The University
By 1400, there was something
more than 50 universities in Europe, teaching law, medicine and
theology. Models were provided by Bologna, Paris and
Oxford. These were international institutions, drawing students from
all across Europe and beyond, all teaching in a common language – Latin.
Aristotle received an expanded
audience – at the same time a threat to the Church yet ultimately assimilated
by its brightest thinkers. Unlike Judaism and Islam, which offered
divinely revealed laws to live by (thereby not distinguishing between secular
and religious authorities), Christianity brought a set of fundamental beliefs
while allowing its followers to organize politically outside of religion
(leaving room for the bishop and the king, therefore leaving space for freedom
to flourish).
The Free City
The city, an organization often
formed by merchants, offered a further form of decentralized governance – apart
from the noble. These were self-governing entities, not based on
land but based on a money economy. Such associations were formed by
and its members bound by oath. Many cities gained immunities in exchange
for loyalty – hence, “free cities.”
An example is given of such a
free city: Freiburg im Breisgau, located in the
southwestern corner of Germany. A free-market town, founded in 1120,
it sits at “a junction of trade routes between the Mediterranean Sea and the
North Sea regions, and the Rhine and Danube rivers.”
Living in a city came with
privileges, but also obligations; one could not expect to benefit from the
advantages of the immunities without also contributing – for example, to the
city’s defenses. It seems that reciprocity among equals is expected
if one is to achieve some level of freedom.
Of course, the birth of the
city also began the breakdown of the family as a functionally important
governance unit. The advantages of this to a man’s freedom are
obvious; the costs to liberty in the long run would not be known for some time.
Feudalism
Feudalism, the oft-abused and
misunderstood term, cannot be understood unless one first grasps the radical
decentralization of the time. If a man did not have to power to
defend himself, he would offer service to one who could provide for his
defense. The obligations flowed both ways – the serf was by no means
a slave, nor was a he a “subject.” Further, the serf was not bound
to the lord’s lord. Each was bound only to whom he bound himself.
It was in this relationship
that one can find the anarchical governance structure: the serf and the lord
were bound to each other by oath. The oath was more than a contract
– consider it a covenant, with God as a third party and witness. The
covenant called for loyalty, even in hard times; it may even require
self-sacrifice.
It was not subordination that
men feared – feudal society was a hierarchical society, complete with accepted
status-based relationships; instead, what men feared was arbitrary power and
control. The idea of mere freedom – not only free of arbitrary
control but also free from all hierarchical and status-based relationships –
was “colourless, almost meaningless.”
And not workable.
Kings and Law
Breaking from Augustine’s view,
the period was marked by an understanding that unjust rule was no rule at
all. The king, like all men, was subject to the law.
Kings became king partly by
election, often to include a kinship or heredity basis; election was based on
mutual promises and oaths. If the king did not keep up his end of
the bargain, the nobles were free from any obligation to obey. Unlike
prior Roman and later European rulers, such power granted to medieval kings was
conditional and revocable – not permanent.
The law was not written; it was
custom. It was tied to the tribe (therefore, the individual) and not
to the land. Law was not “legislated”; it was to be found in
tradition. It was not to be commanded, only
enforced. Only in the thirteenth century is there the first glimpse
of law being “made.” Customary law could change, but slowly and
based on the lived experiences of the people: the people’s customs and
traditions formed the law; as actions became tradition, law was formed.
Conclusion
For the first portion of this
period, from the fall of Rome until perhaps the tenth century, the region is
governed first by the Merovingian “do-nothing” kings, followed by Charlemagne’s
brutal forming of empire, followed then by the fall of Charlemagne’s empire and
subsequent political decentralization.
But it was in the period from
about 1050 to 1350 that the region formed what can be described as an
undifferentiated cultural unit. In addition to the Church,
monasteries, cathedral schools, and universities helped to bind together the
civilization.
Europe was comprised of perhaps
100 ethnic, linguistic and quasi-political groups – each keeping their own
unique identity while respecting the unique identities of the others. This
“undifferentiated cultural unit” was bound together not by force or by a centralized
bureaucracy, but by the shared values found in the Germanic and the
Christian.
Wars and
conflict? Sure, but small and local; involving the aggrieved and not
the masses. It took the first movers toward monarchy – France and
England – to create something as horrendous as the 100 Years’ War.
