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

20 December 1904, Berlin

Translator Unknown

VIII. From the Middle Ages to the Renaissance

We are now half-way through the Middle Ages, with the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th centuries before us. This period is important, full of significance, because in it we can study the rise of the great empires. In studying antiquity, too, we learnt of great State-dominions, but they lie so far behind us that a true, historical judgment is difficult. In the Middle Ages, however, we see what is called “empire,” evolving from apparently insignificant causes. For, if an empire is something which has a communal army, a constitution, and courts of justice—there was no such thing in Germany. As late as the 13th and 14th centuries, these regions were still divided into separate, individual territories.

Not until the reign of Henry III (1039–1056), did something occur which was instrumental in uniting the State territories; for this emperor succeeded in combining the individual tribal dukes into a kind of imperial official department. Before, they had taken their supreme position from the special characteristics of the tribe; now they had become Ministers of State—liegemen of the emperor. Gradually an equalisation of the lower vassals took place who, from freemen, became, with the Ministers, liegemen of the emperor. In process of time, they formed what is called the lower nobility, out of which the ranks of knighthood were recruited, the class which played so important a part in the Crusades. Already in the reign of Henry IV, the knights were playing a considerable part.

When Gregory VII excommunicated Henry IV, only some of the German princes stood by the emperor; others were under the influence of the pope and elected different rival kings. That fighting was not important; but what is important is that, through these various conflicts, the class of knights acquired special significance. Continual feuds and wars prevailed; brutality continued to increase. The peasant class suffered much from the pillaging expeditions. The last free peasants could no longer hold out, and were swallowed up by the lords and dukes, and these again by the kings. And from this unedifying process we see arise what we know as “empire.”

In this connection there was no difference between secular and spiritual princes; but the difference was great between the secularised clergy and those in the monasteries. The clergy governed by the bishops were mostly uneducated, unable to read and write, and of boorish manners. They made profit out of their feudal tenants. The bishops busied themselves with the administration of their property and were as uneducated as the knights or peasants: nothing of what we may call culture existed. Thus the political situation made it possible to consolidate the Church ever more and more, from Rome.

It was different in the monasteries. Here much work was done, by the men and women. Profound learning was to be met with here; all education of those days proceeded entirely from the monasteries. In this matter they did not allow themselves to be made dependent on the political power of Rome, which was based on the secular ascendency of the clergy. That which emanated from Rome can be judged in quite different ways. A certain struggle had to be carried on against the brutality, against the club law, of the German tribes. Zeal for spiritual assets, the desire to spread the authority of mediaeval thought over the whole world, was what Rome wished for. The more excellent will, at any rate, came from Rome, and not from the German princes. In this sense we must grasp what Gregory VII wanted, when he demanded the celibate state, and what Nicolas II felt, when he could not endure the claim of the secular princes to exercise influence on the appointments to bishoprics: it was an opposition to the growing savagery of the German territories. Thus the wars of Henry IV against the Saxons were not only almost as bloody as the earlier wars of Charlemagne against the same race, but they were waged with a quite exceptional disregard of loyalty and good faith.

Through all these wars, the welfare of the people was more and more disorganised. Out of the storms of the times there arose a deeply religious trait, which became exaggerated to the sentimental emotionalism that I described to you in connection with the year 1000. This religious emotionalism drove the populace to constant pilgrimages to the East.

Originally the Christian religion knew nothing of clinging to any kind of dogma. It depended on the content of ideas, not on the external wording. You have seen in how free a way the Christian idea was developed in Heiland, and how, for his own countrymen, the poet transposed the life of Christ into Old Saxon conditions. He conceived the externals quite freely; they could take place in Germany, just as well as in Palestine.

Under conditions becoming more and more externalised, the outward form of faith had become a vital question for the Church. It could no longer be left to the discretion of the tribes.

As a counterpart of political power, dogma also became firm and rigid.

The princes attempted to make use of the secular power of the Church in their own interests; the episcopal sees were filled by younger brothers, who seemed, either physically of mentally, to be unfit for anything else. Quite gradually conditions altered, and the old epoch merged into the new.

And now appeared the Crusades, which we can understand psychologically from the mood that prevailed in the Middle Ages. As a result of the existing religious emotionalism, it was easy for the pope—through his own agents, such as Peter of Amiens and others—to spur men on to the Crusades. Added to this, a great number of people were now completely destitute. So it was not onl religious motives which contributed to the crusading zeal. More and more freemen had become vassals; others had been obliged to leave their property, and had become vagrants, possessing nothing but what they stood up in.

Among these wanderers, who came from all classed—even from the nobility—there were a great many with nothing to do, who were ready for any enterprise—including the Crusades.

So, we come to understand that a large number of factors were at work: religious emotionalism, rigid dogma and material oppression. How powerfully these causes worked, we see from the fact that the first Crusaded took place, half a million people travelled to the East. The first external impulse was given by the ill-treatment of the numerous pilgrims at the hands of the Saracens. Still, there were deeper causes underlying it.

Men were subjecting themselves to a rigid dogma; and those who do not understand how, in those days, men clung with heart and soul to religion, know nothing of the Middle Ages. A sermon had a kindling influence on the people, if it struck the right chord. Many thought to find salvation through joining the Crusade; others hoped to obtain forgiveness of their sins. Our modern point of view can give us no true picture of this mediaeval phenomenon; here we have to do with many intangible causes.

It is not the causes, but the effects, of the Crusades, which are of special significance. One of these effects became visible very soon, namely a much more intimate exchange between the different countries.

