Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

History of the Middle Ages
GA 51

15 November 1904, Berlin

Translator Unknown

V. Charlemagne and the Church

If you take up one of the ordinary school books, or any other of the usual presentations of the Middle Ages, dealing with the period of which we are now going to speak—the 8th or 9th century—you will find that the personality of Charlemagne (768–814) occupies an inordinate space in it. Following the feats and triumphal marches of Charlemagne in this way, you will hardly understand what it was that actually made the significance of this epoch. All this was only an external expression of much deeper events in the Middle Ages, events which will appear as the converging of many significant factors. In order to study these factors, we must mention certain things which we have already touched upon, and which will throw light on this subject.

If you remember the description of European conditions after the folk migrations, when, after these occurrences, the Germanic tribes came to rest in different places, you will think of the way these races brought their ancient institutions, their manners and customs, with them into their new homes, and developed them there. And we see that they preserved their own peculiar character, a kind of social order, consisting in the distribution of private and common property. There were little social assemblies, which formed their original organisation: village communities, then, later, hundreds and cantons; and in all these, what could be common property was so: forest, meadow, water, etc. And only what a single individual could cultivate was assigned to the private family and became hereditary; all the rest remained common property.

Now we have seen that the leaders of such tribes received much larger territories at the conquest, and that on this account certain positions of mastery sprang up, especially in Gaul, where much land was still to be reclaimed. For the working of these domains, it was partly members of the former population, partly the Roman colonists or prisoners of war, who were taken. In this way, certain legal conditions grew up. The large landowner was not responsible to others for what he did on his own property; he could not be brought to book for any orders that he gave. Hence he could rescind for his own estate, any legal prescription or police regulation. So, in the Frankish Empire, we meet with no united monarchy; what was called the Empire of the Merovingians was nothing more than such a large landed estate. The Merovingians were one of the families which possessed much land; according to civil law—through the struggle for existence—their rule extended farther and farther. New territories were constantly added to it. The large landowner was not such a king as we have been accustomed to in the 13th, 14th, yes, even in the 16th century; but private government gradually became legal rule.

He transferred certain parts of his domain, and with them his rights; to others with less land; that was called being “under exemption"; this judicial authority had grown out of the irresponsible position in such circumstances. In return, this type of landowner must pay tribute, and do military service for the king in time of war. In the expansion of such proprietary relationships, the Merovingian stock as conquerors took precedence of all others, so that we must retain the formula: the ancient Frankish Empire progressed through purely private legal conditions.

Again the transition from the Merovingian to the Carlovingian stock, from which Charles Martel descended, took place in the same way, out of the same conditions. The Carlovingians were originally stewards of the domains of the Merovingians; but they gradually became so influential that Pepin the Short succeeded in putting the imbecile Childeric into a monastery, and, with the help of the pope, in deposing him. From him was descended his successor, Charlemagne. In a cursory survey we can only touch upon the external events; for, indeed, they have no further significance. Charlemagne made war on the neighbouring German tribes and extended his control in certain directions. Even this empire, however, cannot be called a State. He waged lengthy wars against the Saxons, who clung to the ancient village organisation, the old manners and customs, the old Germanic faith, with great tenacity. Victory was won after wearisome wars, fought with extraordinary ferocity on both sides.

Among such tribes as the Saxons, one personality in particular would stand out, and would then become a leader. One of these was Widukind, a duke with great possessions and a strong military retinue, whose courage withstood the most violent opposition. He had to be subdued with the greatest cruelty, and then submitted to the rule of Charlemagne. What did the rule amount to? It amounted to this: if the authority of Charlemagne had been withdrawn, nothing special would have happened. Those tribesmen who in their thousands had been obliged to submit to baptism, would have gone on living in the same way as before.

It was the form Charlemagne had given the Church which established his powerful position. Through the power of the Church these territories were subdued. Bishoprics and monasteries were founded, the large properties formerly possessed by the Saxons were distributed. The cultivation of these was in the hands of the bishops and abbots; thus the Church undertook what had formerly been done by secular landholders protected by “exemption,” namely, judiciary authority. If the Saxons did not acquiesce, they were coerced by fresh inroads of Charlemagne. Thus the same things went on as in western France: the smaller landowners could not carry on alone, hence they gave what they had to the monasteries and bishoprics, to receive it again under feudal tenure.

The one condition was, then, that the large properties should belong to the Church, as in the newly established bishoprics of Paderborn, Merseburg and Erfurt, which were cultivated for the bishop by the conquered tribes. But even those who still had their own possessions held them as fiefs and had to pay ever-increasing taxes to the bishoprics and abbeys. This was how the rule of Charlemagne was established: with the help of the great influence obtained by the Church whose suzerain he was, his position of authority was achieved.

Charles extended his authority in other regions, just as he was extending it here. In Bavaria he succeeded in breaking the power of Duke Tassilo and sending him to a monastery, so that he might bring Bavaria under his own dominion. The Bavarians had allied themselves with the Avars, a people who may be called the successors of the Huns. Charles was victorious in this struggle and fortified a strip of land as a boundary against the Avars, the original Avarian limit of the land which to-day is Austria. In the same way he had protected himself also against the Danes.

Like Pepin he fought in Italy against the Longobards, who were harassing the pope; again he was victorious, and established his authority there. He experienced too against the Moors in Spain, and almost everywhere he was the victor. We see Frankish rule established over the whole of the European world of those days; it merely contained the germ of the future State.

In these newly won regions, Counts were inaugurated, who exercised justiciary authority. In the places where Charlemagne alternatively held his court—fortified places called Palatinates—were the Counts Palatine, mostly large landowners, who received certain tribute from the surrounding districts. It was not only tribute from the land and soil, however, which fell to their share; they also received revenues from the administration of justice. If a murder were committed, the public tribunal was convened by the Count Palatine. A relative, or someone who was closely connected with the victim, brought the indictment. At that time certain compensation could be paid for murder, a recognised sum, differing in value for a free man and an unfree, paid partly to the family of the murdered man, partly to the justiciary of the canton, and partly to the king's central fund. Those who looked after communal concerns—actually only such as concerned taxes and defense—were the land-graves, who travelled from one district to another, ambassadors with no special function.

