Earticle

Little has been written on the problem of the woman in medieval theology in comparison with other eras of Church History. The New Testament and patristic ages have attracted far more attention. Through women came death, suffering, and toil into the world. So taught the Bibel and patristic tradition. It should come as no surprise that clerical thought in this period was misogynist. On the another hand, the medieval theological tradition also does have, as we have seen, a positive core; the medieval Church insisted in theory on a true mutuality and moral equivalence between the sexes. However often the medieval commitment to spiritual equivalence was under- mined by androcentric and patriarchal assumptions. Just as there is no point in branding the Middle Ages misogynist, there ist no reason to go to the opposite extreme, to single out certain isolated phen- omena as harbingers of feminist sympathies. Ahistorical interpretation is also to be avoided

With respect to the intellectuals in the Middle Ages, Le Goff applied an intellectual-sociological analysis, and his method is still valid. In my view, however, it failed to catch the realistic aspects of the intellectuals. This paper aims to grasp both the concrete reality and the dynamism of the intellectuals in the 12th Century. To do this, I chose Peter Abelard, a representative scholar of this century. Abelard developed a new self-awareness regarding intellectuals. He defined the intellectual as one who seeks knowledge and teaches it. It was very different from the view of monastic scholars, who regarded the process of searching for knowledge as opus dei. According to Abelard, the main function of the intellectual is to search for a reasonable basis to explain the order of things and find the truth. Thus Abelard applied his critical and analytical approach to theology as well as philosophy. His method could be summed up in three parts; doubt, investigation, and the search for truth. Furthermore Abelard did not accept any knowledge without a rational ground or validation as true. Abelard was also an intellectual worrier armed with dialectic, and criticized false intellectual tradition. He extended his academic concerns into theology. This caused serious opposition from his rivals including the disciples of St. Anselm of Laon, and St. Bernard of Clairvaux. His intellectual greatness, however, derived not from his attack on the contemporary academic traditions, but from searching for new methods and applying them. His own understanding of the function of the intellectual, his belief in concordance between reason and revelation, and his critical attitude toward the pseudo-intellectual tradition of the time contributed to the subsequent development of scholasticism. In sum, we find a combative, but productive scholar in Peter Abelard.

The Donation of Constantine has been regarded as the most famous forgery of the entire MiddJe Ages. The document seemed to be forged according to the thorough program of the papaJ curia in the middJe eighth century. The author fabricated the document for the purposes as follows. First, the Donation purported to confirm that Roman Catholic religion is orthodoxy. The Roman Church suffered a lot of difficulties due to the Arius heresy of Lombards and the iconoclasm of the Constantinople church. The author wanted to secure the dogmas of the Roman Church to be orthodoxy instead of the heresies. Second, the Donation intended to secure the primacy of the Roman Church. The papacy hoped to unification of the Christian faith under the initiative of the Roman Church holding back rival churches such as the Byzantine church. The desire of the papal curia was echoed in the document. Third, the Donation was fabricated as an evidence of the papacy’s temporal right in Italy including the city of Rome. The Byzantine emperors had claimed their rights to rule the Italian peninsula as the legal successors of the ancient Roman emperors. The curia was in dire need of an evidence for the secular rulership in Italy instead of the Byzantine Empire. The evidence was also required against the Franks because they could claim their rights to the Italian territory once they subjugated Lombards in the north Italy. Fourth, the eventual purpose of the document was to endow the papacy with the rights to dominate the whole world. That was why the author let Constantine confer the whole empire on Silverter. Thus, the Donation was produced by the ambitious program of the papal curia. Through the mouth of Constantine, the author filled the document with the intention of the papacy. The document exactly reflected the Roman Church ’s ideology to enhance the papal authority and justify the papal govemment. Consequently, the Donation was boththe collection of the papal theories in the past and the expression of a desíre to acquíre papal rights ín the future.

Henry II(1154～89), the first of the Plantagenet kings, is known to have been successful in strengthening the royal power through the reform of the English judicial system, but to have encountered major setbacks in his policy to gain more control over the church. He intended to tighten his grip on the church by nominating Thomas Becket, his trusted henchman and Chancellor, archbishop of Canterbury. As Becket immediately changed character and vehemently opposed Henry posing as champion of church rights and subsequently was murdered by the king's knights, Henry was brought to bay, with the final result being that the church of England came to be completely subordinated to the Roman canon law. In this paper I have attempted to clarify that Henry had not been very adamant in view of the feudal customs of that time in his policy towards the church of England, and that his influence on the church did not decrease greatly, although he had great difficulties dealing with the papacy in the wake of Becket's murder. On the basis of these arguments I have tried to reappraise the traditional view that Henry's policy toward the church ended up in failure. With this purpose in mind I have reexamined the following issues. First, what was the background of the issuance in 1164 of the Constitutions of Clarendon that can be said to have been the core of Henry II's policy towards the church? Second, how did Henry envisage the kingly power over the church should be strengthened? Third, how was Henry's grip on the church of England after the retraction of certain provisions of the Constitutions of Clarendon subsequent to the murder of Becket, and what was the real significance of the Constitutions?

The two main customs which govemed the descent of villeins’ tenements and prevailed in medieval England were the customs of partible and impartible inheritance. According to the custom of impartible inheritance, a villein ’s holding went at his death to only one of his sons. The inheritance custom of some manors was that only the eldest son could inherit, that was primogeniture, and the custom of others was that only the youngest son could inherit--the Borough English. In any case, only one of his sons could inherit. On the other hand, by the custom of partible inheritance, a villein’s holdings were equally divided among his sons at his death. of the customs of partible inheritance, the most prominent was that of gavelkind, which was the custom of Kent. The traditional explanation of the inheritance customs in medieval England is that the central England was marked by impartible inheritance and open-field, and Kent and East Anglia by customs of the partible and non-open field. However, for the theorists who are in favor of the partible inheritance customs, it does not seem to be true that the areas of partible inheritance and open-field farming are incompatible, nor that partible inheritance is confined to Kent and East Anglia. They have, therefore, asserted that even in some parts of 0야n-field area, the coparcenary was a general feature, composition of holdings was being constantly altered and partible inheritance was widespread. But it was more likely that impartible inheritance tended to occur, not universalIy but statisticaIly, in the open-field area of England and partible inheritance in non-open-field areas both to the east and to the west of the open field belt. In so far as customary tenements were concemed, the impartíble inheritance customs, such as primogmiture and Borough English, was unquestionably the rule in the relevant parts of England in the twelfth and thirteenth century. The balance of probabilities seems to be even more strongly in favor of the view that the open-field system, rather than the system of cultivation in severalty, was the dominant form of arable cultivation at the time.

From the deliberation of the Statue of Artificers to its consent, both Elizabeth I and the Parliaments tried to gain benefits and make each one's party good respectively, keeping up mutual cooperation as well. Elizabeth I, on the one hand, realized her policy controlling the parliaments in the process of its deliberation by the Privy Council; and on the other hand, she had no choice to acknowledge and protect the interest of Parliaments since the Parliaments built and maintained her financial and military foundation. Elizabeth I had a conflict of interests against the group of Parliament, while pursuing the social order consistently, stabilizing the society and consolidating the economic basis. Based on the study of the background and nucles of Statues of Artificers, we can divide its contents and intention into three as follows; First, the group of Parliaments tried to consolidate their social and economic bases. Second, Elizabeth I sought to stabilize the society. Third, Elizabeth I and the group of Parliaments were able to make terms for the engagement qualification in the fields of commerce and industry.