Hitherto, Germany in general had remained almost unknown to the Romance countries; now they were brought close to one another by comradship in arms. Moorish science, too, found a real entrance in this way. Formerly there had been Chairs in the Universities only in Spain, Italy and France; it was not until after the Crusades that they were established in Germany. Now, for the first time the influence of true Science spread from the East. Until now, this had been a completely closed book; and great cultural treasures were preserved in the writings of Greek classical authors. Actually, it was through contact with the East that Science first originated.

The indeterminate influence of religious emotionalism had assumed a definite form; it had become what is called Mediaeval Science. I should like to give you some description of this Science.

In the first place, it developed two ways of thinking, ways which became noticeable in the scientific life of the Middle Ages. The Scholastic mode of thought split into two currents: Realism and Nominalism. It is an apparently abstract subject, but for the Middle Ages, and even for later times, this conflict acquired a deep significance—a theological, as well as a secular, significance.

Scientists are divided into these two camps. Nominalists means those who believed in names; Realists are those who believe in actuality. Realists, in the sense of the Middle Ages, were those who believed in the reality of thought, in a real meaning, to the universe. They assumed that the world has a meaning and did not come into being by chance. From the standpoint of materialism this may seem a foolish point of view; but one who does not regard this thought as an empty flight of fancy, must admit that the idea of a cosmic law, which men seek and find within themselves, has significance also for the world.

The Nominalists were those who did not believe that thoughts are anything real, who saw therein only names given at random, things of no significance. All those who think to see, in what human thinking achieves, mere blind fortuity—those like Kent, and Schopenhauer, who conceives the world as idea—form an outgrowth from mediaeval nominalism.

These currents divided the army of monks into two camps. It is noteworthy that in such weighty matters, the Church exercises no compulsion, and, so far as learning is concerned, calmly affirms that the question may be raised whether the divine Trinity is not also only a name—and that consequently nothing is real. Nevertheless, you see from this the wide freedom of the mediaeval Church. Not until the end of this period do the persecutions of heretics begin; and it is significant that the first inquisitor in Germany, Conrad of Marburg, was assassinated by the populace. It was then that beliefs began to be persecuted. This is an important change of front. How free ecclesiastical thinking had been before, you can see from the great teacher and thinker, Albertus Magnus (1193–1280). He was a man conspicuous for learning, delving deeply into every kind of science; he had mastered ecclesiastical scholarship, Arabian knowledge, natural history and physics. The people regarded him as a magician. Learning and popular superstition exploited by the secularises clergy, jostled each other severely.

Now the cities come to the fore. Here we see the rise of a powerful citizen class. Manufactures flourish, and guilds are formed. NO longer need the artisan stop beneath the oppression of the lords of the manor, as the serfs were wont to do. Soon kings and princes form alliances with the mediaeval cities.

The Emperor Frederic Barbarosa fought for years with the cities of North Italy. A strong feeling of freedom and a sense of definite personal value developed among the citizens. Thus, on the one hand, we see, in the country, religious conviction together with increasing external oppression; and, in the towns, a free citizenship. The citizens were bound, it is true, by a strictly regulated guild organisation; yet that in itself contributed to the freedom of the cities, whereas life in the country was witherin away under club law and brutality. After the Crusades the knights lapsed into an empty court life, leading nowhere. They occupied themselves with feuds, tournaments and passages of arms; their manners became more and more rough. As time went on, the pursuit of love, in particular, assumed most ridiculous forms. Knights who could write poems composed odes to their lady loves; others paid court to them in different ways. Great ignorance was combined with this court life. The men were almost all uneducated; the woman had to be able to read and write. The women occupied a peculiar position; on the one hand, they were idolised; on the other, they were enslaved. A kind of barbarism prevailed, and unbridled life, wherein the ravishing of women was included in the customs of hospitality.

Meanwhile, that which was later called culture, was growing up in the cities. What was happening there, was bound to happen; for new contingencies arise, wherever it is possible to construct in freedom. Real spiritual progress takes place when the industrial life is not cramped. Not that spiritual progress springs from material progress, but true spiritual progress is found where industrial life is not oppressed and confined.

Thus, at this epoch, a rich cultural life made its appearance in the cities; nearly all that has come to us in works of art, in architecture and discoveries, we owe to this period of city culture. It was from such a rich Italian city culture that Dante rose. In Germany, too, we find important intellectual achievements under this influence. True, the first notable poets, such as Wolfram von Eshenbach, Gottfried von Stassburg, etc., were knights; but without the restraint offered by the cities, these achievements would not have been possible. At the same time, when the breath of freedom was blowing in the cities, University life also sprang up. At first, when a German wished to find higher knowledge, he had to go to Italy, France, etc. Now there arose in Germany itself, the first Universities: Prague (1348), Vienna (1365), Heidelberg (1386). Freedom dispersed the mediaeval gloom.

The secularised clergy were entangled, like the princes, in wars of self-interest; and the Church had assumed this characteristic. Following the course of these developments, one realises that the new spiritual current, German mysticism, could only arise in this way—in stark opposition to the secularised clergy. This movement spread particularly along the Rhine, in Cologne, Strassburg and South Germany. To it belonged men like Eckhardt, Tauler, Suso, etc. They had made themselves independent of the Roman clergy, and were therefore declared heretics; life was made difficult for them in every way. A spiritual trait runs through their writings. They had withdrawn into their human heart, in order to come to a clear understanding of themselves. These independent monks spoke to the heart of the people in an extraordinarily edifying way, in a language unintelligible today, unless one reads the writings of a Master Eckhardt or Tauler. The beauty of the language was implanted in it by mysticism, and the contemporary translations far excelled the later ones in beauty of language. This development of the German language was sharply interrupted by Luther, who produced the German Bible in the most pedantic philistine idiom of the period, out of which the modern High German has grown. All this took place in opposition to the clergy. What was wished for at that time has, in many departments, not yet been reached. It es always asserted that Luther's translation of the Bible represented something unprecedented, but you see that far greater heights had been reached before.

