Dictionary of the Middle AgesD 4 0s v0 AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES ‘The American Council of Learned Societies, organized in 1919 for the purpose of advancing the study of the humanities and of the humanistic aspects of the social sciences, is a nonprofit federation comprising forty-five national scholarly groups. The Council represents the humanities ia the United States in the International Union of Academies, provides fellowships and grams-in-aid, suppons research-and-planning, conferences and symposia, and sponsors special projects and scholarly publications. [MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, 1743 AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, 780 AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY, 1812 ‘AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY, 1 AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY, AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, 1869 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, 1879 SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, 1860 MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, 1863, AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, 1888 ‘AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION, 1685, AMERICAN FOLKLORE SOCIETY, 1888 "AMERICAN DIALECT SOCIETY, 1899 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, 1692 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS, 1900, AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION, 1901 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, 1902 "AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, 1903 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1904 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS, 1904 HISPANIC SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1904 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, 1905 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 1906 ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS, 1907 AMERICAN ACADEMY OF KELIGION, 1909 COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, 1912 HISTORY OF SCIENCE SOCIETY, 1924 LINGUISTIC SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1924 MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA, 125 AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY, 1934 SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIANS, 1940 ECONOMIC HISTORY ASSOCIATION, 1940 ASSOCIATION FOR ASIAN STUDIES, 1947 AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR AESTHETICS, 1982 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SLAVIC STUDIES, 1968 METAPHYSICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1980 AMERICAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION, 1950 RENAISSANCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1954 SOCIETY FOR ETHNOMUSICOLOGY, 1985 AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR LEGAL HISTORY, 1956 AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THEATRE RESEARCH, 1956 SOCIETY FOR THE HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY. 1958 AMERICAN COMPARATIVE LITERATURE ASSOCIATION, 1960 AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY STUDIES, 196 [ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES, 969Dictionary of the Hliddle Ages JOSEPH R. STRAYER, EDITOR IN CHIEF \ N Volume 10 POLEMICS—-SCANDINAVIA CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS * NEW YORKCopyright © 1988 American Council of Learned Societies Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Dara Main entry under title: Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Includes bibliographies and index. 1. Middle Ages—Dictionaries. 1. Strayer, Joseph Reese, 19041987 Dis4.DS 1982 909.07 __—82-5904 ISBN 0-684.16760:3 (v. 1) ISBN 0-684-18274-2 (v. 8) ISBN 0-684-17022-1 (v. 2) ISBN 0-684-18275.0 (v. 9) ISBN 0-684-17023-X (v. 3) ISBN 0-684-18276-9 (v. 10) ISBN 0-684-17024-8 (v. 4) ISBN 0-684-18161-4 (v. 5) ISBN 0-684-18168-1 (v. 6) ISBN 0-684-18169-X (v. 7) Published by Collier Macmillan Canada, Inc. ‘Copyright under the Berne convention. All rights reserved. No part of this book ‘may be reproduced in any form without the permission of Charles Scribner's Sons. 135791113151719 QIC 2018 16 1412 1086 42 PRINCTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ‘The Dictionary of the Middle Ages has been produced with support from the National Endowment for the Humanities. ‘The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability ofthe Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. Maps prepared by Patricia A. Rodriguez and Sylvia Lehrman,Laitorial Board THEODORE M. ANDERSSON, Stanford University NINA G. GARSOIAN, Columbia University HERBERT L, KESSLER, The Johns Hopkins University JOHN LEYERLE, University of Toronto AVRAM L. UDOVITCH, Princeton UniversityAdvisory Committee GUSTAVE ALEF, University of Oregon JEANETTE M. A. BEER, Purdue University THOMAS N. BISSON, University “f California, Berkeley JEAN BONY, University of California, Berkeley JAMES F. BURKE, University of Toronto ANGUS F. CAMERON, University of Toronto MARK COHEN, Princeton University E, TALBOT DONALDSON, Indiana University ANN DOOLEY, University of Toronto D. J. GEANAKOPLOS, Yale University KEVIN J. HARTY, Temple University ANDREW HUGHES, University of Toronto W.T. H. JACKSON, Columbia University ROBERT E. LERNER, Northwestern University R. M. LUMIANSKY, American Council of Learned Societies THOMAS F. MATHEWS, New York University BRIAN S. MERRILEES, University of Toronto HELMUT NICKEL, Metropolitan Museum of Art KENNETH D. OSTRAND, University of New Orleans ROGER E. REYNOLDS, University of Toronto TIMOTHY R. ROBERTS, Jefferson City (Mo.) High School FRANZ ROSENTHAL, Yale University KENNETH M. SETTON, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton ECKEHARD SIMON, Harvard University PRISCILLA P. SOUCEK, New York University E, A. SYNAN, University of Toronto BRIAN TIERNEY, Cornell University KARL DAVID UiTTL, Princeton University CRAIG B. VITTETOE, Palo Alto (Calf.) City Schools LYNN WHITE, Jr, University of California, Los AngelesLaditorial Scaff JOHN F, FITZPATRICK, MANAGING EDITOR PETER C. BENEDICT, Editorial Assistant DANIEL J. CALTO, Editorial Assistant SANDRA D. KNIGHT, Administrative Assistant ANJU MAKHIJANI, Production Manager BETH ANN McCABE, Senior Editorial Assistant DAVID J. BABIN, Assistant Photo Editor JEFFREY L. BENEKE, Associate Editor LESLEY ANN BENEKE, Associate Editor ILENE COHEN, Associate Editor EMILY GARLIN, Proofreader GEOFFREY B. GNEUHS, Assistant Editor ROBERT HALASZ, Associate Editor ROBERT K. HAYCRAFT, Associate Editor PAMELA NICELY, Assistant Editor \W. KIRK REYNOLDS, Proofreader JACK RUMMEL, Proofreader IRINA RYBACEK, Associate Editor JOHN SCHULTZ, Photo Editor DEBBIE TAYLOR, Photo Editor WILLIAM K. WEST, Associate Editor ELIZABETH I, WILSON, Associate Editor G. MICHAEL McGINLEY, DIRECTOR, REFERENCE BOOKS DIVISIONContributors to Volume 10 HELENE AHRWEILER Université de Paris 1 Pourricat THEoRY, BYZANTINE GUSTAVE ALE University of Oregon Paimany CHRONICLE, RUSSIAN THEODORE M. ANDERSSON Stanford University REGINSMAL AND FARNISMAL; REYKDOELA SAGA; SAGA GREGORY PETER ANDRACHUK University of Victoria Ropricuez DEL FADRON, JUAN RHIAN M. ANDREWS Queen's University of Belfast Ruvs oF DeHEUBARTH GRACE MORGAN ARMSTRONG. ‘Brym Mawr College PROVERRS AND SENTENTIAE ANI P. ATAMIAN Rusen I; RUBENIDS SUSAN M. BABBITT ‘American Philosophical Society Roneer pe Ccanis Roger DE FLOR ROGER §, BAGNALL Columbia University Rowan Eoyrr, LATE ‘TERENCE BAILEY University of Wester» Ontario Processioxs, LITURGICAL; Psat Tones CARL F. BARNES, JR. Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan RecNautr De Conmont; Rueias CarnepRat; Ribs CARL F. BARNES (cont,) ‘Ronexr De Coucy; Roserr DE Luzancnes; Rose Winpow; St. Dests, Anney Crunch; St. Senin, TOULOUSE; Ste. CHAPELLE, Panis ROBERT BARRINGER ‘St, Michael's College, University of Toronto Pore ‘GLKD 0. BATES Hunter College, City University of New York Qanacoz FicuRes; Qavsanivas Rane; Saray SILVIO A. BEDINE ‘Smithsonian Institution Porrocan Cant; RICHARD OF WALLINGFORD JEANETTE M. A. BEER Pardue University PRovENcaL. LANGUAGES Renaur De Beauseus ROMAN DE LA ROSE GHAZE |, BISHEH Jordan Archaeological Museum Ruwag ‘THOMAS N. BISSON University of California, Berkeley RAMON BeRENGUER IV JONATHAN BLACK Sanu Use JONATHAN M. BLOOM Harvard University aca CE, BOSWORTH Univesity of Manchester SAFPARIDS ‘CALVIN M. BOWER University of Notre Dame PROLATIO; PROPRIETAS; Quapmiviuns RevTaM, MARJORIE N. BOYER York College, City University of New York Roabs AND BRIDGES, ‘Western EUROPEAN GERARD J. BRAULT Ponnsyluania State University Rotax, SONG oF MICHAEL BRETT University of London Querawan, At- CYNTHIA J. BROWN, University of California, Santa Barbara Rutgroniqueurs ROBERT BROWNING Dumbarton Oaks Research Center RHETORIC: BYZANTINE KEVIN BROWNLEE Dartmouth College ROBERT D'ARBRISSEL LESLIE BRUBAKER Wheaton College, Norton, Massachusetts PouveTycit; PREPENDULIA; PROSKYNEStS; Pyxis; RAVENNA; RELIQUARY; REREDOS; SACRAMENTARY, TLLUMINATION OF LANCE W. BRUNNER University of Kentucky PRECENTORS RsPONSORY; SanctusCONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME 10 RICHARD W, BULLET Columbia University Roaps 1x mu IsLasic Worn GLYN S. BURGESS University of Liverpool Romutus JAMES F. BURKE University of Toronto Rutz, Juan DAVID BURR Virginia Polecbnc Institue and State University Ricarpus p8 MeDiaviLia DANIEL CALLAM ‘St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan Puncarory, WESTERN, Concert oF AVERIL CAMERON King’s College, University of London Procorius ERIC G. CARLSON State University of New York fat Purchase RoMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE JOHN CARSWELL University of Chicago JAMES E, CATHEY University of Massachusetts, Amherst RAN HENRY CHADWICK ‘Magdalene College, Cambridge PRISCILLIAN. GRETEL CHAPMAN TRAINER oF Huy; Rocea oF HELMARSHAUSEN ‘YVES CHARTIER University of Ottawa Recino oF PROM; ReMicius OF “AUXERRE. JEROME W. CLINTON Princeton University Rueroric: PeRstan; ROMi UALAL AL-DIN) FRANK M. CLOVER University of Wisconsin, Madison ROMAN EMeire, Lave SIDNEY L. COHEN Louisiana State University Scanpinavin: BrvoRe 800 CHARLES W. CONNELL University of West Virginia PROPAGANDA LAWRENCE 1, CONRAD ‘Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine Quaavst JOHN J. CONTRENI ine University Priscian WILLIAM J. COURTENAY University of Wisconsin, Madison Rosceuinus EDWARD J. COWAN University of Guelph Rosear Il oF ScorLAND EUGENE L. COX Wellesley College PROVENCE; Savoy, COUNTY OF WENDY DAVIES University College, London Se. Davin's MICHAEL T. DAVIS ‘Mt. Holyoke College Resurrection Cycte JAMES DOYNE DAWSON Boston University Primarive CHurc, Concert ALICIA DE COLOMBI- MONGUIO. ‘State University of New Yor at Albany RAZON DE AMoR PETER F. DEMBOWSKI University of Chicago Sr. Parnicx’s Puncaroat WALTER B, DENNY University of Maryland (QistA; Rucs ano CaRrers x LUCY DER MANUELIAN Prot; SaNAantiNs Sanais Picax JAMES DICKIE Raupa WILLIAM J. DIEBOLD Pris-Digu; ROHAN Masten, Sr, PauuspeRr, TouRnus JERRILYNN D. DODDS Columbia University SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA MARTHA WESTCOTT DRIVER Pynson, RichaRD LAWRENCE G. DUGGAN University of Delaware REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLIES, German A. A.M. DUNCAN University of Glasgow Roperr [ oF Scottanp; St. ANDREWS MANUEL DURAN Yale University SANTILLANA, MaRQués DE FRANCIS A. DUTRA University of California, Santa Barbara Portucat STEVEN N. DWORKIN University of Michigan Portucutse LANGUAGE ANDREW S. EHRENKREUTZ University of Michigan Postar AND INmBLtIcENCE Senviees ISLAMIC; SALADIS MARCIA J. EPSTEIN University of Calgary QuootiReF; RonDeaus RonorLius; Roa; Rormoutnce DAVID B. EVANS ‘St. Jobn’s University, New York Psxupo Dionysius THE ‘AREOPAGITE ROBERT FALCK University of Toronto SaLvaronts HopieCONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME 10 ANN E, FARKAS Brooklyn College RUBLEV, ANDREI; RUSSIAN AND Suavic Ant STEPHEN C. FERRUOLO ‘Stanford University Rurrwus JOHN V. A. FINE, JR. University of Michigan ‘SAMUIL OF BULGARIA; SANDAL) Haanic Kosaca; Sava, St. SEYMOUR L, FLAXMAN City University of New York Ruvsanorc, Jan var JOHN F. FLINN, University of Toronto RENARD THE Fox PETER G. FOOTE University College, London ScANDINAVIA! POLITICAL AND Lecat ORGANIZATION CLIVE Foss University of Massachusetts, Boston Roabs AND COMMUNICATIONS, BYZANTINE ANDRE FOURE Archevéché de Rouen Rove, Use oF JOHN B, FREED linois State University RAINALD OF DasseL; Saxon Dynasty; Saxony EDWARD FRUEH Columbia University QueRowus; Raputrus ‘Tontanius; RATPERT OF Sr. Gait; Richer or Sr. Ret RICHARD N. FRYE Harvard University SAMANIDS. JOACHIM E, GAEHDE Brandeis University PRE-ROMANESQUE ART STEPHEN GARDNER Sackler Museum, Harvard University RAMSEY, Jou; Ramsey, WILLIAM; SALISBURY CATHEDRAL NINA G. GARSOIAN Columbia University Ranerg; QuRMIZ; SAHAK, ST. ADELHEID M. GEALT Indiana University Paepetia; St. Ceciia MasteR; SassertA; ROSSiLLO D1 JACOFO France CHRISTIAN J. GELLINEK University of Florida ROLANDSLIED STEPHEN GERSH University of Notre Dame REALISM. MOSHE GIL, Tel-Aviv University SAMARITANS JAMES L. GILLESPIE Notre Dame College of Ohio, Ursuline Cottage Rickaap Ul; RicHaRo tll PETER B. GOLDEN Rutgers University QaRARHANIDS; QaRA Qovontu; Rum; Russia, NOMADIC INVASIONS OF; SARMATIANS OLEG GRABAR Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Quana JAMES A. GRAHAM-CAMPBELL. University College, London Riwcerner StL KATHRYN GRAVDAL Columbia University Raout or Houpenc JAMES GRIER Queen's University, Ontario St. Mantiat ScHOOL; SANTIAGO. De COMPOSTELA, SCHOOL OF MARY GRIZZARD University of New Mexico Porreny: REPoussé; REXACH, Juax; Ropaico DE OSoNA ARTHUR GROOS Cornell University [REINFRID VON BRAUNSCHWEIG; Rupotr von Ems xi PIERRE-MARIE GY, OP. Institut Supérieur de Liturgie, Paris RrruaL, ANDRAS HAMORI Princeton University Ruronic: Arabic, HEBREW NATHALIE HANLET RADOLF OF LIEGE; RANGERIUS ‘oF Lucca; Ruericius oF AUTUN, St; RUDOLF OF FULDA; SaMPIRUS OF ASTORGA PRUDENCE OLIVER HARPER, ‘Metropolitan Museum of Art SASAMIAN ART RALPH HATTOX Emory University SAMARKAND EINAR HAUGEN Ricsbuta ROBERT K. HAYCRAFT RETABLE EDWARD R. HAYMES Cleveland State University ROSENCARTEN THOMAS HEAD. Claremont College LOTTE HELLINGA ‘The British Library Prutinc, ORIGINS OF ROBERT H. HEWSEN Glassboro State College Poxtus BENNETT D, HILL ‘St. Anselm's Abbey Sack, FRIARS OF THE; SAVIGNY JOHN HOWE Texas Tech University Ricuarp De BURY PETER HUENINK Vassar College Pre-ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURES SAXON ARCHITECTURE ANDREW HUGHES University of Toronto Psacrer; RHYMED OFicesCONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME 10 SHAUN F. D, HUGHES Purdue University RIMUR; SCANDINAVIA IN ARABIC Sources MICHAEL H. IMPEY University of Kentucky ROMANIAN LANGUAGE AND LivsRATURE OLGA TUDORICA IMPEY Indiana University ROMANIAN LANGUAGE AND Lererarure EPHRAIM ISAAC Institute of Semitic Studies, Princeton, New Jersey Prester Jou ALFRED L. IVRY Brandeis University Saaptatt Gaon WILLIAM E. JACKSON University of Virgi REINMAR DER ALTE. ‘W.T. H. JACKSON Columbia University Rapsop oF Urrecir; Racumnorn oF Corocne; REGINALD OF CANTERBURY RuaseRr, St; SALOMO OF Constance MICHAEL JACOFF Brooklyn College Pseuo0-Nicco1d PETER JEFFERY University of Delaware ‘Sarum CHANT JENNIFER E. JONES PRESENTATION IN THE TEMPLES PsycHoromp; RAYMOND DE ‘Mur; Roserr oF Jumnices WILLIAM CHESTER JORDAN Princeton University Prince; PRovost PETER JORGENSEN University of Georgia SAMSONS SAGA FAGRA WALTER EMIL KAEGI, JR. University of Chicago PRONOIA; PROTOSPATHARIOS MARIANNE E, KALINKE University of Illinois REMUNDAR Saca. Keisanasonar; RIDDARASOGUR HOWARD KAMINSKY Florida International University PracMaric SANCTION OF BOURGES; PROVISIONS, Eccresiasvicat EDWARD J. KEALEY College of the Holy Cross Rocer oF Sauissuny ‘THOMAS , KELLY Purdue University Rurencur MARILYN KAY KENNEY RuopR: Mawe, HERBERT L. KESSLER The Johns Hopkins University PsatTER, ILLUMINATION OF RICHARD KIECKHEFER Northwestern University Reronw, IDEA OF DALE KINNEY, Bryn Maur College RAINALDUS; SaN Manco, ‘VENICE ALAN E. KNIGHT Pennsylvania State University Pur LINDA KOMAROFF Metropolitan Museum of Art SaMaxiD ART AND "ARCHITECTURE ELLEN KOSMER Worcester State College Pucete, Jean MARYANNE KOWALESKI Fordham University Pout Tax, ENGLISH DENNIS M. KRATZ, University of Texas at Dallas Ruopuies HENRY KRATZ University of Tennessee POrerictt vox REICHERTSHAUSEN, JAKOB IIL xii RICHARD LANDES University of Pitsburgh RADULPHUS GLABER JACOB LASSNER Wayne State University SAMARRA. RICHARD LEMAY. City University of New York Rowan NUMERALS KEITH LEWINSTEIN Princeton University RADI, aL P. OSMUND LEWRY, ©. P. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto QUAESTIONES RUDI PAUL LINDNER University of Michigan QawKnHosnaw Quy ARsuan td JOHN LINDOW. University of California, Berkeley RAGNARK LESTER K. LITTLE Sith College LARS LONNROTH Goteborgs Universitet Rowverja Saca BRYCE LYON Brown University Provisions oF OxrorD; Ricarp [THE LIONHEARTED R, D, McCHESNEY Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies, New York University Qana Murpasman; ‘Yusur MICHAEL McCORMICK Dumbarton OaksiThe Johns Hopkins University Pricxines; PUNCTUATION: Quine; RuboL# oF Sr. TROND; Ruuing; Rurear or Devre MICHAEL McVAUGH University of North Carolina Recs SanrearsCONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME 10 PAUL MAGDALINO, University of St. Andrews Postat AWD INTELLIGENCE Services, BYZANTINE MICHAEL S. MAHONEY Princeton Universicy Prouematc AstRoNoMY CLARK MAINES ‘Wesleyan University RENAISSANCES AND REVIVALS 18 Mepievat ArT GEORGE f. MAJESKA University of Maryland PRoKHOR oF GoxooETs; Rua; [RUSSIAN ARCHITECTURE J. RUSSELL MAJOR Emory University REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLIES, FRENCH STEPHEN MANNING University of Kentucky ‘REVERDIE RICHARD C. MARKS The Royal Pavilion, Art Gallery, and Museums, Brighton Pruppe, Joun LOUISE MARLOW Princeton University SASANIAN HISTORY MICHAEL E, MARMURA University of Toronto RAZI, ate; RUSHD, [BN (Avenots) JOAQUIN MARTINEZ-PIZARRO State Univesity of New York at Stony Brook ROSKILDE CHRONICLE; SAXO Grammaricus ‘THOMAS F. MATHEWS ‘New York University PResavrenivns RALPH WHITNEY MATHISEN University of South Carolina PoLEMIUs SILVIUS} PROSPER OF AQUITAINE: SALVIAN OF Manseituss (CHRISTOPHER MELCHERT University of Pennsylvania Saceis, Abt '““AnpAs AL: DANIEL FREDERICK MELIA Study Center of the University of California, London St. Many’s Apsey, Dustin GUY MERMIER University of Michigan Quinzk joits De Maniacs, Les BRIAN MERRILEES University of Toronto Rosser op GxeaTiun pe Toure Cirvateni Romance oF HORN; SCALACRONICA; SANSON DE Nawreun. JOHN MEYENDORFF Fordham University Russian OntHop0x CHURCH ROBERT P. MULTHAUF ‘Smithsonian Institution Saur TRADE. MARINA MUNDT Universitet i Bergen Ragwans Saca Lopp6xar JAMES J. MURPHY University of California, Davis Ruzronic: WesTERN EUROPEAN FAUZI M. NAJJAR Michigan State University Pourricat TuzoRY, Istaw RAMADAN JOHN T. NOONAN, JR. University of California, Berkeley Rocanpus BARBARA OFHLSCHLAEGER- GARVEY University of Illinois PREPENDULIA; PROSKYNETARION RICHARD O’GORMAN University of Towa ROBERT DE BORON; Ronerr Le DiABLe. THOMAS H. OHLGREN Purdue University St. Cap, Book OF NICOLAS OIKONOMIDES Université de Montréal PORHYROGENITOS; PROCHEIROS Nowos; Pszup0-KopiNos xiii BERNARD O’'KANE ‘American University in Cairo Sauw PADRAIG P.O. NEILL University of North Carolina SALTATR 8A RANN ERIC L. ORMSBY ‘McGill University Purcarory, IsLastic Concert oF LEAH OTIS Prostirorion ROBERT OUSTERHOUT University of Hlinots POLYCANDELON; PROTHESIS WALTER PAKTER University of California, Berkeley Roceaius PETER PARTNER Winchester College Rone OLAF PEDERSEN University of Aarbus Quapeanr MOSHE PERLMAN University of California, Los Angeles Povemics, Istamic-Jewasit EDWARD PETERS University of Pennsyleania Prisons. CARL F, PETRY Northwestern University Qurrpky, AL-ASHRAFS Qau7ON, ALMANSOR; QansoH AL-Guawal PETER POGGIOL) University of Melbourne Rouen ‘VENETIA PORTER ‘The British Councit SAMARKAND WARE JAMES M, POWELL Syracuse University Roser Guiscanp; Rocer ! oF Sremy; Roce Il oF SiciyCONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME 10 MICHAEL R. POWICKE University of Toronto PREROGATIVE THOMAS RENNA Saginaw Valley State College ‘Quarstio IN UTRAMQUE PaRTEM ROGER E, REYNOLDS Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto Ponriricat; Rosany; SACRAMENTARY; ST. PeTsR, Lrrurcy oF ‘THEODORE JOHN RIVERS SACHSENSPIEGEL PHYLLIS B. ROBERTS PREACHING AND SERMON Loverature, Wester EUROPEAN TIMOTHY R. ROBERTS RATRAMNUS OF CORSIE JAN S. ROBINSON ‘Trinity College, Dublin PourricaL THzoRY, WESTERN EUROPEAN: TO 1100 ELAINE GOLDEN ROBISON PRUDENTIUS; ProtEMY OF Lucca; Ranewtx; RAIMON DE ‘Conner; RAIMON DE MIRAVAL; Ronerr of MEWN; ROFFREDUS De EPIPHANIS OF BENEVENTO EDWARD H. ROESNER St. Victor MS LINDA C. ROSE PRAETORIAN PxEFECT; RHODES} ROMANOS I LEKAPENOS; Romanos Ii; RoMANOS IV Diocenes ‘TEOFILO F. RUIZ Brooklyn College Reconquest, The JAMES R. RUSSELL ‘Columbia University Skouue I; Stnuee Tl; Stan Shi; SASANIAN CULTURE IRINA RYBACEK PRAGUE PAULA SANDERS Harvard University (Qdan BrLAay, aL; Quen, AL SANA V. J. SCATTERGOOD “Trinity College, Dublin PROPHECY, POLITICAL: MIDDLE ENGLISH NICOLAS SCHIDLOVSKY PSALTIKON JANICE L. SCHULTZ Canisius College Richa OF ST. VicoR SIMON SCHWARZFUCHS Bar-llan University RABDINATE EDWARD A. SEGAL Yale University St. GALL, MONASTERY AND PLAN oF DANUTA SHANZER University of California, Berkeley Ruriuivs CLavpwus NaMATIANUS ALEXANDER M. SHAPIRO ‘Oheb Shalom Congregation Resronsum LrrerATURE, JewisH LON R. SHELBY ‘Southern Iinois University ‘Rupp, Benzptcr; Roniczer, ‘Comma; Roniczen, MaTHis CARL D. SHEPPARD. University of Minnesota Romanesque Ant JOHN R. SHINNERS, JR. ‘St. Mary's College, Notre Dame, ‘Indiana Revicious Instruction IAN SHORT. Birkbeck College Pseupo-Tunrin CHARLES R. SHRADER [RATHER OF VERONA MICHAEL A. SIGNER Hebrew Union College Pazsciine ano Seton, xiv GIULIO SILANO Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto RayMOND OF PaNAFoRT, Sti Rescriers LARRY SILVER Northwestern University RUEMENSCHNEIDER, TILMAN; St. BARTHOLOMEW, MASTER OF; St, VERONICA, MASTER OF ECKEHARD SIMON ‘Harvard University Raner, Vict; Rosener tr, Hans BARRIE SINGLETON University of London Poprenowe, THoMmass PRENTYS, Tuomas; ROLE, THOMAS KENNETH SNIPES ‘Manhattan College PSELLOS, MICHAEL ROBERT J. SNOW University of Texas SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA HAYM SOLOVEITCHIK Hebrew University, Jerusalem SoLomon PRISCILLA P. SOUCEK New York University Ragaant ERNST H, SOUDEK Prose LancetoT GABRIELLE M, SPIEGEL University of Maryland ‘YEDIDA K, STILLMAN ‘State University of New York ‘at Binghamion QaiaNsuRA MELVIN STORM Emporia State University, Kansas Rippiss JOSEPH R. STRAYER Princeton University Province, ECCLESIASTICAL ———RONALD GRIGOR SUNY University of Michigan Qua SANDRA CANDEE SUSMAN Ravers, MATTEO. DONALD W. SUTHERLAND University of lowa Sac anp Soc MERLIN SWARTZ ‘Boston University Fausciane AND Saxons, JAMES ROSS SWEENEY Pennsylvania State University ROMANIAN PRINCIPALITIES FRANK TALMAGE University of Toronto Pouemics, CHRISTIAN-JEWISH JOHN TAYLOR, University of Leeds Rosin Hoop ROBERT TAYLOR Victoria College, University of Toronto RAIMBAUT D’AURENGA; RaImBavt DE VAQUEIRAS; RAIMON VIDAL DE BEsALo WILLIAM H, TeBRAKE University of Maine RECLAMATION OF LAND CLAIBORNE W, THOMPSON ‘Runes CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME 10 KARL UITTI Princeton University PRoveNgAt LrrenaTuRe JOHIN VAN ENGEN University of Notre Dame PRESENTATION, RIGHT OF MILOS VELIMIROVIC University of Virginia Romanos MeLopos ELISABETH VODOLA PRAEMUNIRE; POSTGLOSSATORS F. W. VON KRIES. University of Massachusetts, Amherst REINMAR VON ZwereR CHRYSOGONUS WADDELL Abbey of Gethsemani PREMONSTRATENSTAN RITES PREMONSTRATENSIANS STEPHEN 1. WAILES Indiana University Rarocarius JEANETTE A. WAKIN Radelife Collge SETH WARD. University of Haifa Pout Tax, Isuamic MORIMICHI WATANABE “Long Island University Poutricar Tarony, WESTERN EuRoveAn: AFTER 1100 xv RUTH HOUSE WEBRER University of Chicago RoNcESVALLES ELLEN T. WEHNER Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto PoursroRie; QUATRE LIVRE DES Reis, Lt BERNARD G. WEISS Univernty of Toronto RESURRECTION, ISLAMIC ESTELLE WHELAN Qasm; Sabi KEITH WHINNOM University of Exeter Saw PepHo, DiEGo oe GREGORY WHITTINGTON ‘New York University Porrcuttis; QUATREFOIL; Rerectory; SACRISTY. JOHN WILLIAMS University of Pittsburgh SaNCTIUS; SARRACTNUS KENNERLY M. WOODY ‘ROMUALD OF RAVENNA, ST. RONALD JOHN ZAWILLA, O. P. RESERVATION OF THE SACRAMENT RONALD EDWARD ZUPKO. ‘Marquette University Pounp, Moxey; Pousp, ‘Were; QUARTER; RPEVE; SackPictionary of the Middle AgesDictionary of the Middle Ages POLEMICS, CHRISTIAN-JEWISH—SCANDINAVIA, POLEMICS, CHRISTIAN-JEWISH. The Jewish- Christian debate in the Middle Ages may be char- acterized as a continual reiteration of stock themes, varying in accordance with prevailing concerns determined by particular historical conditions. Its objectives were several. On the Christian side, the proselytization of the Jews was ostensibly the chief motive, although Jews frequently appear as straw men in doctrinal or apologetic tracts against het- erodox Christian sects or other groups. For histor- ical reasons, Jews generally avoided attempts at proselytization. Yer ehey often entered debate be- cause they were obliged to or because they wished to demonstrate the superiority of their religion to others, or, more frequently, to apostates or would- be apostates in order to bring them back to the fold. ‘A major question to be considered in analyzing any disputation or polemical treatise is whether it is academic or intended for practical use or both. One indication of the often academic character of these works is the fact that they were most generally written in literary languages (Latin for Christians and Hebrew for Jews). Vernacular treatises were rare—although they did appear with increasing frequency in the thirteenth century—but even these were subsequently translated and circulated in the literary language, which limited them co internal use only. ‘The chief arguments were based on Scripture, appeals to reason and logic, and social critique. Questions raised included those of whether the Messiah had come in the person of Jesus ot whether the messianic age could be said to have commenced at all; the abrogation of the Old (pentateuchal) Law and its subsequent rabbinic development (halakah) and its replacement by the spiritual law of the Gospel; the identity of the true Israel (verus Isra- el)—whether the election of the Old Israel (the Jews) had been superseded by that of the New (the church). One of the chief proofs advanced by Christians that the Jews were no longer the elect of God was their loss of political sovereignty, while Jews maintained that such loss of sovereignty was rot complete since Jewish rulers and nobles were still to be found (for instance che Khazar kings from the eighth to the tenth centuries, Jewish nobles in Spain, and the geonim in the Near East). Another criterion for the determination of the true Israel was that of moral superiority, claimed by both sides. Ir was in this context that the issue of Jews engaging in usury was frequently raised, Beyond these issues, open to discussion were particular elements of theology and practice; for Christians, the Incarna- tion, the Virgin Birth, the sacraments and most especially the Eucharist, the Trinity, leical celiba- oy, and the adoration of saints; for Jews, the rabbinic interpretations of Scripture and the devel- opment of Jewish law, Both sides used the Old Testament to argue their case, Classic texts were: Genesis 49:10, the “Shiloh” passage, an obscure verse interpreted in a variety of ways over the centuries but understood by the church to refer to loss of dominion by the Jews with Jesus’ advent; Isaiah 7:14, which, follow- ing the Vulgate, was said to predice she of Jesus; Isaiah 52 and following, the “suffering servant” passages, which the chutch understood christologically but which the Jews interpreted as a teference to Israel, the Jewish Messiah, or the prophet himself; and many passages from the Psalter. While Christians could rarely use the New “Testament on their behalf since it was noe recog- nized as authoritative by Jews, the later felt free on occasion to attack it on various grounds. Similacly, Christians would condemn rabbinic literature (Tal. mud and Midrash) for its alleged blasphemies and promotion of incredulity. Ac the same time, how- ever, Christians would employ selected passages ofPOLEMICS, CHRISTIAN-JEWISH that literature to prove that the rabbis of antiquity actually believed in the basic principles of Chris- tianity and that therefore contemporary Jews should do so as well. This approach was predicated fon the notion of Jewish obstinacy, according to which the Jews knew the truth all along but refused to admit it. In the classic formulation of Joachim of, Fiore in the thirteenth century, "The Jews have not wished to be able to change.” Finally, arguments drawn from the currents of philosophical thought in vogue in their day were a major instrument in demonstrating the basic irrationality of an oppo- nent’s