Under these conditions, the divergence between the new nobility of landowners and the serfs became more and more marked, and also between the landowners and those freemen who were indeed personally still free, but had fallen into a condition of servile dependence, because they had to pay heavy tribute and to render compulsory military service. These conditions grew more and more critical; secular and ecclesiastical property became increasingly extensive; and soon we see the populace in bitter dependence, and already we meet with small conspiracies—revolts—foreshadowing what we know as the Peasant Wars. We can understand that, in the meantime, material culture developed more and more productively. Many Germanic tribes had had no concern with agriculture before the folk migrations, but had earned their living by cattle raising; now they were developing agriculture more and more; especially were they cultivating oats and barley, but also wheat, leeks, etc. These were the essential things which were important in that older civilisation. There was, as yet, no actual handicraft; it was only evolving under the surface; weaving, dyeing, etc. were mostly carried on by the women at home. The arts of the goldsmith and the smith were the first crafts to be cultivated. Still less important was trade.

Actual cities were developed from the 10th century onwards, and therewith a historical event began to take shape. But what sprang up with these cities, namely trade, had at that time no importance; at its best it was only a trade in valuables from the East, carried on by Israelite merchants. Trade usages hardly existed, although Charlemagne had already had coins minted. Nearly everything was barter, in which cattle, weapons, and such things were exchanged.

This is how we must picture the material culture of these regions; and now we shall understand why the spiritual culture also was bound to assume a certain definite form. Nothing of what we picture as spiritual culture existed in these regions, either among the freemen or the serfs. Hunting, war, agriculture, were the occupations of the landowners; princes, dukes, kings, even poets, unless they were ecclesiastics, could seldom read and write. Wolfram von Eschenbach had to dictate his poems to a clergyman and let him read them aloud to him; Hartmann von der Aue boasts, as a special attribute, that he can read books. In all that secular culture catered for, there was no question of reading and writing. Only in enclosed monasteries were Art and Science studied. All other students were directed to what was offered them in the teaching and preaching of the clergy. And that brought about their dependence on the clergy and the monks; it gave the Church its authority.

When we read descriptions today of what is called “the dark Middle Ages”—persecution of heretics, trials of witches, and so on—we must be clear that these conditions only began with the 13th century. In the older times nothing of this kind existed. The Church had no more authority than the secular large landowners. Either the Church went hand-in-hand with the secular authority, and was only a branch of it, or it was endeavouring to cultivate theology and the science of Christianity.

Until the current of spiritual influence came from the Arabs, all spiritual concerns were fostered only in the monasteries; the activities of the monks were completely unknown to the world outside. All that was known outside the monasteries was the preaching, and a kind of spiritual instruction given in the primitive schools.

The authority of the Church was enhanced by the fact that it was the clergy themselves who carried out all the arrangements for promoting knowledge. The monks were the architects; it was they who adorned the churches with statues, they who copied the works of classical, too, the emperor's chancellors, were, for the most part, monks.

One form of culture which was fostered in the monasteries was Scholasticism. A later was Mysticism. This scholasticism, which flourished until the middle of the 14th century, endeavoured—at least at one juncture—to inculcate a severely disciplined way of thinking. There were severe examinations to undergo; nobody could make progress in absolutely logical discipline of thinking without hard tests; only those who could really think logically, were able to take part in the spiritual life. Today that is not considered. But actually it was because of this training in consistent logic that when the Moorish-Arabian culture came to Europe, this science found disciplined thinking there already. The forms of thought with which Science works today were already there; there are very few arrangements of ideas, which are not derived from thence.

The concepts with which the Science—still operate today, such as subject and object, were established at that time. A training of thought, such as does not appear elsewhere in world history, was developed. The keen thinker of today owes that which flows in the veins of his intellect to the training fostered between the 5th and 14th centuries. Now some may feel it to be unjust that the masses at that time had nothing of all this; but the course of world history is not directed by justice of injustice, it follows the universal law of cause and effect. Thus we see here two definite currents flowing side by side: 1. Outside, material culture, absolutely without science; 2. A finely chiseled culture, confined to a few within the Church. Yet the culture of the cities was based on this strict scholastic way of thinking. The men who carried through the great revolution were ecclesiastics: Copernicus was a prebendary, Giordano Bruno was a Dominican friar. Their education and that of many others, their formal schooling, was rooted in this spirit of the Church. They were not powerful men, but simple monks, who, indeed, often suffered under the oppression of those in power.

Nor was it bishops and rich abbots, but on the contrary, poor monks, living in obscurity, who propagated the spread of Science. The Church, having allied itself with external powers, was obliged to materialise itself; it had to secularise its teachings and its whole character. Very long ago, up to the 12th century, nothing was held more solemn, more sublime, by the Christians, than the Lord's Supper. It was regarded as a sacrifice of grateful remembrance, a symbol of the intensifying of Christianity. Then came the secularisation, the lack of understanding for such exalted spiritual facts, especially as regards the festivals.

In the 9th century there lived in the land of the Franks, at the court of Charles the Bald, Scotus Erigena, a very distinguished Irish monk, in whose book De Divisioni Naturae we find a rich store of profound intellectual thought—though, indeed, not what the 20th century understands as Science. Erigena had to fight against hostile criticism in the Church. He defended the old doctrine that the Lord's Supper represented the symbolism of the highest Sacrifice. Another, materialistic, interpretation existed, and was supported in Rome, namely, that the bread and wine was actually transformed into flesh and blood. This dogma of the Lord's Supper originated under the influence of this continuous materialisation, but it only became official in the 13th century.