We are nearing the time of the Renaissance. The consolidation of relationships, which had been achieved, consisted essentially in ever larger territories coming under the authority of the ruling princes. Also, a considerable part of the mediaeval freedom of the cities was absorbed into the constitution of the great States. Much is said nowadays of the despotism which prevailed at that time. Freedom has, of course, its seamy side; and it is not freedom if a man's freewill is limited by the freewill of others.

In the middle of this mediaeval period, there was opposition in the Universities to the arbitrariness of those in secular power, just as, later, perhaps Fichte alone voiced it. The documents of the mediaeval Universities preserve for us the words of the free spirits of those days. Today, not only the secular government, but Science, too, is State-controlled.

I have sketched this epoch without allotting light and shade, according to the catchwords of the present day. I tried to dwell on the points where real progress was made. If we wish to be free, we must have a heart for those who have striven for freedom before us. We must understand that other ages, too, produced men who set store by freedom.

History is the story of man's evolution to freedom; and in order to understand it we must study the culminating points of all freedom.

Achter Vortrag

Wir stehen in der Mitte des Mittelalters und haben die Zeit des 11., 12., 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts zu betrachten. Diese Zeit ist bedeutungsvoll und wichtig, weil man in dieser Epoche das Entstehen von großen Reichen studieren kann. Auch im Altertum haben wir große Staatengebilde kennengelernt — Persien, Römisches Reich und so weiter —, aber sie liegen uns so fern, daß uns eine wirkliche, geschichtliche Beurteilung schwer ist. Im Mittelalter sehen wir aber aus kleinen Ursachen sich das entwickeln, was ein gemeinschaftliches Heer, Gericht, Verfassung hat, so gab es in Deutschland so etwas nicht. Diese Gegenden zerfielen noch im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert in einzelne getrennte Gebiete.

Erst unter Heinrich III. geschieht etwas, was beiträgt zu einer Einigung der Reichsgebiete, indem es dem Kaiser gelang, die einzelnen Stammesherzöge zu einer Art von kaiserlichen Beamten zu machen. Vorher waren sie souverän hervorgegangen aus der Stammeseigentümlichkeit; jetzt waren sie geworden was man Ministeriale nennt, Dienstmannen des Kaisers. Allmählich geschah eine Gleichstellung der niederen Lehensleute, die aus Freien auch zu Dienstleuten geworden waren, mit den Ministerialen. Sie bildeten mit der Zeit das heraus, was man den niederen Adel nennt, aus dem sich der Ritterstand rekrutierte, der Stand, der in den Kreuzzügen eine so große Rolle spielte. Auch schon unter der Regierung Heinrichs IV. spielte der Ritterstand eine große Rolle.

Als Gregor VII. den Kaiser in den Bann tat, hielten die deutschen Fürsten nur teilweise zum Kaiser, während andere unter dem Einfluß des Papstes verschiedene Gegenkönige wählten. Wichtig sind alle diese Kämpfe nicht; wichtig aber ist es, daß der Ritterstand durch diese verschiedenen Streitigkeiten eine besondere Bedeutung erhielt. Ritter und Städte wurden bald vom Papst, bald vom König geködert. Fortwährende Fehden und Kriege herrschten; die Roheit nahm immer mehr zu. Bei den Plünderungszügen hatte der Bauernstand schwer zu leiden. Die letzten freien Bauern konnten sich nicht mehr halten und wurden aufgesogen von den Herren und Herzögen und diese wieder von den Königen. Aus diesem unerquicklichen Prozeß sehen wir hervorgehen, was wir als das «Reich» kennen.

Hierbei war kein Unterschied zwischen weltlichen und geistlichen Fürsten; groß aber war der Unterschied zwischen dem verweltlichten Klerus, und dem in den Klöstern. Der von den Bischöfen regierte Klerus war meist ungebildet, konnte nicht lesen und schreiben, verbauerte und beutete seine Lehensleute aus. Der Bischof beschäftigte sich mit der Verwaltung seiner Güter und war ebenso ungebildet wie Ritter- und Bauernstand; nichts von dem, was wir heute Bildung nennen können, war vorhanden. So war es möglich, von Rom aus die politische Lage der Kirche immer mehr zu befestigen.

Anders war es in den Klöstern. Hier wurde viel gearbeitet von Männern und Frauen. Tiefe Gelehrsamkeit war hier zu finden; alle Bildung der damaligen Zeit ist lediglich von den Klöstern ausgegangen. Sie ließen sich auch in bezug darauf nicht abhängig machen von der politischen Macht Roms, die auf der weltlichen Macht des Klerus ruhte. Was von Rom aus geschah, ist in der verschiedensten Weise zu beurteilen. Es sollte ein gewisser Kampf geführt werden gegen die Roheit, gegen das Faustrecht der deutschen Völker. Eifer für die geistigen Güter, der Wunsch, die Gewalt mittelalterlichen Denkens über die Welt auszubreiten war es, was von Rom aus gewollt wurde. Jedenfalls ging ein besserer Wille von Rom aus als von den deutschen Fürsten. In diesem Sinne muß man auffassen, was Gregor VI. wollte, als er die Ehelosigkeit forderte, und als er nicht dulden wollte, daß weltliche Fürstenmacht einen Einfluß auf die Besetzung der Bistümer sich anmaße: es war eine Opposition gegen die überhandnehmende Roheit in den deutschen Ländern. So waren die Kämpfe Heinrichs IV. mit den Sachsen nicht nur fast ebenso blutig, wie einst die Kriege Karls des Großen gegen die Sachsen, sondern sie wurden mit ganz besonderer Hintansetzung von Treu und Glauben geführt.