doctrines and the rationality of one’s own. ‘The Jewish-Christian debate was conducted in a variety of literary and artistic genres: the dia- logue—following classical and patristic models— beeween a Jew and a Christian, of which a charac- teristic feature was the disproportionate amount of space granted the representative of the author's ‘own religion and the much more restricted allot- ment of the opponent; the formal theological trea- tise (which at times could also be couched in the form of a dialogue); drama (miracle plays and the like, such as the twelfth-century Jew d'Adams}s liturgical and other poetry; arguments included ‘within biblical commentaries and within more gen- eral philosophical and theological treatises; the graphic and plastic arts (sculptures of the Church ‘Triumphant, upright with cross and chalice, and Synagogue, blindfolded and downcast with broken staff and tables of the law falling from her left hand; caricatures of Christian themes in Hebrew manuscript illuminations). A variety of rhetorical devices including satire and parody were frequently employed. EARLY MEDIEVAL POLEMICS ‘The format of medieval Christian anti-Jewish polemic was inherited from the church fathers. The first writings were testimonia, chains of biblical passages in support of Christianity, which gave way to highly sophisticated treatises such as the second- century Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr and the somewhat later (ca. 400) Discussion Con- cerning the Law Between Simon a Jew and The- ophilts a Christian, Central for the writings of the late Middle Ages was the On the Catholic Faith from the Old and New Testaments Against the Jews of the sixth-century encyclopedist and bishop of Seville, Isidore. Reacting to the harsh treatment of the Jews by Sisebut, the Visigothic king of Spain, Isidore noted that Sisebut had “compelled by force POLEMICS, CHRISTIAN-JEWISH those whom he ought to have incited by the argu- ments of the true faith.” Although this is a some~ what bookish treatise, Isidore demonstrates his knowledge of actual Jewish argumentation, partic- ularly apologetics about the loss of Jewish sover- cignty. Less academic and tore vituperative are the eters of the ninth-century Agobard of Lyons, who denounced Jewish beliefs, labeled them supersti- tions, and—following decisions of church councils, particularly various councils at Toledo, in 633, in 638, and in the 680’s—stressed the necessity of avoiding the society of Jews because of their rejec- tion of Christianity. In this period, ecclesiastics at the court of Louis the Pious of France were scan- dalized by the conversion of a Frankish noble and deacon, Bodo-Eleszar, to Judaism, which was part- ly facilitated by the liberal atmosphere of the court itself, the scene of much free discussion. Bodo fled to Saragossa and there defended his new faith in a correspondence with Pablo Alvaro of Cérdoba, himself of Jewish origin, This conversion was an important factor in prompting Agobard’s successor to the see of Lyons, Amulo, to denounce the “abom- inable craftiness” of the Jews in even stronger terms. Shifting location from France to Italy, one immediately feels a shift in mood. Much milde the eleventh-century treatise of Peter Damian, ac- tive at the papal court, who tried to convince practitioners of Judaism of the mystical meaning of the Old Testament commandments. In surveying early medieval Jewish polemics, it must be recalled that outside the Hellenistic world, Jewish thought was articulated not in discursive fashion, but, in characteristic Oriental style, in the form of parable and exemplum, Talmudic and midrashic anti-Christian polemic is often ironic and tends to parody. With the rise of the antitalmudic Karaite movement in ninth-century Iraq, Islamic modes of discursive thought and philosophy were adopted, The early Karaite thinker Dawid ibn Marwan al-Mugammis (late ninth century) devot- ed part of his Twenty Treatises to a refutation of Christianity. He was followed by Jacob al- Kirkisint (Second quarter of the tenth century), ‘who maintained in his Book of Lights and Watch towers that Christianity had little to do with Jesus but was an invention of Paul and, in its final form, the creation of the Council of Nicaea (325), which disregarded the teachings of both Peter and Paul. ‘Other leading Karaite authors, such as Daniel al- Qiimisi, Salmon ben Jeroham, Japheth ben Eli, and Judah Hadassi, routinely included anti-ChristianPOLEMICS, CHRISTIAN-JEWISH polemical sections in their biblical commentaries and writings. Rabbinite or normative Judaism quickly followed suit, and in his theological mag- ‘num opus, the Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Saadiah ben Joseph Gaon (882~942) set forth in the fashion of the prevailing kalare a refutation of all disbelievers, including Christians. Saadiah main- tained that he was not interested in engaging crass anthropomorphists among the Christians but only more sophisticated Trinitacians. It is noteworthy that he himself espoused a philosophical theory of the threefold nature of God's essence, denying, of course, that there was any Trinitarianism involved, ‘The pre-Crusade period scems to have been rich in public and private oral disputations. In $81, the Merovingian king Chilperic convened a disputation between the Jewish merchant Priscus and Bishop Gregory of Tours. Recorded in the latter's Histo- ries, the debate employed scriptural stock argu- ments. In the seventh century, Alcuin reported a debate he witnessed in Pavia between the Jew Lullus (Julius?) and Peter of Pisa. Less routine was the ninth-century discussion, noted in the eleventh- century southern Malian Chronicle of Abimaaz, between the Byzantine emperor Basil I and Shepha- tiah ben Amitai of Oria on the subject of which was the more beautiful strucrure—Solomon’s Tem- ple or the Church of Hagia Sophia in Constanti- nople. ELEVENTH TO THIRTEENTH CENTURIES The eleventh and ewelfsh centuries marked an increasing sophistication in interreligious polemics ‘on the Part of both Jews and Christians. In his sermons, Fulbert of Chartres (ca. 970-1028) em- phasized a positive exposition of Christianity ra- ther than attacking Judaism, although he too stressed the Jewish loss of temporal power. Of great influence was the Dialogue of Peter Alfonsi (1062— ca, 1140), a converted Spanish Jew formerly known ‘as Moses the Spaniard, between his former and new selves, Peter and Moses. One of the first Christian authors to employ rabbinic literature in the refuta- tion of Judaism, Peter used his knowledge of He- brew to prove that the Trinity had been revealed in the ineffable name of God, the tetragrammaton YHWH. The use of rabbinic literature would now become ever more widespread and is found, albeit from secondary sources, in the writings of Alan of Lille, Peter Comestor, and others. Unusual for its urbane tone was the Disputation of Gilbert Crispin (ca. 1046-1117), abbot of Westminster, allegedly a POLEMICS, CHRISTIAN-JEWISH discussion between Gilbert and a Jew from Mainz ‘who came to conduct business, a frequent pretext for such encounters. Both announce their intention so have 2 “tolerant” and “patient” discussion ‘Much more academic in tone are the Dialogue af a Philosopher with a Christian and a Jew by Peter Abelard (ca. 1079-ca. 1142), and the treatise of William of Champeaux (ca. 1070-1122), which stresses ethical values. Rupert of Deutz (ca. 1075— 1129) devoted a considerable portion of his Annu- fs to an elaboration of two commandments repeat- edly discussed in contemporary Jewish literature, the Sabbath and circumcision, taken to be the minimal defining elements of Judaism, as well as an exposition refuting the contention that Christian Trinitarianism was a form of polytheistic idolatry. Stressing the Christian experience over theology, Rupert seems to be addressing a far more concrete situation than some of his more academic contem- poraries. His approach may well stem from his close physical proximity to the convert Herman of Scheda, who in his discussions with Christian theor Jogians in Mainz came to profess Christianity from experiential and not theological motivations. Othet rwelith-century treatises made greater use of ratio~ rnal argumentation, which seems to have led to increased vituperation. Representative are Peter the Venerable’s Treatise Against the Chromic Obstinacy of the Jews (before 1143) and Peter of Blois’s Against Jewish Disbelief (ca. 1200). In the former, the author reasons that since man is a rational animal, and since Jews do not listen to reason, Jews are little more than beasts. ‘The Kuzari of Judah Halevi (ca. 1075-1141), a major defense of what the author terms “a despised religion,” was couched in the form of a fictitious dialogue between a Jewish sage and the king of the Khazar empire who converts to Judaism. While not primacily an anti-Christian work, Christianity is dealt with both implicitly and explicitly. More pivotal are the Hispano-Provengal works, che first Hebrew polemics written in Europe, the Wars of the Lord (1170) of Jacob ben Reuben and the Book of the Covenant of Joseph Kimbj (ca. 1105~ca. 1170). Jacob ben Reuben refutes Christianity in twelve chapters with philosophical proofs, scriprural exe- esis, and a critique of the Gospels and the Book of ‘Acts, passages from which he translated into He- brew. Kimbi's work is less structured and more resembles a natural dialogue. Stress is laid on the still unredeemed character of the world—a con- stant theme in Jewish writings—and a social criPOLEMICS, CHRISTIAN-JEWISH tique of Christianity. Attributing both good works and faith to the Jews (note the interpenetration of ‘Christian fideism), Kimbi enumerated Jewish obser- vance of the Ten Commandments: “Lam the Lord.” The Jews declare God’s unity. “You shall have no other Gods.” The Jews do not make idols. “You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain.” There is 20 nation in the world that avoids vain oaths as does Israel, "You shall not murder. . . 2” There are no murderers or adulterers among them. Oppression and theft are not as widespread among Jews as among Christians who rob people on the highways and hang them and gouge out their eyes. Jewish girls, with modesty, are not to be seen about nor found wanton like the daughters of the Gentiles, who go out everywhere to streetcorners. Kimbi’s contemporary, Gilbert Crispin, responds to such charges, as does the Christian of the Book of the Covenant, with an extolling of Christian ascet- icism: “There are many among us who abstain not only from eating pork but from meat altogether... ‘There are many men of war and wrath who have abandoned fighting and temporal riches and have tusned to serving God in poverty.” The transition to the thieteenth century saw an intensity of polemical activity in the northern Franco-German region. The debates that took place are reflected in the Book of Joseph the Zealot, which represents the argumentation of a family of polemicists named Official. The work is 2 manual arranged according to passages from the Old and ‘New Testaments for ready reference. Striking is the openness of the Christian clergy as it appears here and the unrestrained frankness of the Jews. Some of this material is of a technical nature and would be useful only for internal consumption or for use against apostates. Of a similar character was the anonymous Book of Contention, which, to the scriptural section, inchdes a crit ‘Christian doctrine and cult. Much of Franco-Ger- man Jewish culture had Italian roots and here too the apparent influence of Moses of Salerno’s Argu- ‘ments on the Contention can be seen. Of Italian provenance too was the Testimony of the Lord Is Faithful of Solomon ben Moses de Rossi, who prefaces his work with a discourse on the proper mode of debate and a warning not to overantago- nize Christian interlocutors. ‘The Franco-German treatises cited above deal with the frequemty raised question of usury. Inter- cst raking was a fact of life for some medieval Jews, and Christians advanced the argument that Jews POLEMICS, CHRISTIAN-JEWISH were not allowed by their own law to do $0. The Contention goes on the offensive and challenges priests who collect prebends. Two Narbonnese Jewish writers attack this question also. David Kimbi, the son of the author of the Covenant, maintains in his biblical commentaries that Jews will Jend without interest o thei Christian “broth- ers" when Christians start treating them as broth- ers. The subject is dealt with at length in Meir ben Simeon’s War in Fulfillment of a Commandment, which records a debate with the bishop of Nar- bonne. This still unpublished manuscript contains 4 wealth of material relevant to Provence of that period. DISPUTATIONS AT PARIS AND BARCELONA Thirteenth-century France was the scene of the first of the three great medieval disputations, that of Paris at the court of Louis IX in 1240, between Nicholas Donin, a converted Jew, and Jehiel ben Joseph, Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, and others. It was not truly a disputation bur 2 crial in which the Talmud was accused, on the basis of argumentation taken from Karaite anti talmudic propaganda, of blaspheming the Christian faith, scoffing at Jesus, and encouraging contempt for Christians. The Jews argued that the Jesus mentioned in the Talmud could not have been the Jesus of the Gospels, and that the gentiles discussed in the Talmud are not Christians but pagan idolacors. Despite this de- fense, the Talmud was condemned and burned in Paris two years later. Meanwhile, in Spain, the ‘growing strength of the Dominicans set the stage for the Disputation of Barcelona in 1263. Under the direction of Raymond of Pefiafort, a school had been established for the teaching of Hebrew, Ara- bic, and Aramaic for missionary purposes. In this context, in the presence of James 1 of Aragon, 2 converted Jew named Pablo Christiani (Pau Chris- tia) was called upon to debate Moses ben Nahman (Nabmanides), the leader of Aragonese Jewry, and to argue on the basis of rabbinic literature the issues ‘of whether (1) the Messiah had come, (2) the Messiah is God or man, and (3) the Jews or the Christians are in possession of the true faith. The ‘outcome was 4 foregone conclusion, however, since it was declared that “the truth of Christianity because of its certainty cannot be subject to dis- ute.” Nabmanides provided ad hoc refutation of Pablo's christological interpretations of Jewish writings. Yet in the course of the debate he made a much more far-reaching declaration: the nonlegalPOLEMICS, CHRISTIAN-JEWISH pronouncements of rabbinic tore were not of bind- ing character bur were to be treated as sermons to be accepted