Scotus Erigena had to take refuge in England, and at the instigation of the pope, was murdered in his own monastary by the fraternity of monks. These struggles took place, not within the Church, but through the interpenetration of secular influence. You see that spiritual life was confined to a few, and was closed to the masses, upon whom lay an ever-increasing pressure, both from the secular and the spiritual side. In this way discontent continued to grow. It could not be otherwise than that dissatisfaction should increase among these people of divided loyalties. In country, on the farms, new causes of discontent kept cropping up. No wonder that the small towns, such as those already established on the Rhine and the Danube, should continually grow larger and form themselves anew from the influx of those who could no longer get on in the country. The fundamental cause of this reorganisation of conditions was the people's thirst for freedom.

It was a purely natural motive which gave rise to the culture of the cities. Spiritual culture remained undisturbed for the time being; many cities developed round the bishoprics and monasteries. From the city-culture rose all that constituted trade and industry in the Middle Ages, and afterwards brought about quite different relationships.

The need to develop the full life of the human personality, was the cause of the founding of the cities. It was a long step on the path of freedom; as, indeed, according to the words of Hegel, history signifies the education of the human race towards freedom.

And if we follow the history of the Middle Ages farther, we shall see that this founding of the city-culture represented, not an insignificant, but a very important step on the path of freedom.

Fünfter Vortrag

Wenn Sie irgendeines der gebräuchlichen Schulbücher oder eine der anderen üblichen Darstellungen des Mittelalters über die Zeit, von der wir jetzt sprechen werden — vom 8. oder 9. Jahrhundert —, in die Hand nehmen, so nimmt darin einen außerordentlichen Raum ein die Persönlichkeit Karls des Großen. Aber Sie werden wenig von dem verstehen, was eigentlich das Bedeutungsvolle dieses Zeitalters ausmacht, wenn Sie diese Eroberungszüge und Taten Karls des Großen in dieser Weise verfolgen. All das war nur ein äußerer Ausdruck für viel tiefere Ereignisse im Mittelalter, die sich darstellen werden als das Zusammenspiel vieler bedeutender Faktoren. Wollen wir diese betrachten, so müssen wir dazu Dinge streifen, die wir schon berührt haben, um Licht da hineinzubringen.

Wenn Sie sich erinnern an die Schilderung europäischer Verhältnisse unmittelbar nach der Völkerwanderung, als hier und da nach diesem Ereignisse germanische Völker zur Ruhe gekommen waren, so werden Sie daran denken müssen, daß sich diese Völker ihre altgewohnten Einrichtungen, ihre Sitten und Gebräuche in die neuen Wohnsitze mitgebracht hatten und sie dort ausbildeten. Dabei sehen wir, daß sie sich eine Eigentümlichkeit bewahrt haben: eine Art soziale Ordnung, bestehend in der Verteilung von Privat- und Gemeineigentum. Es waren kleine soziale Verbände, in denen sie ursprünglich lebten, Dorfgemeinden, dann später Hundertschaften, Gaue, und in allen gab es Gemeineigentum an alledem, was Gemeineigentum sein konnte: Wald, Wiese, Wasser und so weiter. Und nur, was der Einzelne bebauen konnte, der einzelne Feldanteil, die Hufe, wurde der Privatfamilie zugeteilt, wurde erblich. Alles andere blieb Gemeineigentum.

Nun haben wir gesehen, wie die Führer solcher Stämme größere Gebiete bei der Eroberung zuerteilt bekamen, und wie dadurch gewisse Herrschaftsverhältnisse entstanden, namentlich in Gallien, wo vieles Land noch urbar zu machen war. Für die Bearbeitung dieser Ländereien nahm man teils die Angehörigen der früheren Bevölkerung, teils die römischen Kolonen oder Kriegsgefangene. Dadurch bildeten sich gewisse Rechtsverhältnisse heraus. Der Großgrundbesitzer war unverantwortlich für das, was er tat innerhalb seines Besitzes; er konnte für das, was er verfügte, nicht zur Verantwortung gezogen werden. Daher konnte er für sein Besitztum Rechtsvorschriften, Polizeimaßregeln erlassen. Wir treffen also in dem Frankenreiche kein einheitliches Königtum; das, was man das Reich der Merowinger nennt, war nichts anderes als ein solcher großer Grundbesitz. Die Merowinger waren eine der großgrundbesitzenden Familien; aus privatrechtlichen Verhältnissen hervorgegangen, dehnte sich ihre Herrschaft aus dem Kampfe ums Dasein immer weiter aus. Immer neue Gebiete wurden hineingezogen. Der Großgrundbesitzer war nicht in der Weise König, wie wir es seit dem 13. und 14., ja noch im 16. Jahrhundert gewohnt sind, sondern privatherrschaftliche Verhältnisse gingen in Rechtsverhältnisse über.

Er übertrug gewisse Teile seines Gebietes an andere, minder Begüterte — weil er nicht alles selbst bebauen konnte —, und mit ihnen seine Rechte; das nannte man «unter Immunität»: jene Richtergewalt, die aus der Unverantwortlichkeit in solchen Verhältnissen erwachsen war. Dafür mußte der Betreffende Abgaben entrichten und dem König in dem Kriege Heeresfolge leisten. In solcher Ausbreitung der Besitzverhältnisse ging das Geschlecht der Merowinger als Sieger hervor über andere, so daß wir an der Formel festhalten müssen: das alte Frankenreich ging hervor aus rein privatrechtlichen Verhältnissen.