Durch alle diese Kämpfe wurde der Wohlstand immer mehr zerrüttet. Aus den Stürmen der Zeit entstand ein tiefreligiöser Zug, der sich bis zur Schwärmerei steigerte, wie ich es Ihnen bei dem Jahre 1000 schilderte. Diese religiöse Schwärmerei trieb immer wieder die Menge zu Zügen nach dem Morgenland.

Ursprünglich hatte die christliche Religion kein Festhalten an irgendein Dogma gekannt. Auf den Ideengehalt war es angekommen, nicht auf die äußere Einkleidung. Sie haben gesehen, wie im Heliand die Christus-Idee in freier Weise ausgestaltet wurde, wie der Dichter dabei für seine Landsleute das Christus-Leben in altsächsische Verhältnisse verlegte. Er faßte die Äußerlichkeiten dabei ganz frei auf, die ganz ebensogut bei uns in Deutschland, wie in Palästina sich ereignen konnten.

Unter den sich immer mehr veräußerlichenden Verhältnissen wurde für die Kirche die äußere Gestaltung des Glaubens eine Lebensfrage. Sie konnte nicht mehr den Stämmen überlassen, wie sie Christus auffassen wollten. Als Seitenstück der politischen Macht trat ein, daß auch die Dogmen fest und starr wurden.

Die Fürsten versuchten die weltliche Macht der Kirche in ihrem Interesse zu verwenden; die Bischofsstühle wurden mit jüngeren Brüdern besetzt, die körperlich oder geistig zu anderem unbrauchbar erschienen. Ganz allmählich änderten sich so die Verhältnisse und die alte Zeit wuchs in eine neue hinein.

So entstehen nun die Kreuzzüge, die wir nur psychologisch aus der Stimmung, die das Mittelalter beherrschte, verstehen können. Die vorhandene religiöse Schwärmerei bewirkte, daß es dem Papst ein Leichtes war, durch eigene Agenten wie Peter von Amiens und andere die Menschen zu den Kreuzzügen aufzustacheln. Dazu kam, daß eine große Anzahl von Leuten völlig mittellos geworden war. So waren es nicht nur religiöse Beweggründe, die mitwirkten. Immer mehr Freie waren zu Hörigen geworden; andere hatten ihr Besitztum verlassen müssen und waren fahrende Leute geworden, die nichts hatten, als was sie auf dem Leibe trugen. Unter diesen fahrenden Leuten, die allen Ständen entstammten, auch dem Adel, war eine große Menge, die nichts zu tun hatte und zu jeder Unternehmung bereit war, auch zum Kreuzzug.

So kommen wir dazu zu verstehen, daß eine große Anzahl von Faktoren tätig war: religiöse Schwärmerei, starres Dogma und materielle Bedrückung. Wie stark diese Ursachen wirkten, sehen wir daraus, daß, als der erste Kreuzzug zustande kam, es eine halbe Million Leute waren, die nach dem Morgenlande zogen. Den ersten äußeren Anstoß dazu hatte die schlechte Behandlung der zahlreichen Pilger durch die Sarazenen gegeben. Doch lagen tiefere Ursachen dem zugrunde. Ein starres Dogma, dem die Menschen sich unterwarfen, war vorhanden. Doch die wissen nichts vom Mittelalter, die nicht verstehen, wie damals die Menschen mit Herz und Seele an der Religion hingen. Eine Predigt wirkte zündend auf die Leute, wenn sie das rechte Wort traf. Viele glaubten durch solche Tat Hilfe zu finden; andere suchten Vergebung ihrer Sünden zu erlangen. Aus unserer heutigen Anschauung erhält man kein rechtes Bild dieser Erscheinung des Mittelalters, man hat es hier mit vielen ungreifbaren Ursachen zu tun.

Nicht die Ursachen, sondern die Wirkungen der Kreuzzüge sind es, die von besonderer Bedeutung für die Weiterentwickelung geworden sind. Bald nach Beginn wurde eine dieser Wirkungen sichtbar: nämlich ein viel intimerer Austausch zwischen den einzelnen Ländern. Bisher war Deutschland im allgemeinen ziemlich unbekannt mit den romanischen Ländern geblieben; jetzt wurden sie durch die Waffenbrüderschaft einander nähergebracht. Auch die maurische Wissenschaft fand erst auf diesem Wege wirklichen Eingang. Vorher hatten Lehrstühle der Hochschulen nur in Spanien, Italien und Frankreich bestanden; in Deutschland wurden sie erst nach den Kreuzzügen errichtet. Erst jetzt kam der Einfluß wahrer Wissenschaft vom Osten. Dieser war bisher völlig verschlossen gewesen und bewahrte große Bildungsschätze in den Schriften der griechischen Klassiker. Gründlich genommen entstand erst durch die Berührung mit dem Osten eine Wissenschaft.

Der unbestimmte Drang religiöser Schwärmerei hatte eine bestimmte Form angenommen, war das geworden, was man mittelalterliche Wissenschaft nennt. Diese Wissenschaft möchte ich Ihnen ein wenig charakterisieren.