or not as one chose, Whether or not Nahinanides fully believed this, this stance would prove an effective polemical ploy in the centuries to come. Rather than debate whether Jesus was the Messiah or not, Nabmanides preferred to play down the issue of the Messiah altogether, claiming that the king of Acagon was indeed more important to him than the Messiah, since it is more meritori- ‘ous to observe the commandments under the yoke ofa gentile monarch than under a Jewish messianic ruler. Resides Nahmanides’ own replies, this debate prompted Pablo’s cousin, Jacob ben Elijah of Va- Tencia, to reply to Rablo in a series of letters, hus showing the increased use of the epistolary medium, Present at the Disputation of Barcelona was Ramén Marti (Raimond Martini), 2 Dominican scholar and disciple of Raymond of Pediafort, who later wrote the Dagger of the Faith (1278), a compendious work in Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic, which expanded on the Dominican techniques in proving Christianity from Jewish sources and be- came paradigmatic for works ofthis kind. Mildes in tone were the anti-Jewish writings of the Mallorcan mystic, Ramon Lull, whose polemics may be found in such major works as the Blanguerna and the Book of the Gentile and the Three Wise Men as well as in the specialized tracts the Scourge of the Jews and the Book of Preaching Against the Jews. FOURTEENTH AND BIETEENTH CENTURIES In the fourteenth century, the writings of the Franciscan biblical exegete Nicholas of Lyra (ca 1270=ca, 1349) were influential. Nicholas, whose knowledge of Hebrew and Jewish literature was impressive (although later criticized by Pablo de Santa Marfa), composed two anti-Jewish treatises One is a more or less conventional treatment of the Incarnation, while the other refutes Jewish critiques Of the Gospel of Matthew such as those found in Jacob ben Reuben’s Wars of the Lord. More vesi- ous is the Epistle of Rabbi Samuel the Moroccan, a teanslation or more likely a fabrication by Alphon- sus Bonihominis of 2 letter by an eleventh-century convert to Christianity, which stresses that the length of the Jews’ exile is proof that they are being punished for their sins. Among Spanish polemics, Bernard (Reenat) Oliver's Against Jewish Blindness is a learned but dry scholastic treatise. By far the most interesting fourteenth-century advocate of Christianity was the former Jew Abner of Burgos POLEMICS, CHRISTIAN-JEWISH (Alfonso of Valladolid, ca. 1270-1340), who un- derwent a profound conversion experience, He re- mained dedicated to demonstrating the truth of Christianity to his former coreligionists and wrote several works in Hebrew; the most important among them is Teacher of Righteousness, which survives in a Spanish translation, Abner used much the same line of argument as his predecessors, but, because of his comprehensiveness, his writing in Hebrew, and increased sensitivity om the part of his Jewish opponents, he provoked a plethora of re- sponses. Directly os indirectly he was answered in the compendious Touchstone of Shem Tov ben Isaac Shaprut (which was based on the Wars of Jacob ben Reuben and which records a debate between the author and Peter Luna, later Benedict XIII, in Pamplona); the Support of the Faith of ‘Moses ha-Cohen of Tordesillas; and, in the next century, the Shield and Spear of Hayyim ibn Musa, directed primarily against Nicholas of Lyra, and Isaac Pulgar (Pollegar) in the Support of Religion. In the late fourteenth century, after the wave of forced conversions instigated in Spain by the anti- Jewish preaching of the Dominican friar Vincent Ferrer, a Jew who had been forcibly baptized but continued to profess Judaism, Profiat Duran of Perpignan (ca, 1345-ca, 1414) produced two sig- nificant anti-Christian writings. In his shore letter “Be Not Like Thy Fathers,” he satirically encour- aged an aoquaimance who had embraced Chris- tianity not to follow a rational and coherent Juda- ism but to espouse an irrational and illogical Christianity. Less witty but more systematic was his Reproach of the Gentiles, a treatise attacking the dogmas of Christianity, the sacraments, and, like Jacob al-Kirkisani, the very underpinnings of the faith, maintaining that Jesus was a misguided ca- ‘alist and that the Christian faith was the fabrica- tion of later theologians. He presented the most detailed textual critical analysis of the New Testa- ment to date and showed familiarity with and exploited dissident views within the church similar to those expressed by Wyclif and Marsilius Ficino (who was himself involved in refurations of Ju- daism). The Reproach had been commissioned by Duran’s associate, Hasdai Crescas (ca. 1340— 1412), the leader of Aragonese Jewry and a distin- guished thinker, who then prepared his own adap- tation in Catalan, which now survives in Hebrew translation under the title Refutation of the Princi- ples of the Christians. The Reproach left its very Visible mark also on the treatise known as the BowPOLEMICS, CHRISTIAN-JEWISH and Shield of Duran's kinsman, Simeon ben Zemah Duran of Algiers. ‘At the time of the forced conversions of 1391, a cnlkured Jew by the name of Solomon Halevi was baptized under the name of Pablo de Santa Maria. As the protégé of Peter of Luna (Benedict XII), he received a doctorate from the Sorbonne and then succeeded to the see of Burgos. Among his writings isthe Scrutiny of the Scriptures, a lengthy refutation cf Judaism on the model of the Dagger of the Faith. Following his conversion, an interchange took place between him and his former associate Joshua Lorki. Lorki addressed an epistle to him in Hebrew, maincaining that, on the basis of the Hebrew Serip- tures, the Messiah could not be said to have come, and prodded Pablo to tell him why he had convert- ed to Christianity. He observed that the motiva- tions for conversion are a desire for pleasures of the flesh and wealth, despair over Israel's exile, and acceptance of the Christian claim that the election of the old Israel had been abrogated, or 2 true religious experience. Paul replied, ironically apolo- gizing for his ruscy Hebrew, but unfortunately the apology for his conversion has not survived. Lorki apparently was trying less to rebuke Paul than to find his own bearings, for he shortly thereafter ‘embraced Christianity himself under the name of Gerénimo de Santa Fé. As Gerénimo, he was the Jeading Christian contender at the last of the great medieval disputations, held at Tortosa in 1413— 1414, The disputation was initiated by the soon-to- be-deposed Benedict XIMl, who wanted to win sup- port for his right to the papacy by converting Spanish Jews to Christianity. Representatives of all the leading Aragonese Jewish communities were present, but because of the absence of truly gifted debaters (Hasdai Crescas was now deceased and Profiat Duran, because of his forced baptism, could not openly defend Judaism) and because of the inability of the Jewish delegation to present a united front, the disputation was little less than a disaster for the Jews. A number of the Jewish participants themselves apostatized and this in turn shad a demoralizing effect upon the rank and file of Aragonese Jewry. The disputation ultimately pro- duced several literary polemics. The last distinguished philosopher of Iberian Jewry, Joseph Albo (d. ca 1444), who was present at the debate, included a refutation of Christianity in his Book of Roots. Another figure present at the debate and active behind the scenes, the aged poet Solomon ben Reuben Bonafed, addressed a rhymed ROLEMICS, CHRISTIAN-JEWISH prose epistle to Francesc de Sant Jordi, the former Jew Astruc Rimoch, chiding him for his conversion in terms strongly reminiscent of the satirical epistle of Profiat Duran. Despite the irony, the letter sharp ly reflects the demoralization of the author in the face of recent events. On the Christian side, Geréni- mo de Santa Fé set forth his views in a two-part treatise, the Refutation of Jewish Disbelief, eventu- ally translated into Hebrew, Catalan, and Portu- _guese. in the first part, he essentially’ summarizes Marti’s Dagger of the Faith, using rabbinic litera- ture to prove the truth of Christianity, while in she second part he vehemently denounces rabbinic lit- erature for its blasphemies and vilification of the Christian faith. This treatise was answered later in the century by the son of Simeon ben Zemah Duran, Solomon, in his Holy War, and by the au- thor-statesman and Spanish exile Isaac Abrabanel. ‘Once again, the contrast in tone between Spain and che more liberal Italy may be seen in the friendlier disputation, reflecting the urbane atmo- sphere of the Renaissance, recorded in the Dispu- tation of Elijah Hayyim ben Benjamin of Gen- nazano between the author and the Franciscan monk Francis of Aquapendente, under papal aus- pices in Orvieto (second half of the fifteenth centu- ry), In central Europe, noteworthy is the debate of the baptized Jew Peter Niger (Schwartz) in 1474 at Regensburg and, ac the end of the preceding centu- 1%, that of an apostate, Pesah-Peter, at Prague; he denounced the Jews as calumniators of Christianity and had many imprisoned. Among them was the Prague jurist and theologian Yom Tov Lipmann Muelhausen, who recorded this incident in his Book of Contention. A general defense of Bohemian Jewish orthodoxy, which incorporated both my: ‘cal and rationalistic traditions, the Contention erit- icizes Christianity much along the fines of the old German Conteztion but in a spirit reflecting the ateaosphere of the times and with an awareness of the new developments in Bohemian Christian thought as advanced by the Hussites. Prominent among. fifteenth-century Christian treatises was the Fortress of the Faith of Alfonso de Espina, one of the chief agitators for the establish- ment of the Spanish national Inquisition. Using the techniques of Ramon Marti and Gerdnimo, the work propounds a plan for the evangelizing of the Jews and a progeam for their eschatological conver- sion. Written in 1459, it foreshadows the Spanish expulsion as the author rehearses the various €x- pulsions of the Jews from Christian countries. ItT | | POLEMICS, ISLAMIC-JEWISH was particularly vitriolic in its repetition of the charges of ritual murder and host desecration, frequent in earlier anti-Semitic writings. In contrast to Espina’s Fortress are the more humanistic apol- ‘ogetics of such thinkers as Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) and Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), which reflect Renaissance attitudes. In Cusa’s On the Peace of the Faith, he explared the common ‘ground of all creeds. Although he saw Jewish refusal to accept the messiahship of Jesus as an obstacle to the unity of mankind, he wishfully had the Jewish participant in his discussion take a ‘compromise position on this issue. ‘The history of Jewish-Christian disputation in the Middle Ages no doubt represents one of the more negative aspects of crosscultural contact. Yet it must not be forgotten that it often produced— irectly or indirectly—much fruitful stimulation and interpenetration of ideas, on both sides, in biblical exegesis, theology, and virtually every area of cultural endeavor. BIBLIOGRAPHY Salo W. Baron, Social and Religious History of the Jews, V (1957), 82-137, 326-382, IX (1965), 97-134, 287-307; Bernhard Blumenkranz, Les auteurs chrétiens latins duc moyen dge sur les jufs t Te judaisme (1963); Daniel J. Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages (1977\; Acthut Lukyn Williams, Adversus Judacos: A Bird's-eye View of Chis: tian Apologize Until the Renaissance (1935). Bibliogra- phies are in “Index polemicus,” in Patrologia latina, CCXIX (1879), 43944; Judah Rosenthal, “Anti-Chris- tian Polemical Literature Until che End ofthe Eighteenth Gencurys A Bibliography" (in Hebrew), in Areshet, 2 (1960); Frank Talmage, “Judaism on’ Christianity— Christianity on Judaism,” in The Study of Judaism: Bibliographical Essays (1972) Frank TALMAGE {See also Abclard, Peter; Abrabanel, Issac ben Judah; Agobard Ansi-Scmitiam; Crescas, Hasdaiy Fulbert of Chartres; Gregory of Tours, St.; Isidore of Seville, St.; Jeu d’Adam; Jews and the Catholic Church; Jews in Christian Spain Jews in Eorope; Jews in the Papal States; Judah Halevi; Lall, Ramon; Nahmanides, Moses; Nicholas of Cosa; Nicholas of Lyra; Peter of Blois; Peter ‘of Pisa; Peter the Venerahle; Raymond of Pefiafort; Rupert of Deutz; Saadiah Gaon; Sisehut; William of Champeaux.) POLEMICS, ISLAMIC-JEWISH. The rise of Islam, the claims of Mubammad that he was the Prophet POLEMICS, ISLAMIC-JEWISH restoring the primeval faith of Abraham and that the Koran supersedes earlier scriptures, inevitably displaced in the eyes of Muslims both Judaism and Christianity and reduced their followers to the status of misguided infidels. Furthermore, as the Prophet was disappointed at being cepudiated by the Jews of Medina, and as the Jewish tribes that were settled there joined the opposition to his growing power, suffering defeat, expropriation, and extermination, the Koran resounds with the echoes of this conflict, Islam thus inherited from its early days a certain anti-Jewish animus, which was re- kindled from time to time, and was kept alive in literature, especially in polemics. With the emergence of the Islamic empire, great masses embraced Islam and brought into it the attitudes and prejudices prevailing among earlier ‘ethnic and religious groups (especially Near East- ‘ern Christianity, with its legacy and lore of anti- Jewish notions reflected in Hellenistic sources and ‘sharpened in the course of the tise and entrench- ment of the church in the Roman Empire). ‘As Arabic became the idiom of the vast literature of Isiamic peoples and their civilization, ths litera~ ture (to which non-Muslims also contributed), es- pecially in works on history and geography, dis- cussed Jews, their history and tenets. Later, with the tise of theological discussions, polemics directed against Jews appeared, ‘Apparently Jewish converts to Islam played the role of informants. From this source notions on Jewish Scriptures, sometimes Hebrew passages in transliteration and translation, were obtained, duly commented upon, “exposed,” and ridiculed. Jewish customs were mentioned only to be rejected and decried. As against these, Koran passages were adduced and Islamic practices praised. Some con- verts claimed visions indicating heavenly guidance to abandon their ancestral community and embrace the faith of Islam, Conversions sometimes turned into solemn festive occasions at the mosque. ‘The theologians took up from there, fitting the carlier faiths into a system in which they appeared as abescations of distortions of the