Und wiederum geschah der Übergang von den Merowingern zum Karolingergeschlecht, aus dem Karl Martell entstammte, auf dieselbe Art, aus denselben Verhältnissen heraus. Die Karolinger waren ursprünglich Verwalter der Domänen der Merowinger, aber allmählich so einflußreich geworden, daß es Pippin dem Kleinen gelang, den blödsinnigen Childerich in ein Kloster zu stecken und mit Hilfe des Papstes abzusetzen. Von ihm stammte sein Nachfolger, Karl der Große. In raschem Fluge können wir die äußeren Ereignisse nur streifen, denn sie haben keine besondere Bedeutung. Karl der Große bekriegt die umliegenden deutschen Volksstämme und dehnt gewisse Herrschaftsverhältnisse aus. Man kann dieses Reich noch nicht einen Staat nennen. Er führte lange Kämpfe gegen die Sachsen, die an der alten Dorfverfassung, an den alten Sitten und Gebräuchen, dem alten germanischen Glauben mit großer Zähigkeit festhielten. Die Eroberung geschah nach langwierigen Kriegen, die mit außerordentlicher Grausamkeit von beiden Seiten geführt wurden.

Bei solchen Stämmen, wie die Sachsen waren, tat sich irgendeine Persönlichkeit besonders hervor, die dann zum Führer wurde. Diesmal war es ein Herzog mit großen Besitztümern, starkem Heeresgefolge, Widukind, dessen Tapferkeit heftigsten Widerstand leistete. Er wurde mit der größten Grausamkeit niedergezwungen und mußte sich der Herrschaft Karls des Großen unterwerfen. Was bedeutet solche Herrschaft? Sie bedeutet folgendes: Wenn Karl der Große wieder abgezogen wäre, so wäre nichts Besonderes geschehen gewesen. Solche Stämme, die sich zu Tausenden hatten taufen lassen müssen, hätten doch in derselben Weise fortgelebt wie früher.

Das Mittel, um hier ein Herrschaftsverhältnis zu begründen, war die Form, die Karl der Große hier der Kirche gegeben. Mittels der Macht der Kirche wurden diese Gebiete unterworfen. Bistümer und Klöster wurden gegründet, die große Besitztümer zuerteilt erhielten, welche früher die Sachsen besaßen. Die Bebauung wurde durch die Bischöfe und Äbte besorgt; damit trat die Kirche das an, was sonst der durch Immunität geschützte, weltliche Grundbesitz getan, die richterliche Gewalt. Wenn die Sachsen sich nicht fügten, wurden sie durch neue Einfälle Karls des Großen gezwungen. So geschah dasselbe, wie im westlichen Frankenreich: die kleineren Besitzer konnten sich als Einzelne nicht halten, sie schenkten daher was sie hatten den Klöstern und Bistümern, um es wieder als Lehen zu erhalten.

Das eine Verhältnis ist also, daß große Besitzungen direkt zur Kirche gehörten, wie bei den neugegründeten Bistümern Paderborn, Merseburg, Erfurt, die für den Bischof von den Unterworfenen bebaut wurden. Aber auch diejenigen, welche noch selbst Besitztümer hatten, nahmen sie zu Lehen und mußten immer größere Abgaben an die betreffenden Bistümer und Abteien geben. Damit war hier die Herrschaft Karls des Großen begründet, ein Machtverhältnis zustande gekommen, mit Hilfe des großen Einflusses, den die Kirche gewann, deren Oberherrscher er war.

So wie hier dehnte Karl seine Macht auch in andere Gegenden aus. In Bayern gelang es ihm, die Macht des Herzogs Tassilo zu brechen, ihn ins Kloster zu stecken und damit Bayern in sein Herrschaftsverhältnis einzubeziehen. Die Bayern hatten sich mit den Awaren, einem Volke, das man als Nachkommen der Hunnen bezeichnen kann, verbündet. Karl blieb in diesem Kampfe siegreich und hat einen Streifen Landes als Grenzmark gegen die Awaren befestigt, die awarische Mark, das Ursprungsland des heutigen Österreich. In eben dieser Weise hat er sich auch einen gegen die Dänen geschaffen.

Gegen die Langobarden, die den Papst beunruhigten, kämpfte er in Italien wie Pippin, er blieb siegreich und begründete abermals dort ein Herrschaftsverhältnis. Er versuchte es auch gegen die Mauren in Spanien. Fast überall blieb er Sieger. Wir sehen über die damalige europäische Welt die Frankenherrschaft sich begründen, die wir nicht Staat nennen können, die bloß die Keime der künftigen Staatsgewalt enthielt.

In solchen neugewonnenen Gegenden waren auch Grafen eingesetzt, die richterliche Gewalt ausübten. In Gegenden, wo Karl der Große abwechselnd seinen Hof abhielt, an gesicherten Plätzen, die man Pfalzen nannte, waren es die Pfalzgrafen, meist Großgrundbesitzer, die gewisse Abgaben bekamen von den umliegenden Gebieten. Doch nicht nur von Grund und Boden, auch Erträgnisse, die aus der Rechtssprechung erwuchsen, fielen ihnen zu. War jemand gemordet worden, so wurde vom Gau- oder Pfalzgrafen das öffentliche Gericht zusammengerufen. Ein Verwandter, oder jemand, der in näherem Verhältnis zu dem Ermordeten stand, führte Klage. Für Mord konnte damals ein gewisses Wehrgeld gezahlt werden, das für Freie und Unfreie verschieden war, eine bestimmte Summe, die teils an die Familie des Gemordeten, teils an den Gau- oder Pfalzgrafen gezahlt wurde; ein Teil mußte an die königliche Zentralkasse abgeliefert werden. Für die gemeinschaftlichen Angelegenheiten, es waren eigentlich nur solche, die sich auf Abgaben und Verteidigung bezogen, und zur Beaufsichtigung, waren Landgrafen, die von einem Land zum anderen reisten, angestellt, Botschafter ohne besondere Funktionen.

