Medieval Christianity by Madigan is a very readable and comprehensive
book covering Western Europe from about 500 AD until 1400 AD, albeit edging
down to 150 and up to 1500 at its extreme. The book is well balanced, well
researched and accessible to all readers. The title also states it as “A New
History” but just what is “new” and “well known” is not as clear perhaps as the
author may have desired. Notwithstanding, what the author has presented is
useful for the newly informed as well as the “well informed”.
The author starts with a brief discussion of early
Christianity from 150 to 600. This has as its center piece Augustine and his
writings. One of the most difficult problems with early Christianity is the
complexity of Greek thought and the Eastern Church and the slow evolution of a
Western Church. Southern has examined this in detail and it is the complexity
of Eastern thought which in many ways was a departing point for the west and it
was it abandonment by Augustine via his Roman way of thinking that opened the
Western Church and what we now think of Medieval Christianity. Augustine
introduced many ideas in a manner that reformed Western beliefs. His battle
with Pelagius is clearly one and his emphasis on grace another.
There is an interesting discussion on p 29-30 on when this
stage of early Christianity ended. One way to pinpoint this change perhaps is
the time of Gregory I. The reason is that at this time Gregory breached with
Byzantium by severing with the ruler in Ravenna and taking both religious and
political control in Rome.
The author’s discussion on Gregory is very limited in scope
and here I would fault the author for an opportunity to use this figure as a
major break point for the establishment of the Western Church (see pp 45-62).
It can be argued that it was Gregory who de factor created Medieval
Christianity.
The Bishop of Rome in 600 was still just that, the Bishop of
Rome. The Emperor in Constantinople was a de facto head of the Church, calling
various Councils to discuss major religious issues. Gregory had been in the
court in Constantinople, had been Mayor of Rome, had come from an old line
Roman family and desired to be a monk along the lines of Benedict. However he
was drawn to the Bishop of Rome slot by the people of Rome who required his
leadership.
Also Gregory was looking westward, seeing Constantinople as
an aging confluence of political intrigue. Thus by looking west his
communications with the Merovingian queen Brunhilda is a classic example of
Rome becoming pari passu with leaders and influencing them via religion and
charm. On the other hand the likes of Brunhilda were brutal to the point of
savagery and Gregory seems in his writing to have avoided discussion of these
facts. Likewise he dealt with the Lombards as well as sending the Italian
Bishop Augustine to England. This latter act however can be viewed as an
affront to the Irish who were still adhering to the Eastern Church ways and saw
Gregory as an equal in debate. In essence Gregory set up the conflict between
Ireland and England. But it was Gregory and his looking westward rather than
Eastward that made for the seminal start of the Medieval Church.
In this section it would have been useful to explore in some
detail the lengthy discussions between Columbanus and Gregory I. There was but
a brief mention on p 48 of Columbanus. First the Latin of Columbanus, the Irish
monk, was dramatically different from Gregory. Gregory had evolved to almost a
koine type Latin while Columbanus seems to have retained almost Ciceronian Latin.
The Irish monks had learned Latin almost independently from Rome based upon
classic texts and this in a way strongly influenced their style. In addition
Columbanus and all the Irish monks had never been under the Roman yoke and thus
in dealing with Rome they dealt with them as almost an independent
thinker.
Chapter 4 introduces Charlemagne. Charlemagne was a follow
on to the Merovingians, albeit the descendent of a Merovingian court official.
Charlemagne in 800 gets coroneted by the Bishop of Rome, now viewed as both a
religious figure and putative political player.
Chapter 5 deals with the parochial life. There was a local
parish alongside the monastic monasteries. The local priests were typically
less well educated that the monks who spent much of their time reading and
writing. In contrast the local parish priest was dealing with local matters of
lesser import. Chapter 6 deals with the Jews, an issue always made complex,
especially in the West. Chapter 7 considers the Crusades and Islam. A great deal
has been written on crusades and this presentation is brief. The complexity of
the expansion and acceptance of Muslim beliefs was often seen by the Christians
as another heretic sect, especially their belief in polygamy. There did not
seem to be any attempt to “understand” their thought throughout this period.
Starting in Chapter 8 the author moves to what he calls the
era of High Medieval Christianity. This is from 1050 through 1300. There is a
discussion of the reforms to what had become a Church with many small faults,
and this included Rome itself. By this time Rome had clearly become a Papacy in
terms of its singular position. Chapter 10 discusses some of the heretical
movements during this early period of the High Medieval Church.
Chapters 11 and 12 present the Dominicans and the
Franciscans respectively. Whereas the Dominicans were always positioned as
intellectually elite, Aquinas was a Dominican, the Franciscans presented a
possible threat to Rome, and they advocated a return to early Christian belief
of poverty. However Rome managed them quite well and the net result was a
Franciscan order that was on a par with the Dominicans and in a sense often
superior. One needs look no further than Ockham and his Franciscan followers.
The author then details many of the elements of religious
life and affairs. At this time the Church was becoming a dominant part of the
lives of the people.
On pp 262-266 the author presents Abelard and Heloise. This
is one of the classic tales of this time. This is one of the best descriptions
and one in context that I have seen. This alone is worth reading.
On pp 277-283 there is a brief discussion on Aquinas. I
would have liked to see a more detailed presentation. Aquinas became a figure
of the Aristotelian movement and after his death his works were banned by some
but they came back in the 19th century and the basis of Church
belief and doctrine. Some more detailed discussion of his work would have been
useful. I felt his presentation was too brief in passing.
As noted, the author discusses Aquinas but fails to discuss
Ockham, the Franciscan, albeit a brief note on the next to last page
((p434).Ockham was a nominalist, one who denied universals, and thus in
contradistinction to Aquinas. Ockham also reinvigorated the idea of the
Individual and as such was a catalyst for many works emanating from his. Also
Ockham demonstrated confrontational intellectual opposition to the Avignon
Popes resulting in his fleeing eastward and being supported by German Princes.
Here is an example of quasi-national opposition to the non-Roman Pope, a
conflict that was just starting to brew.
Late Medieval Christianity occurs from 1350 to 1500 and the
author does a good job in details the key points. Again there are “heretical” movements
such as Hus and Wyclif and the Lollards. He discusses the changes and discusses
Prague in some detail. Prague was a cauldron of religious dissent, as the
statue to Hus demonstrates in the square of present day Prague, a statue I
passed daily on my way to my office, ironically across from the house of Kafka!
Understanding central Europe more would have been helpful in explaining this
effect.
The Avignon papacy from 1309-1378 (pp 374-378) blends Middle
and High Medieval Christianity and represents a clear distortion of the Bishop
of Rome and the attempted, and in many ways total, control by the French throne
over the Pope. Here we have most likely the first instance of having a Pope as
a separate entity from the Bishop of Rome. For centuries before this, when the
Pope qua leader of the Church was mentioned, the position was synonymous with
the Bishop of Rome. In fact the true title should be Bishop of Rome, since that
is the position of such a leader. It would have been helpful to have an
expanded discussion on this topic. This period of fighting Popes has in my
opinion left an indelible scar on the Western Church.
Overall this is a superb book and worth reading and
rereading. The author builds upon Southern and his work as he indicates.
However there are many other views of the issue he presents and space being
limited his presentation is fair, well balanced, and exceptionally readable. In
contrast one might also read, if available, the works of Henri Daniel-Rops (a
pseudonym for Henri Tetiot) who albeit an apologist for the Church, has added
insight on many of these issues discussed by the author.
Posts
