who wanted to achieve something in intellectual life had to learn and master. Dialectic is the art of defending a truth in a proper manner against attacks. The laws of reason must be known in order to do this. It was not possible to work with spurious arguments when it was necessary to defend a truth permanently; it was not the age of newspapers, where today's arguments are only valid until tomorrow.
Dialectics gave rise to what can be called scientific and scholarly conscience, and everyone who wants to participate in science should have this. Not everything can be defended in a rational manner; therein lay the great importance of this training, to distinguish conscientiously. Later, this gradually degenerated, so that in the late Middle Ages, for example, someone offered to defend a certain truth for twenty-four hours against the attacks of all the professors, students, and laymen of Paris.
Those who entered the legal profession were trained in dialectics, not so much the presiding judges as those who drafted the judgments.
When Goethe has him say at the beginning of “Faust”: “I am smarter than all the fools, doctors, masters, scribes, and priests,” he is referring to the dignities and offices that could be attained at that time through a scientific education. A “doctor” was someone who could use his knowledge independently. A master was someone who was allowed to teach at universities. Scribes were all those who were employed in secular service, regardless of whether they held high or low positions. Clergymen were all members of the clergy. In those days, the word “clergyman” was not yet a term of abuse, but a title of honor. Even in the 14th century, Meister Eckhart still referred to Plato as the great Greek clergyman.
The four higher sciences were geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music.
Geometry is the study of space. Arithmetic is higher mathematics, and astronomy was roughly equivalent to what we understand by that term today. Music, however, was not the same as what we call it today. Music was the science of the harmony of the universe. It was believed that the entire universe was in harmonious proportion to its individual components. People sought to discover all these proportions, which were expressed in numbers. Just as colors, sounds, and so on are based on certain numbers. People sought the laws of harmony and rhythmic proportions everywhere in music; the harmony of the laws of the universe was taught.
I have thus attempted to give you a mental image of what the educated classes were doing. This education gained more and more ascendancy in the western kingdom that we now call France. The situation was different in Germany. These tribes had remained unbroken, they had preserved their simple customs and retained most of their freedom. The downside of these primitive conditions, however, was that the clergy here was uneducated and therefore allowed itself to be used as a means of power in the hands of the dukes and emperors.
The Carolingians remained rulers of the Western Empire. But the rulers from this house became increasingly inferior. The incompetence of these Carolingian rulers became particularly apparent when warlike pirates from the north, the Normans, began to disturb the country. These Normans invaded the country from the mouths of the Elbe and Weser rivers, plundering the coasts everywhere, especially in France, where they occupied the northern regions and advanced as far as Paris. At that time, Charles II was ruling, who proved completely incapable of taking any action against this people. Therefore, it was easy for an unknown duke in Austria, Arnulf of Carinthia, to put an end to Carolingian rule and seize power for himself. At first, he enjoyed great prestige because he succeeded in defeating the Normans. But the jealousy among the princes was so great that Arnulf had to resort to turning to the Church and forming an alliance with it. He had to make a trip to Italy and submit to its rule in many respects. The result is that after his death, we see how the Church makes use of its power. Not a secular prince or count, but Archbishop Hatto of Mainz became the guardian of his son, Louis the Child. He thus assumed all the rights of sovereignty, and from then on we see the foundation laid for the rule of the Church, which was no longer merely exploited by secular rulers, but increasingly integrated itself into secular rule and exercised secular jurisdiction. The result was that the struggle between secular and ecclesiastical power dawned, ushering in that important period of history, the struggle between emperor and pope.
It is wrong for traditional historical accounts to portray these two powers as something completely different from each other. They are only rivals in the struggle for external power. They are equal powers working in the same direction. We are not dealing with a dispute between spiritual and secular power, but with a dispute between the church, which has become secular, and secular power. We see two expanding powers, and as a third, we see the emergence of the “free cities” spreading across Europe.