Unter diesen Verhältnissen bildete sich immer mehr heraus das, was man den Gegensatz nennen könnte zwischen dem neuen Grundbesitzeradel und den Hörigen, sowie denjenigen Freien, die zwar persönlich noch frei waren, aber in ein scharfes Abhängigkeitsverhältnis gerieten dadurch, daß sie große Abgaben zu zahlen und Heeresfolge zu leisten hatten. Diese Verhältnisse spitzten sich immer mehr zu, weltlicher und kirchlicher Besitz dehnten sich immer weiter aus, und bald schon, im 10., 11. und 12. Jahrhundert, sehen wir das Volk in schwerer Abhängigkeit, treffen wir schon auf kleinere Empörungen, Revolten, als Vorherverkündigung dessen, was wir als Bauernkriege kennen. Daß sich dabei die materielle Kultur immer produktiver entwickelte, werden Sie begreifen. Viele germanische Stämme hatten vor der Völkerwanderung noch nicht Akkerbau betrieben, sondern ihren Unterhalt durch Viehzucht gewonnen; jetzt entwickelten sie sich immer mehr zum Ackerbau; hauptsächlich wurde Hafer und Gerste angebaut, aber auch Weizen und Lein (Flachs) und so weiter. Das ist das Wesentliche, was der älteren Kultur Bedeutung gab. Das eigentliche Handwerk gab es damals noch nicht, es entwickelte sich erst unter der Oberfläche; Weberei, Färberei und so weiter wurden im Hause meist von den Frauen betrieben; Schmiede- und Goldschmiedekunst waren die ersten Handwerke, die sich herausbildeten. Noch unbedeutender war der Handel.

Eigentliche Städte entwickelten sich vom 10. Jahrhundert ab. Ein geschichtliches Ereignis bereitet sich damit vor. Aber das, was von diesen Städten ausgegangen ist, der Handel, hatte damals keine Bedeutung, höchstens wurde von israelitischen Kaufleuten ein Handel mit Kostbarkeiten aus dem Orient betrieben. Gebräuche des Handels gab es fast gar nicht, trotzdem Karl der Große schon Münzen prägen ließ. Fast alles war Tauschhandel, bei dem Vieh, Waffen und dergleichen Dinge ausgetauscht wurden.

So müssen wir uns die materielle Kultur jener Gebiete vorstellen, und nun werden wir begreifen, warum auch die geistige Kultur ein ganz bestimmtes Gepräge annehmen mußte. All das, was wir uns als geistige Kultur vorstellen, gab es in diesen Gegenden weder bei Freien noch bei Hörigen. Jagd, Krieg, Ackerbau war die Beschäftigung der Grundbesitzer. Als Symptom hierfür diene, daß nicht nur die Bauern, sondern Gutsbesitzer, Fürsten, Herzöge, Könige, selbst Dichter, wenn sie nicht geistlich waren, selten lesen und schreiben konnten. Wolfram von Eschenbach mußte seine Dichtungen einem Kleriker diktieren und sich von ihm vorlesen lassen, und Hartmann von der Aue rühmt als eine besondere Eigenschaft, daß er in Büchern lesen konnte. Und bei allen denjenigen, die die weltliche Kultur besorgten, war nicht die Rede davon, daß sie lesen und schreiben konnten.

Nur im Innersten der Klöster wurde die Pflege der Wissenschaft und Kunst betrieben. Alle anderen waren auf das angewiesen was ihnen durch die Geistlichen an Belehrung und Predigt geboten wurde. Und das bedingt ihre Abhängigkeit von Geistlichen und Mönchen, es bedeutet die Herrschaft der Kirche.

Wenn wir heute geschildert finden das, was man als «finsteres Mittelalter», Ketzerverfolgungen, Hexenprozesse versteht, müssen wir uns klar sein, daß wir damit von Verhältnissen sprechen, die erst mit dem 13. Jahrhundert beginnen. In diesen älteren Zeiten hat so etwas nicht bestanden. Die Kirche führte keine andere Herrschaft als der weltliche Großgrundbesitz. Entweder ging die Kirche Hand in Hand mit der weltlichen Herrschaft, war nur ein Glied derselben, oder sie war bestrebt, christliche Wissenschaft und Theologie auszubilden.

Bis der Strom des geistigen Einflusses der Araber kam, wurde alles Geistige nur in den Klöstern gepflegt; was die Mönche da drinnen taten, war etwas, das in der Welt draußen völlig unbekannt war. Draußen wußte man nur von der Predigt und einer Art geistiger Unterweisung, die in primitiven Schulen stattfand.

Die Herrschaft der Kirche wurde auch dadurch gefördert, daß die Geistlichen alle Verrichtungen, welche Wissen erforderten, selbst ausführten. Die Mönche waren die Baumeister; sie schmückten die Kirchen mit Bildwerken, sie schrieben die Werke der Klassiker ab in kunstvoller Schrift. Auch die höheren Beamten, die Kanzler der Kaiser, waren zum großen Teil Mönche.

Nun zu dem, was in den Klöstern geschah. Eine Form der Bildung, die dort in den Klöstern gepflegt wurde, war die Scholastik, eine spätere die Mystik. Diese Scholastik, die bis zur Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts ihre Blüte hatte, hat ein Ungeheures vollbracht, sie hat ein streng geschultes Denken wenigstens bei einem Stande hervorzurufen vermocht. Das ist der große Unterschied zu dem, was später gekommen ist. Es waren harte Prüfungen zu bestehen, niemand konnte ohne harte Proben absolut logischer Schulung des Denkens weiterkommen; an dem geistigen Leben konnte nur der teilnehmen, der wirklich logisch denken konnte. Das wird heute nicht geachtet. Aber tatsächlich war es dies logische folgerichtige Denken, das, als die maurisch-arabische Kultur nach Europa kam, es bewirkte, daß diese Wissenschaft geschultes Denken vorfand. Die Denkformen, mit denen die Wissenschaft heute arbeitet, sie sind dort gefunden, es sind die wenigsten Ideenformen, die nicht von dort stammen.