Vor allen Dingen hatten sich zwei Denkweisen ausgebildet, die sich bemerkbar machten im wissenschaftlichen Leben des Mittelalters. Die Denkweise der Scholastik trennte sich in zwei Strömungen: Realismus und Nominalismus. Es ist ein scheinbar abstraktes Thema, wenn ich von Nominalismus und Realismus rede, aber für das Mittelalter und auch für die späteren Zeiten gewann dieser Streit eine tiefgreifende Bedeutung. Theologische und weltliche Wissenschafter teilten sich nach diesen zwei Lagern. Nominalisten heißt Namengläubige, Realisten sind diejenigen, die an das Wirkliche glauben. Realisten im Sinne des Mittelalters waren diejenigen, die an die Wirklichkeit des Gedankens glaubten, an einen realen Sinn der Welt. Sie nahmen an, daß die Welt einen Sinn hat, und nicht von ungefähr gebildet sei. Vom Standpunkt des Materialismus aus mag das als ein törichter Standpunkt angesehen werden; wer aber den Gedanken nicht für ein leeres Hirngespinst hält, muß zugeben, daß der Gedanke über ein Weltgesetz, den man sucht und in sich findet, auch eine Bedeutung für die Welt hat.

Die Nominalisten waren diejenigen, die nicht glaubten, daß Gedanken etwas Wirkliches sind, die darin nur Namen, Zufälligkeiten sahen, Dinge von keiner Bedeutung. Alle, die glauben, in dem, was das menschliche Denken erreicht, nur blinde Zufälligkeiten zu sehen, wie Kant, auch Schopenhauer, der die Welt als Vorstellung auffaßt, bilden einen Ausfluß des mittelalterlichen Nominalismus.

Diese Strömungen teilten das Heer der Mönche in zwei Lager. In so wichtigen Fragen ist es bemerkenswert, wie die Kirche keinen Zwang ausübte und, insofern es die Gelehrsamkeit betrifft, ruhig es gestatten konnte, daß man die Frage anschnitt, ob nicht die göttliche Dreieinigkeit auch bloß ein Name und somit nichts Wirkliches sei. Immerhin sehen Sie daraus eine große Freiheit der mittelalterlichen Kirche. Erst am Ende dieser Zeit beginnt man mit Ketzerverfolgungen, und es ist bezeichnend, daß der erste Ketzerrichter in Deutschland, Konrad von Marburg, vom Volke erschlagen wurde. Damals begann man erst damit, Meinungen zu verfolgen. Es ist dies ein wichtiger Umschwung. Wie frei vorher kirchliches Denken war, können Sie an dem großen Lehrer und Denker Albertus Magnus sehen. Er war ein ausgezeichneter Gelehrter, vertiefte sich in die gesamte Wissenschaft: kirchliche Gelehrsamkeit, arabisches Wissen, naturwissenschaftliches und physikalisches Denken sowie philosophisches beherrschte er; er wurde vom Volke als ein Zauberer aufgefaßt. Schroff stoßen aufeinander Gelehrsamkeit und Volksaberglaube, der ausgebeutet wird vom verweltlichten Klerus.

Jetzt kommen die Städte empor. In den Städten sehen wir ein mächtiges Bürgertum entstehen. Das Handwerk blüht und schließt sich in Zünften zusammen. Nicht mehr braucht sich der Handwerker unter der Bedrückung eines Grundherrn zu beugen, wie einst als Höriger. Bald schließen Könige und Fürsten Bündnisse mit den mittelalterlichen Städten. Kaiser Friedrich Barbarossa kämpfte jahrelang mit den norditalienischen Städten. Im Bürgertum entwikkelte sich ein starkes Freiheitsgefühl und der Sinn für den unmittelbaren persönlichen Wert. Wir sehen so auf der einen Seite auf dem Lande eine religiöse Gesinnung bei zunehmendem äußerem Druck; in den Städten ein freies Bürgertum, zwar an eine streng geregelte Zunftverfassung gebunden, doch gerade dadurch gedieh damals die Freiheit der Städte; auf dem Lande aber ein absterbendes Leben, Faustrecht und Roheit. Das Rittertum geriet nach den Kreuzzügen in ein in das Nichts führendes, leeres höfisches Leben. Die Ritter beschäftigten sich mit Fehde, Turnieren und Waffenkämpfen; ihre Sitten nahmen immer rohere Formen an. Besonders gewann der Minnedienst mit der Zeit die lächerlichsten Formen. Diejenigen Ritter, die dichten konnten, dichteten Strophen auf ihre Damen; die übrigen machten ihnen auf andere Weise den Hof. Eine große Unwissenheit war mit diesem Hofleben vereint. Die Männer waren fast alle ganz ungebildet; die Frauen mußten lesen und schreiben können. Die Frauen nahmen eine ganz eigentümliche Stellung ein; auf der einen Seite wurden sie vergöttert, auf der anderen geknechtet. Eine Art von Barbarei herrschte, ein zügelloses Leben, das dazu führte, daß das Gastrecht zur Entehrung der Frauen führte.

Währenddessen bereitet in den Städten sich das vor, was man später Kultur nennt. Es geschah dort, was geschehen mußte, denn Neues bildet sich dort heran, wo es die Möglichkeit hat, sich frei zu entfalten. Der wirkliche geistige Fortschritt findet dort statt, wo das wirtschaftliche Leben nicht beengt ist. Nicht dem materiellen Fortschritt entspringt das geistige Leben, sondern der wahre geistige Fortschritt findet sich dort, wo das wirtschaftliche Leben nicht bedrückt und eingeengt ist.