human mind and of divine injunctions, on the road toward the ultimate truth of Islam. Islamic polemics against the non-Muslims are mostly directed against Christians, and only a small fraction of them are concerned with the Jews. Curiously, nothing substantial of the early writings seems to have reached us from the East. The carliest work comes from Spain, from the pen of thePOLEMICS, ISLAMIC-JEWISH eminent man of letters Ibn Harm (994—1064), He seems to have returned to the subject more than once. In his major theological work and in fa separate pamphlet he turns against the Jews and their writings as well as against a contempo- rary Jewish dignitary in Granada, Samuel ha- Nagid. Tn Hazm goes into a detailed textual critique of the Bible, mostly the Pentateuch, in particular Gen- esis. He points out contradictions, illogical state- ments, absurdities, anthropomorphisms, and the revolting crudity of certain passages (such as incest and fornication in the stories of Noah and his daughters, Jacob and his eldest son). According to shim, the Jewish Scriptures are unreliable distortions and Ezra was a contemptible forger. Only quite late did the law spread as a new faith, the work of the rabbis. Ibn Hazm finds these conclusions consistent with his view of the Jews as a mendacious, prevaricating lot. Yet he also quotes a few passages from the (abrogated) Scriptures as announcements of Mu- hammad’s advent. His information on other biblical books is less solid, Presumably he had a list of passages supplied to him. The same is true for the short section devoted to the Talmud: old wives’ tales of God moaning about the destruction of the Temple. The Jews bribed Paul to mislead the early Christians, just as they later tried to foment the Shia schism ‘among Muslims. Ibn Hazm wonders at the Jewish leaders’ blind fidelity to their ancestors, group loyalty, and the desire to perpetuate their worldly position and mastery over theit people. From the East comes the tract of a Jewish convert (of Spanish antecedents), a native of Baghdad, the distinguished physician-mathematician Samau'al al-Maghribi (ca. 1125-1175). His Silencing the Jews had a great impact for at least rwo centuries, It is the earliest preserved compendium of Islamic polemics against Judaism. It includes an autobiog- raphy and visions depicting meetings with the prophet Samuel (the author's namesake) and the prophet Muhammad. He explains that his mind ‘was trained since his youth in mathematics, and this made him also ponder religious problems logically, Reason should be the supreme judge in evaluating tradition, Historical relativism is hailed and imput- ed to deity. Jews believe in 9 tradition based on Scripture. But, according to Samau’al, the Scripture is replete with contradictions. One passage abrogates anoth- POLEMICS, ISLAMIC-JEWISH et. The minutiae of Jewish observance reflect illog- ical cabbinic interpretation of scriptural passages, not divine intent. It is also contrary to reason to repudiate a prophet whose tenets meet with wide acceprance and to believe another. Eicher all the monotheistic prophets must be accepted or none. The Jews claim that the transmission by their ancestors is reliable, but this argument can be used by any group. The Jews have no record of scientific achievements. ‘They had better accept Jesus and Muhammad. Hebrew quotations are presented to show that the prayers are postbiblical. Samau'al also mentions the folklore concerning. Jesus and Mubammad, and says that a number of scriptural passages point to Muhammad, The To- rah was falsified by Ezra and the priests. To illus- trate how the rabbis hold sway over the masses and mislead the people, Samau'al tells the story of a recent messianic movement: the Jews waited on the rooftops to be carried to their homeland. ‘The Muslim argument against Judaism thus cen- ters on (1) abrogation (raskh); (2) the distortion or forgery of Scripture (tabrif), as proved by the critique and confrontation of passages; what re- mained problematic was whether the text itself had been changed or whecher the construction put on it ‘was wrong; (3) anthropomorphism (taisim) and unacceptable utterances; and (4) announcements (alam) of the advent of Muhammad and Islam (preserved even in the debunked Scripture, by the grace of God). ‘There are other pamphlets, in addition to those of Ibn Hazm and Samau’al, with varying degrees of vehemence, level, and learning, But they offer meze- ly Variations on the theme. While in Christian lands Jews produced a num- ber of works against Christianity and its anti- Jewish polemics, in the Islamic empire Jews gener- ally abstained from retorts to Islamic polemics and from a critique of the dominant faith. In thirteenth-century Baghdad, under the Mon- sols hefore they embraced Islam (when for a few decades Islam ceased to be the rulers’ religion), the Jewish philosopher Ibn Kammina penned a treatise (in 1280) about the three faiths, their respective claims and counterclaims. The chepters on Judaism and Islan are superb expositions. Dispassionate- ness notwithstanding, after the Examination of the Three Faiths was reviewed during a Friday service in a mosque, the author had to be hidden in a coffin to save him from an irate Muslim mob.POLEMIUS SILVIUS A century earlier Maimonides in his Epistle to Yemen offered a sursmary of the Jewish case, for synagogue use, with a warning about the necessity to keep a low profile. Ina sense, the Islamic anti-Jewish literature was used, along with anti-Jewish poems, sermons, and tracts directed against all non-Muslims serving in governmental offices or as physicians, to bedevil from time to time the lot of the Jewish population in Islamic societies. This literature did not deter- mine the status and position of the infidel but it reflected and sometimes contributed to shaping them. BIBLIOGRAPHY Camila Adang, “Ton Harm on Jews and Judaism” (Ph.D. diss,, Catholic Univ., Amsterdam, 1985]; Moshe Perlmann, “The Medieval Polemics Berween Islam and Judaism,” in S. D. Goitein, ed., Religion in a Religions “Age (1974), Most PERLMANN [See also Hazm, Ibn; Jews in Muslim Spain; Jews in North Africa; Jews in the Middle East; Philosophy and ‘Theology, Jewish: Islamic World,] POLEMIUS SILVIUS (fi. 430-448), a Gallic au- thor said to have been mentally deranged, who held 4 post in the imperial civil service until the late -430’s. He was a friend of Hilary of Arles and wrote some religious works, now lost. He also wrote a Laterculus, ot Register, the following sections of which survive: (1) a dedicatory letter to Eucherius of Lyons, (2) The Names of All the Roman Emper- rs, t0 448, (3) The Names of the Provinces, (4) The Names of All the Animals, (S) A Description of Rome, (6) A Summary of History, to 449, (7) The Various Sounds of Animals, and (8) The Names of Weights and Measures. BIBLIOGRAPHY Text of the Laterculus is in Monumenta Germaniae hristorica, Auctorum antiquissimorum, IX, Theodore Mommsen, ed. (1892), 511-551. See also Elegius Dek kers, ed., Clavis patrum latinorum, 2nd ed. (1961), no. 2256; Arnold H. M, Jones, The Prosapography of the Later Roman Empire, Ml, John R. Martindale, A.D. 395—527 (1980), 1,012~1,013; Martin von Schanz, Carl POLITICAL THEORY, BYZANTINE Hosius, and Gustav Rriigee, Geschichte der rémischen Literatur, IV, pt. 2 (1920), 130. Rapes W. Mansisen POLISTORIE, a chronicle in Anglo-Norman French prose recounting the political and ecclesias- tical history of England from Brutus on, completed in 1314. Although it is based largely on Latin chroniclers such 4s Geoffrey of Monmouth, its latter portion contains much original material The author, John, was a clergyman at Canter- bury; he moralizes frequently, incorporates a eeli- gious history of the world from the Creation, and concentrates on ecclesiastical affairs concerning Canterbury. BIBLIOGRAPHY ‘An edition is “Jehan de Caunterbite, Polistorie: A Criseal Edition,” William N. Fertis, ed, (diss, North Carolina, 1963). See also William N. Feris, “The Amor- phous John of Canterbury,” in Romance Notes, 11 (1969-1970). Exie T, Wenn cure; Chronicles.) [See also Anglo-Norman POLITICAL THEORY, BYZANTINE. When Constantine | founded the city of Constantinople (on 11 May 330, noone could have imagined that he was also founding an empire, Constantine and his successors considered themselves Roman emperors, and the empire was called Roman by contemporar- ies; it was only in the seventeenth century that the term “Byzantine” began to be used. Constantinople ‘was soon called New Rome or Second Rome, which indicated the role it was to play. Thus, the Byzantine Empire was an organic continuation of imperial Rome. Unlike its prede- cessor, however, from its inception Byzantium was under the standard of the Christian religion, Ac- cepted shortly before by Constantine, Christianity ‘counted its followers mainly among the peoples of the eastern provinces. The terms “Christian” and “Roman” became joined in respect to Byzantium: the Byzantine people identified themselves with the “new chosen people”; Constantinople, already the New Rome, became “New Jerusalem.” The emper- or’s official title was the “very holy emperor [ofPOLITICAL THEORY, BYZANTINE Romans] faithful in Christ,” and his state was the “very Christian state protected by God.” Rome bequeached co Byzantium the state and its workings, its civil and military institutions, its law and justice. As the sole heir of the Roman emperor, the emperor of Constantinople was the supreme ‘magistrate, the administrative chief of state, and the head of the army. He was the source of power and ‘of law, and guarantor of che functioning of imperial institutions. According to Eusebius of Nicomedia, as a Chris- tian the Byzantine empetor was the representative ‘of Christ on earth, The Christian empire of Byzan- tium was formed in the image of the heavenly ‘empire of Christ. On earth chis empire was to cover che entire civilized Christian world. According to this principle of uniqueness of the empire, Byzanti- um added the Christian ecumenical dimension to the universalist Roman one. The Christian emperor cf Byzantium was to be the defender of Christen dom in its entirety and the protector of humanity. Uniqueness, universality, and ecumenism of the cthpire are the fundamental characteristics of By- zantine political theory. They are complemented by another important principle, the eternity of the empire. This principle, worked out in the sixth century (it is explained clearly iz Cosmas Indico- pleustes), is based on the belief that Byzantium would remain invincible until the end of time because its empice was the first to adopt Chris- tianity. Fed by omens and prophecies, the idea of the empire's perpetuity within its universal bound- aries was profoundly and solidly rooted in the popular consciousness. Since the Byzantine emperor was acknowledged to be the master and defender of the civilized world—Christendom in its entirety—all his under- takings were justified, and the notion of “just and pure war” was applied to all wars waged by the Byzantines, Placed under the Virgin’s protection and with the cry "The cross conquers,” the Byzan- tine army was ona “crusade” everywhere it fought. This may explain Byzantium’s lack of understand- ing of the crusades the Westerners waged from the twelfth cencury on, which aimed solely 10 feee the Holy Land, Another important concept of Byzantine politi- cal theory is the absolute: respect for ancestral traditions (patria). Throughout its history Byzanti- uum sought to defend the “Roman order,” the Pax Romana having become the Pax Byzantina; % deviate from that order was to disturb the harmony 10 of the world, a5 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos expressed it. Byzantium was thus averse to any radical reforms, and only slow and progressive adaptation of the legislative and administrative machinery of state to new realities was capable of responding to the demands of the times. De- vation to the greamess was considered a major political virtue, as well as a moral and aesthetic one. ‘The Roman-Christian Byzantine Empire re- grouped the populations of the Roman East around Constantinople. They were the only ones who had been capable of resisting che upheaval caused by the arrival of the barbarians, who had established themselves in the western provinces of the empire. Diverse traditions motivated the Byzantine popula- tion: some were strongly Hellenized and urbanized, notably those in Alexandria, Antioch, and Beirat, whereas the rural populations of the interior, ex- cluded from the Greco-Roman culture, were at- tached to Oriental traditions. The harmonious and Peaceful coexistence of these elements—Roman, Christianized, Hellenized, and Oriental—was a ma- jor preoccupation of the Byzantine government, and its political theory sherefore had to take all these mutipfe legacies into account, ‘The Byzantine world expected the emperor to assure its well-being, security, and peace. To achieve this, the emperor drew strength and virtue from divine protection. Thus aided and protected, the emperor took care of the world entrusted t0 him, expressing his solicitude (pronoia) by applying adequate measures for the welfare of the Byzantine world, He acted “economically,” in the image of God. The principle of “economy” practiced by the emperor constituted a fundamental notion of re- sponsibility and justice, attributes of che imperial function, Irexpressed the emperor's duty to draw as near as possible to God, his “archetype,” so as to establish the best government in the world. Com- pleted by the Christian notion of perfectibility, ‘imperial economy” embodied the Hellenistic no- tion of the prince as imitator of God, According to the Hellenistic political thought inherited by By- zantium, the prince had all the qualities that drew hhim to God: he was merciful, just, philanthropic. It is mainly the quality of philanthropy, of Hellenistic origin but also part of Christian teaching, that characterizes Byzantine humanism. It is the basis for the principle of respect for others in Byzan- tium’s relations not only with its own citizens but also with the outside world. “Roman philanthro-POLITICAL THEORY, BYZANTINE py" vas practiced by the emperor toward his enemies. Hellenistic political éaought is seen in treatises con forms and methods of government. These trea- tises, in the form of advice to the sovereign, were widely circulated, Basileia (from basis laow, foun- dation of the people), or imperium, is the best government. [ts opposite is tyranny, just as the opposite of aristocratic government (oligarchy) is democracy. The latter term had a strongly pejora- tive meaning in Byzantium: it signified the power of the rabble, Nevertheless, the