Die Begriffe, mit denen noch heute die Wissenschaften, wie Chemie, Medizin, Philosophie operieren, wie Subjekt und Objekt, wurden damals gefunden. Eine Trainierung des Denkens, wie sie sonst in der Weltgeschichte nicht vorkommt, wurde da ausgebildet. Der heutige scharfe Denker verdankt, was heute in den Adern seines Geistes fließt, jener Trainierung, die zwischen dem 5. und 14. Jahrhundert gepflogen wurde. Nun mag es jemand als ungerecht empfinden, daß die große Menge damals nichts von alledem hatte, allein der Gang der Weltgeschichte geht nicht nach Gerechtigkeit und Ungerechtigkeit, sondern folgt dem großen Gesetz von Ursache und Wirkung. So sehen wir zwei streng nebeneinanderlaufende Strömungen auch hier: erstens die materielle Kultur draußen mit absoluter Unwissenschaftlichkeit, und zweitens eine fein ziselierte Kultur bei einigen wenigen innerhalb der Kirche. Und doch beruhte die Städtekultur auf dieser streng scholastischen Denkweise. Die Männer, die den großen Umschwung herbeiführten, entstammten ihr: Kopernikus war Domherr, Giordano Bruno Dominikaner und so weiter. Ihre und vieler anderer Bildung, ihre formale Schulung wurzelte in diesem Geist der Kirche. Nicht Mächtige, nicht Bischöfe und reiche Äbte, sondern einfache Mönche waren es, die die Wissenschaft fortpflanzten, arme Mönche, die in der Vergangenheit lebten und die den Druck der Mächtigen oft zu spüren hatten.

Die Kirche, die sich mit den äußeren Mächten verbündete, mußte sich vermaterialisieren, sie mußte dazu greifen, ihre Lehre und ganzes Wesen zu verweltlichen. Es gab in den ältesten Zeiten bis zu dem 12. Jahrhundert nichts, was erhabener, feierlicher war für den Christen als das Abendmahl. Es sollte ein dankbares Erinnerungsopfer sein, ein Symbol für die Verinnerlichung des Christentums. Da kam jene Verweltlichung, jenes Unverständnis solchen hohen, geistigen Tatsachen gegenüber, vor allem den Festen gegenüber. Im 9. Jahrhundert lebte im Lande der Franken, am Hofe Karls des Kahlen, ein sehr bedeutender, christlicher Mönch aus Irland, Scotus Erigena, in dessen Buche «Von der Einteilung der Natur» wir eine Fülle von Geist und Tiefsinn finden, freilich nicht von dem, was das 20. Jahrhundert unter Wissenschaft versteht. Er hatte zu kämpfen gegen eine feindliche Richtung in der Kirche. Er verteidigte die alte Lehre, daß das Abendmahl die Versinnbildlichung des höchsten Opfers bedeutete. Eine andere, materielle Auffassung bestand und wurde von Rom protegiert, daß Brot und Wein sich wirklich in Fleisch und Blut verwandeln. Unter dem Einfluß der vor sich gehenden Vermaterialisierung entstand das Abendmahlsdogma, doch erst im 13. Jahrhundert wurde es offiziell.

Scotus mußte nach England flüchten und wurde auf Betreiben des Papstes im eigenen Kloster von den verbrüderten Mönchen hingemordet. Das sind Kämpfe, die sich nicht innerhalb der Kirche, sondern durch das Eindringen des weltlichen Einflusses abspielen. Sie sehen, das, was geistiges Leben war, war beschränkt auf einige wenige und unoffenbar der großen Masse, auf der ein immer steigender Druck lag von weltlichen und geistlichen Grundbesitzern. Auf diese Weise mehrte sich die Unzufriedenheit immer mehr. Es konnte nicht ausbleiben, daß sich in den von zwei Seiten abhängigen Leuten die Unzufriedenheit häufte. Draußen auf dem Lande, auf den Bauernhöfen entstanden immer neue Ursachen zur Unzufriedenheit. Kein Wunder, daß sich die kleinen Städte, wie sie am Rhein und an der Donau schon vorhanden waren, immer mehr vergrößerten und neue sich bildeten durch das Abströmen derer, die es auf dem Lande nicht mehr aushalten konnten. Was den Grund zur Umgestaltung solcher Verhältnisse bildete, war der Abfluß der nach Freiheit dürstenden Bevölkerung.

Eine rein materielle Veranlassung war es, aus der die städtische Kultur entstand. Die geistige Kultur blieb vorläufig unberührt; viele Städte entwickelten sich auch um die Bistümer und Klöster. Aus der städtischen Kultur entstand alles, was Handel und Gewerbe im Mittelalter begründete und nachher ganz andere Verhältnisse herbeiführte.

Das Bedürfnis nach unmittelbarem Ausleben der menschlichen Persönlichkeit gab Anlaß zur Gründung der Städte. Das war ein mächtiger Schritt auf der Bahn zur Freiheit, wie ja nach dem Worte Hegels die Geschichte die Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts zur Freiheit bedeutet.

Und wenn wir die Geschichte des Mittelalters weiter verfolgen, werden wir sehen, daß diese Begründung der Städtekultur nicht einen kleinen, sondern einen großen Schritt auf dieser Bahn vorwärts bedeutet.

Fifth Lecture

If you pick up any of the standard school textbooks or other common descriptions of the Middle Ages covering the period we are now going to discuss—the 8th or 9th century—you will find that Charlemagne occupies an extraordinary amount of space. But you will understand little of what actually constitutes the significance of this era if you follow Charlemagne's conquests and deeds in this way. All of this was only an outward expression of much deeper events in the Middle Ages, which will be presented as the interplay of many significant factors. If we want to examine these, we must touch on things we have already touched upon in order to shed light on them.

If you remember the description of European conditions immediately after the migration of peoples, when Germanic peoples had settled down here and there after this event, you will have to remember that these peoples had brought their old institutions, customs, and traditions with them to their new homes and developed them there. In doing so, we see that they retained one peculiarity: a kind of social order consisting of the distribution of private and communal property. They originally lived in small social groups, village communities, then later hundreds, districts, and in all of them there was communal ownership of everything that could be communal property: forests, meadows, water, and so on. Only what the individual could cultivate, the individual share of the field, the farmstead, was allocated to the private family and became hereditary. Everything else remained communal property.