So entstand in den Städten damals eine reiche Kultur; fast alles, was uns in den Werken der Malerei, der Baukunst, der Erfindungen geschenkt wurde, ist in dieser Zeit der Städtekultur zu danken. Einer solchen reichen italienischen Städtekultur entstammte auch Dante. Auch in Deutschland finden wir bedeutende geistige Leistungen unter dem Einfluß dieser Städtekultur. Zwar waren die ersten bedeutenden Dichter Ritter, wie Wolfram von Eschenbach, Gottfried von Straßburg und so weiter, aber ohne den Rückhalt, den die Städte boten, wären diese Leistungen nicht möglich gewesen. In dieser Zeit, wo eine freie Luft in den Städten weht, entsteht auch das Universitätsleben. Zunächst mußte der Deutsche, wenn er höheres Wissen finden wollte, nach Italien, Frankreich und so weiter. Jetzt entstehen in Deutschland die ersten Universitäten, wie Prag 1348, Wien 1365, Heidelberg 1386. Das Freiheitswesen räumte auf mit dem mittelalterlichen Dünkel.

Der weltliche Klerus war wie die Fürsten in egoistische Interessenkämpfe verwickelt, und die Kirche hatte diesen Zug angenommen. Wer die Entwickelung verfolgt, wird verstehen, daß die neue geistige Strömung, die deutsche Mystik nur so entstehen konnte — in schroffer Opposition gegen den weltlichen Klerus. Besonders am Rhein entlang, in Köln, Straßburg, in Süddeutschland, breitete sich diese Bewegung aus, der Männer wie Eckhart, Tauler, Suso und so weiter angehörten. Sie hatten sich unabhängig gemacht von dem römischen Klerus; dafür wurden sie auch zu Ketzern erklärt und ihnen das Leben auf jede Weise erschwert. Ein Zug von Innerlichkeit geht durch ihre Schriften; sie hatten sich in das menschliche Herz zurückgezogen, um mit sich selbst ins klare zu kommen. Diese Mönche, die sich unabhängig gemacht hatten, sprachen zu dem Herzen des Volkes in seiner Sprache. Die deutsche Sprache wurde in einer Art veredelt, die man heute nicht begreift, wenn man nicht die Schriften liest eines Meisters Eckhart, Taulers oder des Verfassers der «Theologia deutsch». Die Schönheit der Sprache wurde durch die Mystik eingepflanzt, und die damaligen Übersetzungen übertrafen an Schönheit der Sprache weit die späteren. Diese Entwickelung der deutschen

Sprache wurde schroff unterbrochen dadurch, daß Luther die deutsche Bibel in der pedantischsten, philiströsesten damaligen Mundart schuf, aus der das jetzige Hochdeutsch geworden ist. Alles das geschah in Opposition gegen den Klerus. Was damals gewollt wurde, ist auf vielen Gebieten heute noch nicht erreicht. Ich habe Ihnen vieles anders geschildert, als Sie gewohnt sind zu hören. Es wird immer versichert, daß etwas Unerhörtes geschehen ist durch die Bibelübersetzung Luthers; Sie sehen aber, wie vorher viel Höheres erreicht war. Ich habe Ihnen ein Tableau für das, was in der Folgezeit uns beschäftigen wird, entworfen.

Wir nähern uns der Renaissancezeit. Die Konsolidierung der Verhältnisse, die sich vollzog, bestand im wesentlichen darin, daß immer größere Gebiete unter die Herrschaft der Landesfürsten gerieten. Auch ein großer Teil der mittelalterlichen Städtefreiheit wurde aufgesogen durch die Verfassung der großen Staaten, jedes Ding hat eben seine zwei Seiten. Den heutigen Menschen wird gewiß vieles abstoßen und es wird heute viel geredet über die Willkür, die damals herrschte. Die Freiheit hat selbstverständlich ihre Kehrseite, und es ist noch keine Freiheit, wenn man in der Willkür durch die Willkür anderer eingeschränkt ist.

Eine Sprache konnte zum Beispiel in der Mitte des Mittelalters an den Universitäten gegen die Willkür der weltlichen Machthaber geführt werden, wie später vielleicht nur Fichte es getan hat. Die Dokumente der damaligen Universitäten bewahren uns die Worte der damaligen freien Geister. Heute ist nicht nur die weltliche Herrschaft, sondern auch die Wissenschaft verstaatlicht.

Ohne Licht und Schatten nach den Schlagworten der Gegenwart zu verteilen, habe ich Ihnen diese Zeiten geschildert. Ich suchte an den Punkten zu verweilen, wo wirklicher Fortschritt vorhanden ist. Wollen wir freie Menschen sein, müssen wir ein Herz haben für die, die vor uns nach Freiheit gestrebt haben. Wir müssen verstehen, daß auch andere Zeiten Menschen hatten, die etwas auf Freiheit gegeben haben.

Geschichte ist die Entwickelungsgeschichte der Menschheit zur Freiheit, und wir müssen, um sie zu verstehen, die Freiheit in all ihren Gipfelpunkten studieren.

Eighth Lecture

We are now in the middle of the Middle Ages and will examine the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries. This period is significant and important because it allows us to study the emergence of great empires. We also learned about large states in ancient times—Persia, the Roman Empire, and so on—but they are so distant from us that it is difficult to make a real historical assessment. In the Middle Ages, however, we see small causes developing into a communal army, court, and constitution, something that did not exist in Germany. These regions still fell apart into separate areas in the 13th and 14th centuries.

It was not until Henry III that something happened that contributed to the unification of the imperial territories, when the emperor succeeded in turning the individual tribal dukes into a kind of imperial officials. Previously, they had emerged sovereign from tribal peculiarities; now they had become what are known as ministerials, servants of the emperor. Gradually, the lower vassals, who had also become servants from freemen, were placed on an equal footing with the ministerials. Over time, they formed what is known as the lower nobility, from which the knighthood was recruited, the class that played such an important role in the Crusades. Even under the reign of Henry IV, the knightly class played an important role.