humanistic virtues of the emperor were those of the prince of the Helle- nistic period. Christian teaching had augmented these qualities with the typically Byzantine notion ‘of “economy,” which meant the distance (the mar- gin of imperfection) separating imperial action from God's perfect action. ‘Thus, near perfection, the emperor, summit and source of power, assumed the appearance of a providential man for those he ruled. Imperial imag- ‘ery and the symbols of power emphasized this character by conferring the traits of an Oriental monarch upon him. The sophisticated and compli cated ceremonial of the Byzantine court, the luxury and ostentation of the imperial finery, the sumptu- ousness of the objects related to aulic life, and certain actions, such as prostration before the em- peror, emphasized the quasi-sacred character of the veneration surrounding the imperial person. Cloth- ing, jewels, and all sorts of luxury goods stressed the inaccessible character of the imperial function. ‘These articles, like the end they pursued, bear witness to the Oriental origin and inspiration of these practices. They have been considered proat of the theocratic character of Byzantine power. It seems, however, more reasonable to see them as an effort to make evident to all the splendor of the imperial function, and thus to provoke fear, ad- miration, and wonder. In political theory, the idea that directed the elaboration of Byzantine aulic habits aimed, through material means, at impress- ing the imagination and assuring the widest diffu- sion of the message of the greatness of the emperor. The Byzantines sought to spread the basic prin- ciples of the greatness and the perpetuity of the Roman Empite and to make the surrounding world share thent. They pursued this effort relentlessly, often with success. It was the dominant character- istic of Byzantine foreign policy even at the time of the empire’s greatest reverses, and accounts for the desperate efforts exerted by Byzantium to preserve 11 for itself alone the title “Roman Empire” when confronted by Carolingian, Slavic, and Norman ambitions. Byzantine diplomats and the imperial chancellery, when considering the formal hierarchy Of the rulers of the world, placed their emperor as the supreme chief, the father of the family of rulers. Each of the other rulers was called, according to his importance, brother, son, nephew, or friend of the Byzantine emperor. Besides revealing Byzantine political theoty in international relations, this notion of the family of rulers is the application of another fundamental principle of Byzantine political theory: proximity (or vicinity. According to it, Byzantine protocol, and thus the relations of the emperor with his people and those he administered, was ordered. Each person’s importance was measured by the proxim- ity of his rank to the emperor. Both the aalic hierarchy and the civil and military hierarchy de- pended on this principle, The summit was occupied by the emperor, since all the dignities were con- ferred by him or in his name, and all offices and duties were exercised bby delegation or subdelega- tion of the imperial power. ‘Thus the principle of vicinity was an example of the principle of delegation practiced by the emper- or, These two principles emphasized the fact that the emperor was source and summit of power. His authority was stronger than the law because it was the law's source. The only limitation on the emper- ‘F's authority was with regard to God, from whom it proceeded. The indispensable presence of the patriarch at the coronation ceremony was a perfect illustration of this. Good relations between the Christian emperor ‘and the Byzantine patriarch (the highest ecclesias- tical authority) were an absolute necessity for the peace of the empire. The patriarch of Constanti- nople claimed to be the living image of Christ, entrusted with the spiritual salvation of his Flock, just as the emperor, as Christ’s delegate, was charged with the physical well-being of his subjects. Empire and priesthood had to coexist harmonious- ly to guarantee the welfare of the Byzantine people. This belief was recorded in the civil law texts (the ninth-century Epanagoge) and was proclaimed by Emperor John I Tzimiskes (r. 969-976) and repeat- ed by Theodore Il Laskaris (r. 1254-1259). At- tempts by strong emperors or ambitious patriarchs to introduce caesaropapism or papocaesarism were exceptions that did not alter the character of the relations between imperium and priesthood, found-POLITICAL THEORY, ISLAMIC ed in Byzantium upon a tacit parallelism between the two. The church had its own hierarchy and its ‘owen laws consistent with the interests of the state, ‘The state defended the interests of the church, if need be by the intervention of its military forces. ‘The disturbance of this equilibrium led to crises that shook the Byzantine world. Only unimpeded collaboration between church and state could as- sure Byzantium of the working of the institutions upon which the life of the empire depended, In this manner, the political theory of Byzanti- ‘um, even though it sought historical justification for its principles (such as the universality and per- petuity of the empire), was based on the interaction of factors that formed the social fabric of the Byz- antine world, the dynamics that carried the objec- tives of Byzantium, State and church were there to bind the certitudes of the past to the hopes of the future, and upon their agreement depended the prosperity of the whole empire. BIBLIOGRAPHY Helene Ahrweiler, L'idéologie politique de empire byzantin (1975); Ernest Barker, Social and Political Thought in Byzantium (1957); Norman H. Baynes, Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (1930, repr. 1972); Alexander Kazhdan and Giles Constable, People and Power in Byzantium (1982), chap. 6. HeLene AHRWEILER [See also Basileus; Byzantine Empire; Caesaropapism; Constantine 1, the Great; Constantinople; Diplomacy, Byzantine; Patriarch; Pronoia; Roman Empire, Late.) POLITICAL THEORY, ISLAMIC. There is in Islam 2 relationship between religion and politics that is paralleied in no other religion, with the possible exception of Judaism. “Islam is a religion and a state,” goes a Muslim saying. Religion is viewed as necessary for the organization and inte- gration of society; this is the divine purpose in sending prophets. Islam is, therefore, not only a faith but also a law or set of rules (sharia, literally, path) that finds its ideal expression in a political community (umma). The Islamic state is, in theory, a theocracy or a nomocracy within which there is no separation between church and state, the spiri- tual and the temporal. Adherence to the faith means immediate admission to membership in a political community with corollary rights and privileges. Ie follows that Islamic political theory falls with- 12 in the scope of canonical jurisprudence (figh) and dialectical theology (kaldm), the two traditional Muslim sciences concerned with the theoretical and practical parts of divine law. Figh is primarily concerned with ascertaining prescribed commands regarding practical matters, just as kala is primar- fly concerned with the defense of dogma. The principles of jurisprudence are the fundamentals of the Islamic polity. Islamic political theory is thus closely tied and subordinated to theological and juristic considerations. There are three main schools of Islamic political theory. TRADITIONAL POLITICAL THEORY In a rudimentary form, traditional political the- ory in Islam developed around the controversy of suecession to the temporal office of the Prophet. No other issue stirred early Muslim life and thought as did that of succession to the Messenger of God. As long as the Prophet lived, Hitti says, he “performed the functions of prophet, lawgiver, religious leader, chief judge, commander of the army and civil head—all in one.” With his death in 632, divine revelation ceased, necessitating a new definition of the relationships of the community and the faith. ‘The Prophet left no heir apparent; neither did he leave any directions about the future course his community should follow in the eventuality of his death. It was this controversy that generated the most serious political discussions and brought about enough bloodshed to split the community into two main sects: Sunni and Shia. The Sunnis, the overwhelming majority of Mus- Jims, are the followers of the orthodox path or- dained by the Koran, the prophetic traditions, and the usage of the community. Unlike the Shiites, Sunnis believe in the validity of the historic caliph- ate and reject the notion that the imam is the mediator of the Muhammadan revelation, without ‘whom its relevance cannot be known. According to Sunni political theory, the caliph is a political functionary, a guardian of the divine law, bur he is inno sense an authority in doctrine, The caliph is to be elected by the community and must rsle and manage its affairs according to divine law. ‘The Shiites claim that the caliphate belongs to “Ali, cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, and his offspring. Although Shiism originated as an Arab political movement, it was later adopted in Iran as the official religion, developing an articulate doc- trinal basis for its political aspirations, Like Sunnis, Shiites give their allegiance to the Koran and thePOLITICAL THEORY, ISLAMIC ‘sunna (custom) of the Prophet, but hold the subse- quent conduct of the community to have been illegal. The succession controversy directed traditional Islamic political theory to be primarily concerned with the caliphate or imamate, its necessity, the qualities of the ruler, and the obligations of the believers. The concept of individual freedom did not attain the abstraction of a political principle. All jurists agree that the head of state must have certain leadership qualities: knowledge of the reli gious law, piety, courage in the defense of the conmaniy ‘administrative ability, and member- ship in the Quraysh tribe, to which the Prophet belonged. Although both Sunnis and Shits agree ‘on the necessity of the imamate, there is disagree- ment as to whether itis required by reason or by law. While Sunni theory recognizes consensus as the most important single basis for choosing 2 caliph, Shiites hold that the imamate is established by designation from God, and that it devolves from “Ali to his descendants. Muslim political theory was articulated mote than ewo centuries after Mubammad established his theocracy at Medina. In other words, when Mus- Jims began to theorize about the caliphate, the Islamic state had already reached the zenith of its power and had started on the road to decline. From the middle of the tenth century on, the Abbasid caliph found himself the ward and puppet of Turkish sultans, exercising no political power beyond investing the real culers with office—an investiture that was deemed necessary to legitimate their rule. This explains the highly apologetic char- acter of Islamic theories of state. The greater the decline in the political power of the Islamic state, the more diligently the jurists labored to defend its legitimacy. MIRRORS OF PRINCES ‘The decline in the power of the cali ascendancy of military leaders of Turkish ot Irani- fan origin gave rise to a new gente of political literature known as the ‘mirror of princes.” In the spirit of the Florentine statesman and political theorist Niccold Machiavelli (1459-1527), the “mirror” consists chiefly of advice to rulers and their ministers on how to establish, maintain, and conduct the affairs of state. While the “mirror” stresses pragmatic and prudential policies and mea~ sures based on political theory, it, unlike The Prince and the Discourses, pays more than lip service to 13 religious principles and morality. To some extent, it represents an integration of early Persian literature into Islamic teachings. For example, justice, not as an abstract principle or value but as a guarantee of government stability, is stressed in all treatises on advice to princes; it is also enjoined by religion. ‘Much of the literature is in the form of anecdotes and political aphorisms. ‘An example of the “mirror” genre well known in the West is the Book of Government (Siyasat- nama) of Nizam al-Mulk (1018~1092), the famous prime minister of the Seljuk sultan’ Malikshah (1072-1092), in which he stresses the religious and ethical duties chat the ruler must perform for his ‘own salvation and for the welfare of the state. In addition to piety and moral integrity, the ruler must have the qualities of physical beauty, good charac- ter, justice, and courage; he should possess military abilities and a taste for the arts and sciences. He ‘must also ensure the rule of law, choose the right counselors, and always consult with the judges of the court. Advice on many other details in the conduct of state is also provided, based on religious principles as much as on practical experience. POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY It was the declining condition of the Islamic state as much as the influence of Greek philosophy and science that directed the minds of Muslim philoso- phers (faldsifa) to political science or political phi- losophy. Having accepted the intention, methods, and possibility of political philosophy from the Greeks, they sought to introduce it into their cul- ture and adapt it to an Islamic milieu. The problem centered around the relationship between philoso- phy and a society governed by revealed law. Just as philosophy investigates the principles of being, so political philosophy investigates the nature or prin- ciples of all human affairs or political things— Islamic theology and jurisprudence included. While the traditional Islamic disciplines are concerned with practical matters in the life of the Muslim polity, political philosophy probes into the princi- ples of all kinds of polity. The founder of political philosophy in Islam was al-Farabi (d. 950), fol- lowed by such other eminent philosophers as Ibn Sina (d. 1037), Ibn Rushd (d. 1198), and Ibn Khaldin (4. 