Now we have seen how the leaders of such tribes were allocated larger areas during conquest, and how this gave rise to certain power relations, particularly in Gaul, where much land still had to be cultivated. To work these lands, some of the former population was used, as well as Roman colonists or prisoners of war. This gave rise to certain legal relationships. The large landowner was not accountable for what he did within his property; he could not be held responsible for what he disposed of. Therefore, he could enact legal provisions and police measures for his property. Thus, we do not find a unified monarchy in the Frankish Empire; what is called the Merovingian Empire was nothing more than a large estate. The Merovingians were one of the large landowning families; emerging from private law relationships, their rule expanded further and further as they fought for their existence. New territories were constantly being drawn in. The large landowner was not a king in the way we have been accustomed to since the 13th and 14th centuries, and even in the 16th century, but private rule gave way to legal relationships.

He transferred certain parts of his territory to others who were less wealthy—because he could not cultivate everything himself—and with them his rights; this was called “under immunity”: the judicial power that had grown out of the lack of accountability in such circumstances. In return, the person concerned had to pay taxes and provide military service to the king in war. In this expansion of ownership, the Merovingian dynasty emerged victorious over others, so that we must stick to the formula: the old Frankish Empire arose from purely private law relationships.

And again, the transition from the Merovingians to the Carolingian dynasty, from which Charles Martel originated, took place in the same way, under the same circumstances. The Carolingians were originally administrators of the Merovingian domains, but gradually became so influential that Pippin the Short succeeded in putting the idiotic Childeric in a monastery and deposing him with the help of the pope. His successor, Charlemagne, was descended from him. We can only touch briefly on the external events, as they are of no particular significance. Charlemagne waged war against the surrounding Germanic tribes and extended certain dominions. This empire cannot yet be called a state. He fought long battles against the Saxons, who clung tenaciously to their old village constitution, their old customs and traditions, and their old Germanic beliefs. The conquest took place after protracted wars, which were fought with extraordinary cruelty on both sides.

In tribes such as the Saxons, a particular personality would emerge and become the leader. This time it was a duke with large estates and a strong army, Widukind, whose bravery offered fierce resistance. He was crushed with the utmost cruelty and had to submit to the rule of Charlemagne. What does such rule mean? It means the following: if Charlemagne had withdrawn again, nothing special would have happened. Such tribes, which had been forced to be baptized by the thousands, would have continued to live in the same way as before.

The means of establishing a relationship of power here was the form that Charlemagne gave to the Church here. These areas were subjugated by means of the power of the Church. Dioceses and monasteries were founded and given large estates that had previously belonged to the Saxons. The bishops and abbots took care of the cultivation of the land, and in this way the Church took over what had previously been done by the secular landowners, who were protected by immunity: the exercise of judicial power. If the Saxons did not comply, they were forced to do so by new incursions by Charlemagne. Thus, the same thing happened as in the western Frankish Empire: the smaller landowners could not hold their own as individuals, so they donated what they had to the monasteries and bishoprics in order to receive it back as fiefs.

The one relationship is therefore that large estates belonged directly to the church, as in the case of the newly founded dioceses of Paderborn, Merseburg, and Erfurt, which were cultivated for the bishop by his subjects. But even those who still had their own estates took them as fiefs and had to pay ever-increasing taxes to the relevant bishoprics and abbeys. This established the rule of Charlemagne and created a balance of power with the help of the great influence gained by the Church, of which he was the supreme ruler.

Just as here, Charlemagne also extended his power to other areas. In Bavaria, he succeeded in breaking the power of Duke Tassilo, putting him in a monastery and thus bringing Bavaria under his rule. The Bavarians had allied themselves with the Avars, a people who can be described as descendants of the Huns. Charlemagne remained victorious in this battle and fortified a strip of land as a border against the Avars, the Avar March, the original homeland of present-day Austria. In the same way, he also created one against the Danes.

Like Pippin, he fought against the Lombards, who were troubling the Pope, in Italy, remained victorious, and once again established a dominion there. He also tried his hand against the Moors in Spain. He remained victorious almost everywhere. We see the Frankish rule establishing itself across the European world of that time, which we cannot call a state, but which merely contained the seeds of future state power.

In such newly conquered areas, counts were also appointed to exercise judicial power. In areas where Charlemagne alternately held court, in secure places called palaces, it was the palatine counts, mostly large landowners, who received certain taxes from the surrounding areas. However, they not only received income from land, but also from the administration of justice. If someone had been murdered, the district or palatine count convened a public court. A relative or someone who was closely related to the murdered person brought the lawsuit. At that time, a certain amount of compensation could be paid for murder, which differed for free and unfree persons, a specific sum that was paid partly to the family of the murdered person and partly to the district or palatine count; part of it had to be paid to the royal central treasury. For communal affairs, which were actually only those relating to taxes and defense, and for supervision, landgraves who traveled from one country to another were employed as ambassadors without any special functions.

Under these circumstances, what could be called a conflict developed between the new landed nobility and the serfs, as well as those freemen who were still personally free but had become sharply dependent due to the fact that they had to pay large taxes and perform military service. These conditions became increasingly acute, secular and ecclesiastical property continued to expand, and soon, in the 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries, we see the people in a state of severe dependence, and we already encounter minor uprisings and revolts, foreshadowing what we know as the Peasants' Wars. You will understand that material culture became increasingly productive in the process. Before the migration of peoples, many Germanic tribes had not yet practiced agriculture, but had earned their livelihood through livestock breeding; now they developed more and more toward agriculture, mainly growing oats and barley, but also wheat and flax, and so on. This is the essence of what gave the older culture its significance. Actual craftsmanship did not yet exist at that time; it was only developing beneath the surface. Weaving, dyeing, and so on were mostly carried out in the home by women. Blacksmithing and goldsmithing were the first crafts to emerge. Trade was even less significant.