When Gregory VII excommunicated the emperor, the German princes only partially supported the emperor, while others, under the influence of the pope, elected various rival kings. None of these struggles are important; what is important, however, is that the knighthood gained special significance through these various disputes. Knights and cities were soon lured by the pope, then by the king. Constant feuds and wars prevailed; brutality increased more and more. The peasantry suffered greatly from the raids. The last free peasants could no longer hold their own and were absorbed by the lords and dukes, who in turn were absorbed by the kings. From this unpleasant process, we see the emergence of what we know as the “empire.”

There was no difference between secular and ecclesiastical princes, but there was a great difference between the secularized clergy and those in the monasteries. The clergy, ruled by the bishops, were mostly uneducated, unable to read or write, and exploited their vassals. The bishop was concerned with the administration of his estates and was just as uneducated as the knights and peasants; none of what we today call education existed. This made it possible to increasingly consolidate the political position of the Church from Rome.

The situation was different in the monasteries. Here, men and women worked hard. Profound scholarship could be found here; all education at that time originated solely from the monasteries. In this respect, too, they did not allow themselves to become dependent on the political power of Rome, which rested on the secular power of the clergy. What happened in Rome must be judged in many different ways. A certain struggle had to be waged against the brutality and lawlessness of the German peoples. Zeal for spiritual goods and the desire to spread the power of medieval thinking over the world were what Rome wanted. In any case, Rome showed better intentions than the German princes. This is how we must understand what Gregory VI wanted when he demanded celibacy and refused to tolerate secular princes exerting influence over the appointment of bishops: it was opposition to the rampant brutality in the German lands. Thus, Henry IV's battles with the Saxons were not only almost as bloody as Charlemagne's wars against the Saxons had once been, but they were also fought with a particular disregard for good faith.

All these battles increasingly disrupted prosperity. The storms of the times gave rise to a deeply religious movement that escalated into fanaticism, as I described to you in the year 1000. This religious fanaticism repeatedly drove the masses to migrate to the Orient.

Originally, the Christian religion had not adhered to any dogma. What mattered was the content of the ideas, not the external trappings. You have seen how the idea of Christ was freely developed in the Heliand, how the poet transferred the life of Christ to Old Saxon conditions for his compatriots. He interpreted the externalities quite freely, which could just as well have taken place here in Germany as in Palestine.

Under increasingly external circumstances, the external form of faith became a matter of life and death for the Church. It could no longer leave it up to the tribes to decide how they wanted to understand Christ. As a counterpart to political power, dogmas also became fixed and rigid.

The princes tried to use the secular power of the Church in their own interests; the bishoprics were filled with younger brothers who seemed physically or mentally unfit for anything else. Gradually, conditions changed and the old era gave way to a new one.

This gave rise to the Crusades, which we can only understand psychologically from the mood that prevailed in the Middle Ages. The existing religious fervor made it easy for the Pope to incite people to go on the Crusades through his own agents, such as Peter of Amiens and others. In addition, a large number of people had become completely destitute. So it was not only religious motives that played a part. More and more free people had become serfs; others had had to leave their possessions and had become itinerant people who had nothing but the clothes on their backs. Among these itinerant people, who came from all walks of life, including the nobility, there were a large number who had nothing to do and were ready for any undertaking, including the Crusades.

We can thus understand that a large number of factors were at work: religious fervor, rigid dogma, and material oppression. We can see how powerful these causes were from the fact that when the first crusade came about, half a million people set out for the Orient. The initial external impetus for this was the poor treatment of numerous pilgrims by the Saracens. However, there were deeper underlying causes. There was a rigid dogma to which people submitted. But those who do not understand how people in those days were devoted to religion with heart and soul know nothing about the Middle Ages. A sermon had a galvanizing effect on people if it struck the right chord. Many believed they would find help through such actions; others sought forgiveness for their sins. From our present-day perspective, it is difficult to get a true picture of this phenomenon of the Middle Ages, as there are many intangible causes involved.

It is not the causes, but the effects of the Crusades that have become particularly significant for further development. One of these effects became apparent soon after the beginning: namely, a much more intimate exchange between the individual countries. Until then, Germany had remained largely unfamiliar with the Romance countries; now they were brought closer together through brotherhood in arms. Moorish science also found its way into Germany in this way. Previously, university chairs had only existed in Spain, Italy, and France; in Germany, they were only established after the Crusades. Only now did the influence of true science come from the East. Until then, it had been completely closed off and preserved great educational treasures in the writings of the Greek classics. Strictly speaking, it was only through contact with the East that science came into being.

The vague urge for religious enthusiasm had taken on a specific form, becoming what we call medieval science. I would like to characterize this science for you a little.

Above all, two ways of thinking had developed that were noticeable in the scientific life of the Middle Ages. The scholastic way of thinking divided into two currents: realism and nominalism. It is a seemingly abstract topic when I talk about nominalism and realism, but for the Middle Ages and also for later times, this dispute took on profound significance. Theological and secular scholars divided themselves into these two camps. Nominalists are those who believe in names, while realists are those who believe in reality. Realists in the medieval sense were those who believed in the reality of thought, in a real meaning of the world. They assumed that the world had meaning and was not formed by chance. From the standpoint of materialism, this may be considered a foolish position; but anyone who does not consider thought to be an empty fantasy must admit that the idea of a universal law, which one seeks and finds within oneself, also has meaning for the world.

The nominalists were those who did not believe that thoughts are something real, who saw in them only names, coincidences, things of no significance. All those who believe that what human thought achieves is nothing but blind coincidence, such as Kant and Schopenhauer, who conceives of the world as a mental image, form an offshoot of medieval nominalism.