1406), The deterioration in the position of the Islamic state, coupled with confusion in theological and juridical questions, prompted the Muslim philoso- phers to attempt to bring rational order into Mus-POLITICAL THEORY, WESTERN: TO 1100 lim life and thought. What facilitated their task is a certain parallelism between the role of the imam or caliph in Islam and that of the philosopher-king in Plato's political philosophy. By identifying Plato's philosopher-ruter with the head of the Muslim community, they could subordinate religion and divine law to philosophical analysis, without reject- ing theic role as instruments of social and moral control for the masses. The intimation is obvious: while philosophy and the attainment of wisdom guarantee true happiness for the elite, religion is sufficient for the masses. No wonder the ideas of these philosophers were rejected by the established orthodoxy and their books banned or burned. Thei influence on the life of the Muslim community was minimal. But they left a legacy worthy of serious study and reconsideration. BIBLIOGRAPHY Leonard Binder, “ALGhazall’s Theory of Islamic Governmeat,” in The Musline World, 45 (1955); Louis Gardet, La cité musulmane: Vie sociale et politique, 3rd ced. (1969); Hamilton A. R. Gibb, “Some Considerations ‘on the Sunni Theory of the Caliphate” and. “Al- Mawardi’s Theory of the Celiphate,” in his Studies on the Cwvilization of slam, Stanford Shaw and William R. Polk, eds. (1962, repr. 1982); Philip Hiei, History of the Arabs, Sth ed. (1951); Yusuf Bish, The Political Doc- ‘rine of al-Bagitini (1966); Ralph Leener and Muhsin Mahdi, eds., Medieval Political Philosophy: A Source- book (1963); George Makdisi et al, eds La notion autorité au moyen age: Islam, Byzance, Occident (1982), $7-68, 83-126, 163187, 211-226; Nizam al- Mulk, The Book of Government; or, Rules for Kings, Hubert Darke, trans., 2nd ed. (1978); Erwin I,J. Rosen thal, Political Thought in Mediceal Islam (1968); W. Montgomery Wate, Islamic Political Thought: The Basic Concepts (1968). Fauzt M, Naya {See also Caliphate; Imam; Islam, Religion; Law, Islamic; Mirror of Princes; Sunna; Shi‘a and individual political philosophers.) POLITICAL THEORY, WESTERN EUROPEAN: TO 1100, The political vocabulary and stock of Political exempla of intellectuals between 500 and 1100 derived from the Vulgate. Their political assumptions came, usually without elaboration, from the church fathers. Above ali they inherited the patristic idea of a sharp distinction between human society in its natural, primitive state and 14 the political reatities of the present day. “Nature brought forth all men equal; but a secret dispensa~ tion placed some in authority over others,” accord- ing to Pope Gregory I (Moralia XX1.15). According to Augustine, God “did not wish the rational man made in his’ own image to have dominion over any save irrational creatures . . . our ancestors are remembered not as kings of men but as shepherds of flocks” (De civitate Dei XIX.15). The idea of natural equality was regularly ‘evoked in the reforming councils of the Carolingian age and of the tenth century. Jonas of Orléans (d. 842/843) warned the lay nobility against taking differences of worldly dignity and wealth for differ ences in nature (De institutione leicatis 1.22) and admonished the king to appoint as dukes and counts only such men as understood that their subjects were by nature their equals (De institu- tione regia 5), Smaragdus, abbot of St. Mihiel (d. after 825), alone among early medieval authors, used the idea of natural equality as an argument against the owning of slaves (Via regia, 30). The reforming bishop Rather of Vero used the idea to argue (ca. 935) that “very often men have dominion over their betters” (Praeloquia L1Qh Dominatus (lordship) in all its ‘aspects—the in- stitutions of slavery, civil government, and private property—was alien to what Ambrose and Augus- tine described as the nacural law written in the heart of all men; it was a product of man’s fall. Political institutions originated in man’s intolerable pride and appetite for subjecting others (Augustine, De doctrina christiana 1.23), Nevertheless, dominatus was to be accepted as a divinely ordained punish- ‘ment, intended to correct those very sins which first produced it. The function of government Was to terrorize evildoers and so repress the bestial tenden- in mankind. The encyclopedist Isidore of Seville (ca. 560-636) provided an influential summary of this docerine: “God so ordered the life of men, making some slaves, others lords, so that the slaves" inclination to behave badly may be restrained by the power of their rulers. . .. So also princes and kings were appointed among the nations so that they might coerce the people from evil by their terror and force them to live righteously by their laws” (Sententiae HLA7). Hence Carolingian authors would regard a sub- ject who rebelled against his king and a slave who escaped from his master as equally guilty of sacri- lege (see, for example, Hrabanus Maurus, Epistolae XV.3, XXX.5) Similarly, private property was aPOLITICAL THEORY, WESTERN: TO 1100 divinely ordained remedy for human avarice. Na- ttre had originally bestowed all things on men for the common use; but fallen man must respect property rights. Therefore, the doctrine “I do not simif [take from the rich to give to the poor” is the suggestion of the devil (Pseudo-Augustine, Ser- mones supposititii 287, c.2-Caesarius of Attes) “The idea of the original communis omniuem posses- sio (Isidore, Etymologiae V.4) exercised its greatest influence on the religious life, elaborated in the ninth-century Pseudo-Isidorean decretals using the example of the “common life” of the apostles. ‘The idea also survived in early medieval canon law, which regarded theft for need (per necessitatem) as a slight offense, requiring a light penance (Regino of Priim, De synodatibus causis 1.437; Burchard of Worms, Decretum XI.56). ‘MIRRORS OF PRINCES" ‘The format and subject matter of the political writings of this period were most strongly influ- enced by the Regulae pastoralis (Pastoral care) of Gregory I. Gregory's political thought, as expressed in this work, is concerned exclusively with the moral problems implicit in the subject-raler rela- tionship—especially the tendency of rulers to forget humility and natural equality. Alkhough the Regu- lae pastoralis was written for the instruction of bishops, its teachings were understood to be equally valid for secular rulers. Gregory did not differenti- ate between spiritual and temporal government; he cited the conduct of St. Peter as a model for secular officeholders and warned bishops against imitating the exemple of King Saul. Hence Smaragdus, one of Gregory's Carolingian imitators, could issue what was substantially the same book as both a treatise ‘on secular government (Via regia) and a treatise on the monastic life (Diadema monachorum). Under the all-pervasive influence of St. Gregory, medieval political thought came to focus not on the political ‘community or “body politic,” but on the moral ies of the individual, ruler or ruled. Charac- of Gregorian political thought is his defini. tion of the term “tyrant.” A tyrant is any man who exercises dominion without humility, whether in the state, the province, the congregation, his own house, or in himself; for God is concerned not with the scope which a man has for evildoing, but with a man’s evil intentions. It was not until the investi- ture controversy of the late eleventh century that polemicists rediscovered the purely political sense of “tyrant,” using Isidote’s definition: a wicked 15 ruler who cruelly oppresses the people (Etymolo- giae 1X3). ‘The political literature produced by the disciples of St. Gregory took the form of treatises of moral instruction for secular rulers—'mirrors of princes” (specula principum). This genre continued to flour- ish throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, even when more sophisticated forms of political analysis were curent, but in the early medieval period “mirrors of princes” provided the unique ‘medium of political speculation. The fist iden able “mirror” was a Frankish work of about 645, addressed by an unknown bishop to a Merovingian king (Clovis If or Sigibert Ill), advising him to imitate the examples of the good kings David and Solomon, listening to the advice of churchmen, just as they had obeyed the prophets. Already this little work displays the main characteristics of the Caro- lingian specula principum—the writings of Cath- wulf and Alcuin (whose “mirors” are contained in letters to Charlemagne); of the Aquitanian authors of the reign of Louis the Pious—Smaragdus, Ermol- dus Nigellus, and Jonas of Orléans; of the later nnimth-century authors Lupus of Ferriéres (Servatus Lupus), Sedulius Scotus, and Hincmar of Rheims, ‘Above all, the “mirrors of princes” focused on ‘exempla from the Old Testament, “Read the Book ‘of Kings to learn what reverence is due to a brother king,” wrote Hinemar (ca. 806-882) to Charle- magne’s grandson, Lowis the German (Epistola synodi carisiacensis 15); while the latter’s elder brother, Pepin I of Aquitaine, was advised by Jonas of Orléans to read Deuteronomy to learn “what a king ought to be and what he must beware” (De institutione regia 3). This preoccupation with Old ‘Testament kingship, especially as presented in the Books of Samuel, was influenced partly by St. Gregory, partly by the seventh-century Irish work De X1i abusivis saeculi of Pseudo-Cyprian, whose rninth chapter, on the virtues and duties of kings, was a source of many Carolingian specula. Sedu- lius’ Liber de rectoribus christianis (ca. 850) is recognizably a synthesis of these elements—bibli- cal, Gregorian, and insular. Sedulius’ Christian king muse be a warlord like Moses, Hezekiah, Jehosophat, and Judas Maccabeus, his warfare di- rected to the conversion of the heathen and the defense of the church, In addition, the king must imitate David, who as God's minister destroyed “tyrants” “tyrant” being defined as a ruler dom- inated by pride (superbia). The cult of David and Solomon promoted by Alcuin (ca. 730-804) at thePOLITICAL THEORY, WESTERN: TO 1100 court of Charlemagne survived to exalt the kingship of the Ottonians (for example, Hrotswithe von Gandersheim, Gesta Ottonis) and the Salians (for example, Berno von Reichenauy, leters to Henry Ill Benzo of Alba, Libri ad Heinricum IV) ‘The Carolingian authors’ emphasis on the moral qualities of kings was echoed in the early tenth century in the Praeloguia of Rather of Verona and in the early eleventh century in the Institutes of Polity of Wulfstan of York and the Tetralogus addressed by the imperial chaplain Wipo of Burgun- dy to Henry Ill. Discussion of che duties of kingship is also found in eleventh-ceneury royal biographies, which are slightly disguised “mirrors of princes,” for example, Wipo’s Deeds of the Emperor Conrad (ca, 1047}. The most remarkable of these biograph- ical specula isthe Life of St. Edmund, English King and Martyr of Abbo of Fleury (ca. 945-1004), which, with its portrait of a king prepared to die for the Christian faith, anticipated the political ideas of the papal reform movement. KINGSHIP AS DIVINE “MINISTERRIM” The principal writers on kingship in the early Middle Ages were monks, brought up on the writ- ings of the great monk-pope Gregory I; inevitably their royal ideology drew on ideas of abbatial or episcopal authority. Their starting point was the exhortation of St. Paul to the faithful to submit to the secular ruler as a divinely ordained minister of wrath against the evildoer (from the Vulgate, Rom. 13:4). Much early medieval discussion of kingship encapsulated in commentaries on chapter 13 of the Epistle to the Romans, many of which cited or were influenced by the commentary of Ambrosias- ter” (ca, 380). Carolingian scholars, and equally their Otconian and Salian successors, accepted Am- brosiaster’s opinion that the king was, by virtue of his divine ministerium (office), “vicar of God.” A Carolingian court poet summarized the idea chus: “There is only one who is enthroned in the kingdom of the air, the thunderer. It is fitting thar chere should only be one ruler under him on carth, through his merit an example to all men’ (“Hiber- niicus exsul” [Pungal?]). This parallel system of monarchical rule, God, “the highest and true em- peror,” as Pope Gelasius I called him, ruling in heaven, while his vicarius ruled on earth, is evoked by the Carolingian laudes regiae, the’ liturgical acclamations of the kings. Here the kingship of God and that of the prince are fused together in a celebration of the qualities of triumphant war 16 leadership: “our invincible arms,” “our impregna- ble wall,” “our defense and exaltation.” The divine nature of royal authority is likewise emphasized in the intitulationes (superscriptions) of diplomata (state documents), in which, from the Carolingian period onward, chancery officials recorded thei lords’ titles: “Charles, king by the grace of God,” “greatand peace-loving emperor, crowned by God,” mis, emperor augustus by ‘the ordination of divine providence.” To the illiterate layman the royal ceremony of crown-wearing conveyed some- thing of these ideas. The king was enthroned in majesty, while the choir sang the laudes regiae; and the spectator might be moved to cry out (as hap- pened at a crown-wearing of William the Conquer- or), “Behold, I see God!” ‘The crucial ceremony of this divine kingship was the royal anointing (the act af coronation being of secondary importance). This initiation rite—an ec- lesiastical ritual into which secular symbols of ‘office, crown, sword, lance, and scepter became absorbed—again illustrates the influence of the Old Testament, especially the exemplum of David (1 Sam. 16:1—13), on early medieval ideas of kingship. Introduced into the Visigothic kingdom of Spain in 672 and into the Frankish kingdom—apparently by papal initiative—in 751, the ceremony had become indispensable throughout Western Christendom by the tenth century; when the German king Henry I tefused naction in 919, the clergy of his kingdom regarded him as ‘‘a sword without a handle.” The significance of royal consecration did not, however, remain constant in this period; the emphasis changed according to the needs of the consecrators. ‘The need of the papacy at the time of the consecra- tion of Pepin IIl as king of the Franks in 751 and 754 was for a military protector for the tands of St. Peter. The ceremony of 751 replaced an ineffective ruler with a vigorous warlord, albeit a_warlord lacking royal blood. The consecration of 754, per- formed on the king and his sons, demonstrated that anointing could create not only a king but also a royal dynasty, “a holy race and a royal priesthood” (Liber pontificalis: Life of Stephen II). The ninth-century Frankish episcopate came to regard kings as their creatures and agents, “because kings are consecrated by bishops, bur bishops can- not be consecrated by kings” (Hiincmar, Ad. Episc. de Inst. Carol. 