Actual cities developed from the 10th century onwards. A historical event is thus in the making. But what emanated from these cities, trade, was of no significance at that time; at most, Israelite merchants traded in precious goods from the Orient. There were almost no customs of trade, even though Charlemagne had coins minted. Almost everything was bartered, with livestock, weapons, and similar items being exchanged.

This is how we must form our mental image of the material culture of those areas, and now we will understand why the intellectual culture also had to take on a very specific character. Everything we have in our mental image as intellectual culture did not exist in these regions, neither among free people nor among serfs. Hunting, war, and agriculture were the occupations of the landowners. A symptom of this is that not only farmers, but also landowners, princes, dukes, kings, and even poets, if they were not clergy, rarely knew how to read and write. Wolfram von Eschenbach had to dictate his poems to a cleric and have him read them to him, and Hartmann von der Aue boasts as a special quality that he could read books. And among all those who were concerned with secular culture, there was no question of them being able to read and write.

Only within the monasteries were science and art cultivated. Everyone else was dependent on what the clergy offered them in terms of instruction and preaching. And that meant they were dependent on clergy and monks; it meant the rule of the Church.

When we read today about what is understood as the “Dark Ages,” the persecution of heretics, and witch trials, we must be clear that we are talking about conditions that only began in the 13th century. In earlier times, such things did not exist. The Church exercised no other rule than that of secular land ownership. Either the Church went hand in hand with secular rule, being only a link in the same chain, or it strove to develop Christian science and theology.

Until the flow of spiritual influence from the Arabs arrived, everything spiritual was cultivated only in the monasteries; what the monks did there was something completely unknown in the outside world. Outside, people knew only about preaching and a kind of spiritual instruction that took place in primitive schools.

The rule of the Church was also promoted by the fact that the clergy themselves performed all tasks that required knowledge. The monks were the builders; they decorated the churches with sculptures and copied the works of the classics in artistic script. Even the higher officials, the chancellors of the emperors, were for the most part monks.

Now to what happened in the monasteries. One form of education cultivated there was scholasticism, and later mysticism. Scholasticism, which flourished until the middle of the 14th century, achieved something tremendous: it succeeded in producing rigorously trained thinking in at least one social class. This is the big difference to what came later. There were tough tests to pass; no one could advance without undergoing rigorous training in logical thinking; only those who could really think logically could participate in intellectual life. This is not valued today. But in fact, it was this logical, consistent thinking that, when Moorish-Arabic culture came to Europe, caused this science to find trained thinking. The forms of thinking with which science works today were found there; there are very few forms of ideas that do not originate from there.

The concepts with which sciences such as chemistry, medicine, and philosophy still operate today, such as subject and object, were found there at that time. A training of thinking was developed there that is unparalleled in world history. Today's sharp thinkers owe what flows in the veins of their minds to the training that was practiced between the 5th and 14th centuries. Now, some may find it unfair that the great masses at that time had none of this, but the course of world history does not follow justice and injustice, but rather the great law of cause and effect. So here, too, we see two strictly parallel currents: first, the material culture outside, with its absolute unscientific nature, and second, a finely chiseled culture among a few within the Church. And yet, urban culture was based on this strictly scholastic way of thinking. The men who brought about the great change came from it: Copernicus was a canon, Giordano Bruno a Dominican, and so on. Their education and that of many others, their formal training, was rooted in this spirit of the Church. It was not the powerful, not the bishops and rich abbots, but simple monks who propagated science, poor monks who lived in the past and often felt the pressure of the powerful.

The Church, which allied itself with external powers, had to materialize; it had to resort to secularizing its teachings and its entire essence. In the earliest times until the 12th century, there was nothing more sublime and solemn for Christians than the Lord's Supper. It was meant to be a grateful memorial sacrifice, a symbol of the internalization of Christianity. Then came that secularization, that lack of understanding of such lofty spiritual realities, especially with regard to the festivals. In the 9th century, a very important Christian monk from Ireland, Scotus Erigena, lived in the land of the Franks, at the court of Charles the Bald. In his book “On the Division of Nature,” we find a wealth of spirit and profundity, though not of the kind that the 20th century understands as science. He had to fight against a hostile tendency in the Church. He defended the old teaching that the Eucharist symbolized the supreme sacrifice. Another, materialistic view existed and was promoted by Rome, namely that bread and wine were truly transformed into flesh and blood. Under the influence of the ongoing materialization, the dogma of the Eucharist arose, but it was not made official until the 13th century.

Scotus had to flee to England and was murdered in his own monastery by his fellow monks at the instigation of the Pope. These are struggles that take place not within the Church, but through the intrusion of worldly influence. You see, spiritual life was limited to a few and was hidden from the masses, who were under ever-increasing pressure from secular and ecclesiastical landowners. In this way, discontent grew more and more. It was inevitable that discontent would accumulate among people who were dependent on both sides. Out in the countryside, on the farms, new causes for discontent were constantly arising. No wonder that the small towns that already existed on the Rhine and Danube grew larger and larger, and new ones were formed by the outflow of those who could no longer bear to live in the countryside. The reason for the transformation of such conditions was the exodus of the population thirsting for freedom.

Urban culture arose from a purely material cause. Intellectual culture remained unaffected for the time being; many towns also developed around bishoprics and monasteries. Urban culture gave rise to everything that established trade and commerce in the Middle Ages and subsequently brought about completely different conditions.

The need for the immediate expression of human personality gave rise to the founding of cities. This was a powerful step on the path to freedom, as, according to Hegel, history means the education of the human race toward freedom.

And if we continue to follow the history of the Middle Ages, we will see that the establishment of urban culture was not a small step forward on this path, but a large one.