These currents divided the army of monks into two camps. On such important issues, it is remarkable how the Church did not exert any coercion and, as far as scholarship was concerned, calmly allowed the question to be raised as to whether the Holy Trinity was also merely a name and thus nothing real. Nevertheless, you can see from this that there was great freedom in the medieval church. It was not until the end of this period that the persecution of heretics began, and it is significant that the first heresy judge in Germany, Konrad von Marburg, was killed by the people. It was only then that the persecution of opinions began. This is an important turning point. You can see how free ecclesiastical thinking was before this in the great teacher and thinker Albertus Magnus. He was an outstanding scholar who immersed himself in all fields of science: he mastered ecclesiastical scholarship, Arabic knowledge, scientific and physical thinking, and philosophy; he was regarded by the people as a magician. Scholarship and popular superstition, which was exploited by the secularized clergy, clashed sharply.

Now the cities are rising. In the cities, we see a powerful bourgeoisie emerging. Crafts are flourishing and joining together in guilds. Craftsmen no longer had to bow to the oppression of a landlord, as they once did as serfs. Soon, kings and princes formed alliances with the medieval cities. Emperor Frederick Barbarossa fought for years with the cities of northern Italy. A strong sense of freedom and a sense of immediate personal value developed among the bourgeoisie. On the one hand, we see a religious attitude in the countryside with increasing external pressure; in the cities, a free bourgeoisie, bound by a strictly regulated guild system, but precisely because of this, the freedom of the cities flourished at that time; in the countryside, however, a dying life, lawlessness, and brutality. After the Crusades, knighthood descended into an empty courtly life leading nowhere. The knights occupied themselves with feuds, tournaments, and combat; their manners became increasingly crude. Over time, courtly love in particular took on the most ridiculous forms. Those knights who could write poetry composed verses for their ladies; the rest courted them in other ways. This courtly life was accompanied by great ignorance. Almost all of the men were completely uneducated; the women had to be able to read and write. Women occupied a very peculiar position; on the one hand, they were idolized, on the other, they were enslaved. A kind of barbarism prevailed, a dissolute life that led to the dishonoring of women through the right of hospitality.

Meanwhile, in the cities, what would later be called culture was developing. What had to happen happened there, because new things develop where they have the opportunity to unfold freely. Real intellectual progress takes place where economic life is not restricted. Intellectual life does not spring from material progress; true intellectual progress is found where economic life is not oppressed and restricted.

Thus, a rich culture developed in the cities at that time; almost everything that has been given to us in the works of painting, architecture, and inventions is thanks to this period of urban culture. Dante also came from such a rich Italian urban culture. In Germany, too, we find significant intellectual achievements under the influence of this urban culture. Although the first important poets were knights, such as Wolfram von Eschenbach, Gottfried von Straßburg, and so on, these achievements would not have been possible without the support offered by the cities. During this period, when a spirit of freedom prevailed in the cities, university life also emerged. Initially, Germans had to go to Italy, France, and so on if they wanted to acquire higher knowledge. Now the first universities were being established in Germany, such as Prague in 1348, Vienna in 1365, and Heidelberg in 1386. Freedom did away with medieval conceit.

The secular clergy, like the princes, was involved in selfish power struggles, and the church had adopted this trait. Anyone who follows the development will understand that the new spiritual current, German mysticism, could only arise in this way — in stark opposition to the secular clergy. This movement, to which men such as Eckhart, Tauler, Suso, and so on belonged, spread particularly along the Rhine, in Cologne, Strasbourg, and southern Germany. They had made themselves independent of the Roman clergy; for this they were declared heretics and their lives were made difficult in every way. A streak of inwardness runs through their writings; they had withdrawn into the human heart in order to come to terms with themselves. These monks, who had made themselves independent, spoke to the heart of the people in their language. The German language was refined in a way that is difficult to comprehend today unless one reads the writings of Meister Eckhart, Tauler, or the author of “Theologia deutsch.” The beauty of the language was instilled by mysticism, and the translations of that time far surpassed later ones in linguistic beauty. This development of the German language was abruptly interrupted when Luther created the German Bible in the most pedantic, philistine dialect of the time, which became the standard German language we know today.

language was abruptly interrupted by Luther's creation of the German Bible in the most pedantic, philistine dialect of the time, which has become the standard German of today. All this happened in opposition to the clergy. What was desired at that time has still not been achieved in many areas today. I have described many things to you differently from what you are used to hearing. It is always asserted that something unheard of happened as a result of Luther's translation of the Bible; but you can see how much greater achievements had been made before that. I have sketched for you a tableau of what will occupy us in the period that followed.

We are approaching the Renaissance period. The consolidation of conditions that took place consisted essentially in ever larger areas coming under the rule of the sovereigns. Much of the medieval freedom of the cities was also absorbed by the constitution of the large states; everything has two sides. Today's people will certainly find much of this repulsive, and there is much talk today about the arbitrariness that prevailed at that time. Freedom naturally has its downside, and it is not yet freedom if one is restricted in one's arbitrariness by the arbitrariness of others.

In the middle of the Middle Ages, for example, a language could be used at universities to counter the arbitrariness of secular rulers, as perhaps only Fichte did later. The documents of the universities of that time preserve for us the words of the free spirits of that time. Today, not only secular rule but also science has been nationalized.

Without distributing light and shadow according to the buzzwords of the present, I have described these times to you. I sought to dwell on the points where real progress has been made. If we want to be free people, we must have a heart for those who strove for freedom before us. We must understand that other times also had people who valued freedom.

History is the story of humanity's development toward freedom, and in order to understand it, we must study freedom in all its peaks.