2). The more successful and more confident German rulers of the tenth and eleventh centuries drew a different conclusion from the fact of their consecration: “I have been anointed simi-POLITICAL THEORY, WESTERN: TO 1100 larly (to priests] with holy oil, and power of ruling before all others has been given to me” (Anselm, Gesta episcorum Leodiensiam, 66). Thus spoke Henry Ill, whose clerical courtiers acclaimed him as “head of the church,” and “lord of lords.” In ‘contemporary France churchmen attributed to the anointed Capetian king the miraculous power of healing scrofula. This transference of Christ’s pow- cr to his vicarius, the Capetian king, is the theme of an early-cleventh-century work of royal hagiog- raphy, Helgaud’s Life of King Robert the Pious. RESISTANCE If the king was the divinely ordained minister of God, it was surely sacrilegious to oppose him. This, was the invariable conclusion of early medieval ‘commentators on Romans 13. For example, the reforming bishop Atto of Vercelli (d. 961) wrote that it was impious to eesist royal authority “even if it seems unjust... For it's profane to violate what God ordains” (Epistolae 1). In support of this opinion he cited the synodal legislation of seventh- century Visigothic Spain, Even more influential was the insistence of St. Gregory on the obedience due to kings, here summarized by Wenrich, master ‘of the cathedral school of Trier, about 1080: “Pope Gregory . ... addresses persons in high places, however useless or even infamous, with their titles of dignity .. . and does not refrain from aggrandiz- ing their power” (Epistola in Monumenta German- jae historica, Libelli 1.291). St. Gregoty, like David, knew how ‘‘to soothe the raging Saul by playing the harp,” a reference to the use of David in Regulae pastoralis IL4 as an exemplum of the good subject who does not resist an evil ruler. The context of this summary of Gregorian thought was the investiture controversy in Germa- ny, Wenrich of Trier wrote as a supporter of King Henry IV, using the authority of Gregory I to rebuke Pope Gregory VII, who was sanctioning rebellion against the divinely ordained king. The reign of Henry IV of Germany witnessed a rev- olution in political thought—prompted first by the Saxon rebellion of 1073 and subsequently by the conflict of pope and king—which overturned the political assumptions of the Carolingian and Ottonian age. The Saxons (whose attitudes were recorded by the chroniclers Lambert of Hersfeld and Bruno of Merseburg) justified their rebellion by reviving Isidore’s distinction between king and ty rant: “You will be a king if you act rightly: if you do not so act, you will be no king,” Henry IV was 17 a tyrant because he was not “restrained by the laws and customs of his predecessors” and acted “with barbarous cruelty” toward the Saxons (Lambert of Hersfeld, Annales [1076)). The ideological basis of the opposition of the reforming papacy to Henry IV was stated by Peter Damian as early as 1065: “A king must be revered while he obeys the Creator; but when a king opposes the divine commands, he is rightly held in contempt by his subjects” (Epis- tolae VII.3). Gregory VII was more specific about his reasons for deposing Henry IV: “Unless he is as, obedient, as humbly devoted and useful to holy church as a Christian king oughe to be . . . beyond doubt holy church will not only not favor him, but will oppose him" (Register 1X3) The various theories of resistance current in the late eleventh century were summarized in the pro-papal polemic of Manegold of Lautenbach (Liber ad Gebebardum, ca. 1085), an incoherent, plagiaristic, but also innovatory work. Manegold defended rebellion against Henry IV by means of three arguments: (1) that there are many historical precedents for the excommunication of wicked and unjust kings (a favorice argument of Gregory VID; (2) chat ing’ is not the name of a natural quality but the title of an office” (chap. 30), and as kingship is the most responsible of secular offices, i¢ demands commensurate moral qualities of its hold- er (also an argument of Gregory VII); and (3) that the king rules according to a contract (pacturn) with his subjects and, if he breaks that contract, he automatically dissolves the oaths of allegiance sworn to him at his accession (a refinement of the Saxons’ justification for rebellion). EMPIRE AND PAPACY The investiture controversy witnessed nat only the first attack on sacred kingship but also *he opening of the contest of empire and papacy for theoretical supremacy in Western Christendom, 2 contest which would dominate the political thought ‘ofthe later Middle Ages. The Fathers had conceived of “the sacred authority of bishops and the royal power” as a duality, divinely ordained to govern the world side by side. According to the influential definition of Pope Gelasius I (492-496) (Duo guippe sunt Epistolae XII.2), it was the emperor's task to “rule over the human race”; but, as a faithful son of the church, he was subject to the bishops in matters respecting his salvation. Carolingian and Ottonian intellectuals echoed this idea of a single Christian society governed byPOLITICAL THEORY, WESTERN: AFTER 1100 two powers with separate roles. The precise division of labor was spelled out in the letter of Charle- magne to Pope Leo Ill on the latter's electios in 795, The king’s duty was “to defend holy church ‘outwardly from the attack of pagans and from devastation by the arms of infidels and to fortify her inwardly through the enforcement of the accep- tance of the catholic faith” (Alcuin, Epistola 93). ‘The pope's duty was to pray “that the Christian people may always have the victory everywhere.” ‘The Western emperors of the early Middle Ages were above all preoccupied with dilatatio (the expansion of the Christian faith), obedient to the precept of Augustine: “We say that emperors are fortunate . ..if they put their power at the disposal of God’s majesty, to extend his worship far and wide” (De civitate Dei V.24). Hence an Otronian emperor, wagiag constant wars against the Slavs on ‘his frontiers, would call himself in his diplomata “most devour and most faithful dilatator of holy churches” (Otto IID). In early medieval Rome an alternative view of emperorship developed, according to which the ‘emperor was the pope’s subordinate, entrusted with his defense and that of the lands of St. Peter. The traditional papal protector, the Byzantine emperor, ‘ceased in the early eighth century to be a true Christian emperor when he embraced the policy of iconoclasm. This breach with Constantinople per- haps produced che forgery on which later papal claims to supremacy in temporal affairs was often to be based: the “Donation of Constantine.” The Donation contained a vision of papal territorial independence which it became the duty of the pope's Carolingian allies to realize. The official biographer of Pope Leo Ill expressed the papal political theory in his account of the imperial coronation of Charlemagne on 25 December 800. ‘The Romans designated Charles emperor “seeing how great was the defense which he gaye and the love which he bore the holy Roman church and her vicar” (Liber pontificalis XCVIM20, 23-24). It ‘was @ promotion which he had earned by the effectiveness of his defense of papal interests. Papal emperor-making in the later ninth and carly tenth centuries fostered the theory that the imperial coronation was a constitutive act, intend- ed to create a papal defensor. However, the coro- nation of Emperor Otto Lin 962 initiated a century of imperial control in Rome, when, in the words of Pope Gregory VI, “the rule of our church was given to the Germans.” The great champion of 18 papal independence, Gregory VII declared that the pope was supreme in temporal as in spiritual mat- ters and claimed the right to depose emperors by virtue of the power of binding and loosing. His ‘opponents denounced him for having “‘unsurped regnum and sacerdotium (priestly office] and there- by shown contempt for the ordination of God, who ‘wished government to consist principally not in one but in two" (Henry IV, Letter 3)—a violation of Gelasian duality. BIBLIOGRAPHY Werner Affelds, Die weltliche Gewalt in der Paulus- Exegese (1969); Robert W. Carlyle and Alexander J. Carlyle, A History of Medieval Political Theory in the West, LIV (1903-1932); C. Erdmann, Forschungen zur politischer Ideenwelt des Frubmitelaltes (1951); Robert Fole, The Concept of Empire in Western Europe from the Fifth to the Fourteenth Century, Sheila Ann Ogilvie, trans. (1969); Ernst H. Kantorowicz, Laudes Regiae (1946); Karl F. Morrison, The Two Kingdoms: Eccles ology in Carolingian Political Thought (1964); Nelson, Rituals of Royal Inauguration in Early Medieval Europe (dis., Cambridge Univ., 1967); lan S, Robinson, Author- ity and Resistance in the Investiture Contest (1978); Perey E. Schramm, Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio, 2 vols (1929), and Der Konig von Frankreich (1939), Walter Ulmann, Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages (1961); John M. Wallace Hadrill, Early Germanic Kingship im England and on the Continent (197, TaN. Rosinson Epis Dera alse Deposition of Rls; Donation cof Constantine; Ecclesiology; Investiture and Investiture Conflict; Kingship, Rituals of; Kingship, Theories Laudes; Micror of Princes; Papacy, Origins and Devel- ‘opment of; Pepin Ill and the Donation of Pepin; and individual personalities] POLITICAL THEORY, WESTERN EUROPEAN: AFTER 1100. Among the dominant themes of political theory during the period from 1100 to 1485 are the nature of kingship and law, the correct relationship between ecclesiastical and temporal authority, and the proper structure of governmemt, both religious and secular, These issues were ad- dressed from a variety of changing perspectives throughout this period. ‘At the outset of the period stands the learned, urbane Englishman John of Salisbury (ca, 1115—POLITICAL THEORY, WESTERN; AFTER 1100 1180), who is regarded as one of the most impor- tant of the medieval political theorists writing before the rediscovery and spread of Aristotelian- iam. A close friend of Adrian LV (7. 1154-1159), the only English pope, John is known for his support of the supremacy of the ecclesiastical over the temporal power, his organic theory of the state, and his doctrine of tyrannicide that he expounded in his Policraticus (1159). ‘TWELFTH-CENTURY DISCOVERIES Two revivals of ancient thought had a great impact on late medieval political thought: the re- vival of the study of Roman law in the late eleventh century and the rediscovery of Aristotle's works in the ewelfth century. Roman law had ceased to be widely taught sometime before 1000. One of the most important results af its revival was the evolu- tion of a scientific jurisprudence and of legal meth- ‘ods, Irnerius (ca. 1055~ca. 1130), a master of arts in Bologna, began the formal study of Roman law ‘and made the first glosses on Justinian’s Corpus ius civilis. The school of glossators, founded by Lrnerius, attempted to discover the exact meaning, ‘of the Justinian texts and to introduce Roman law unadulterated into medieval practice. The glossa- tofs’ approach, which did not take into account the real, existing laws of their own times, inevitably proved inadequate, Its eclipse began at about the middle of the thirteenth century. The school of postglossators, or commentators, represented a strong reaction to the practice and teaching of law by the glossators. Founded in the second half of the thirteenth century by Jacques de Révigny, professor at Toulouse and later at Or- leans, the new method of legal science was intro- duced into Italy by Cino da Pistoia (ca, 1270-1336/ 1337) and had as its most famous advocate Bartolo 4a Sassoferrato (1313/1314-1357). Going beyond merely glossing the texts of Justinian's codes, which was the essence of the glossators’ method, the Italian postglossators tried to adapc Roman law texts to the sources of medieval law as practiced in the courts. The new school reached its peak in the fourteenth century, and its influence continued to ‘oe fele well into the fifteenth. ‘The developmen of Roman legal studies after the eleventh century greatly influenced the law af the church, Some attempts had been made to ar- range and harmonize the divergent, often contra- dictory authorities and precedents of church law, but it was Gratian, a Camaldolese monk of Bolo 19 gna, who used the dialectical method to solve numerous contradictions found in papal decrees, patristic statements, and royal and imperial laws, and around 1140 ‘compiled the Concordia dis- ‘cordantium canonum (The concord of discordant canons). Gratian was certainly influenced by the revival of the study of Roman law and its impact on legal studies. ‘Almost as important as the revival ofthe study of Roman law for the development of late medieval political theory was the rediscovery of Aristotle's political ideas. The metaphysical and scientific works of Aristotle, most of which were not known in the eatly Middle Ages, were gradually translated into Latin toward the end of the twelfth century. It was the translation of his Politics (ca. 1260) by William of Moerbeke that marked a high point in the reception of the works of the Stagirite. As a result, the Aristotelian, naturalistic notion uf the state as a perfect society (societas perfecta), inde- pendent of any other entity, including the church, and sufficient unto itself, gained acceptance in the later Middle Ages and weakened the traditional, essentially negative conception of the state ad- vanced by church fathers, especially St. Augustine: that the state came into being as a result of and as a remedy for the Fall of Man. At first the Roman church tried unsuccessfully to cestrain the spread of Aristotelianism. Yet the vitality of Aristotle's ideas manifested itself as an increasing number of theo- logians, philosophers, and political theorists turned to the study of Aristotle. ‘The triumph of Aristotle in the thirteenth centu- sy was to a large extent due to the influence of ‘Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274). Since Thomas was not a political theorist in the modern sense of the term, his political ideas must be culled from his various works, especially De regimine principum and Summa theologiae. Following Aristotle closely, ‘Thomas stated that man is “naturally a social being.” The state is 9 natural entity whose goal and justification is the good life. This naturalistic view of the state was tempered and modified in accor- dance with the teaching of his Christian philoso- phy. The ultimate purpose of social life is not merely to enjoy the good life, but to artain spiritual salvation, Thomas’ greatest accomplishment was to synthesize Christianity and Aristotelianism, Thomas followed Aristotle in classifying the forms of government into good types and bad types. He thought the best form of government was monarchy not only because “in the whole universe