Earticle

The byzantine teaching is not well known and deficient in study. Because it lacks primary sources. Nevertheless the byzantine teaching is important in the byzantine civilization. Vasiliev gave the word of “Renaissance” to the byzantine civilization in the 12-13th centuries and Paul Lemerle gave the word of “humanism” to the byzantine civilization in the 9-10th and 12-13th centuries. But the byzantine civilization in the 11th century was not given the word of “Renaissance” or "humanism" by the two scholars mentioned above. Why wasn't it mentioned in their opinions? Why can not we find a tendency to humanism in the byzantine civilization in the 11th century? This article aim at a response to the question. The byzantine teaching in the 11th century had seven national schools, one private school, and one half-national school in higher education. These were the numbers excluding monastic schools. According to Paul Lemerle, the 11th century had more schools than the 10th century. The byzantine teaching in the early 11th century was encyclopaedic. The encyclopaedic teaching was a humanistic teaching. It was developed in the reigns of Romanus III Argyrus and Michael IV. But during the reigns of Michael IV and Zoe, political circumstances changed in Italy and the expansion of the Turks threatened byzantine empire. Therefore Constantine IX promptly reorganized politics and practised practical teaching. This practical teaching was the teaching of the law school. Then it was needed to reorganize political systems, and it weakened encyclopaedic teaching-systems. This was not a qualitative but a quantitative change. We do not nearly find the differences in qualitative terms in this situation. Because all the teachers in schools excepting the law school were encyclopaedic teachers. Moreover Michael Psellos and John Italos were encyclopaedic teachers who knew well Plato and Aristotle, and influenced enormously byzantine teaching in 12-13th century. I thus would like to argue that the 11th century was not the period of humanism but the period of half-humanism.

In his work Dialogue of a Philosopher with a Jew, and with a Christian, Peter Abelard tries to understand the Christianity in discussion with its intellectual rivalries, i.e. with a Jew and with a Philosopher. It shows a new spirit that builds one of the dominant axes of 12th-century self-understanding of the Christianity. The philosophical program of fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding) gives the contour of the whole dialogue; the Philosopher in this work wants to know, among the three modes of life, i.e. that of Christian, Judaic, and Philosophical, which is most consonant with reason. Through the discussion between the Jew and the Philosopher, a contrast between the historical peculiarity of the Old Law and the universality of Natural Law, which consists in loving God and one's neighbor, becomes manifest. This claim of universality leads to the critic that it is not the external observance (opera exteriora) of the Old Law such as circumcision and purification rituals, but the inwardness based on human liberty that constitutes the morality. If inner love of God makes people holy, so runs the critic, the rituals of purification from sin as prescribed by the law can be of no spiritual value. Since the Philosopher admits the principally rational character of the Christianity, the main subject of their discussion is the Highest Good (summum bonum) and how to reach it. Once the happiness in the afterlife as the Highest Good is accepted, the Philosopher is compelled to confess the internal incoherence of classical virtue ethics. Then, the Christian has to reply to all the philosophical questions such as ‘how is the vision of God to understand’, ‘whether heaven is in any place’, and so on. The answers to these questions can be regarded as philosophical justification of the Christian Faiths, which culminates in the theodicy. The semantical analysis of good (bonum) supports the theological claim that God's omnipotence should include the good use of evil. It is one thing to say that ‘Evil is good’ (malum est bonum) and another thing to say that ‘It is good that there is evil’ (bonum est malum esse). According to Abelard, the Natural Law (lex naturalis) of a philosopher should be completed with the New Law (lex nova) of a Christian. This leads to the claim that the Christianity consists in the rationality (fides quaerens intellectum) and the inwardness (intentio) of the faith. It is this unique combination of the rationality and the inwardness of the Christian faith that characterizes the self-under- standing of the 12th-century Christianity in the work of Dialogue of a Philosopher with a Jew, and with a Christian.

The Commune of Amiens was a typical French commune in terms of its period of formation, its influence over the neighboring cities, and its autonomy. The commune of Amiens established in 1117 as the result of the ongoing struggle between the people of Amiens and the count, has traditionally been interpreted as a sworn association and collective seigneur. It should be noted that the sworn association was based on the “solidarité” among all those who lived in the commune including non-pledgers. In the 12th century, the bourgeoisie had to organize the city of Amiens on the basis of “solidarité” and established a new election system called 'bannière' in the next century. The general crisis in the 14th century, epitomized by the Hundred Years War and the Plague, made this solidarity unstable. The upper bourgeoisie began to exclude the middle and lower bourgeoisie from the municipal government and, consequently, the late 14th century witnessed a series of urban unrest. Although, at first glance, the solidarity of the city appeared to be completely shattered, it revived and extended its reach into the neighboring regions. The municipal government began to play an intermediary role in connecting its neighboring regions and the royal authority, which desperately wanted to extract their resources.

The primary result of the Reformation was the splitting of Christendom into Catholicism and Protestantism. At the vortex of the Reformation we can find Erasmus' efforts to reunify the church. At the beginning of Luther's Reformation, Erasmus, as a reformer of the Church, supported Luther. However, as Luther grew more radical, he and Erasmus became estranged. Erasmus thought that Luther's uncompromising actions were destroying the unity of Christendom. For Erasmus, Luther's victory would mean the end of Christian unity and peace. In spite of his break with Luther, Erasmus, who was devoted to a peaceful and unified Church, did his best as a mediator between Catholic and Protestant elements, but was rebuked by both sides. Above all, Erasmus' search for a way to heal the split centered on his view of the Church as the Body of Christ. Quoting the Pauline passages on the body of Christ, Erasmus demonstrates his resolute belief in the unity of the church as a harmonious organism under Christ, with Christ as its leader, not the Pope. Nevertheless, Erasmus emphasizes that the church is not a homogeneous body, for he underlined the distinct character and function of the individual member. This diversity is bound together into harmonious unity by the action of Christ, the head. What kind of character, then, does the Church, Christ's body, have? First, the church is a community of love. According to Erasmus, love emanates from God and eventually returns to him. The Church is an historical, social and institutional manifestation of divine love. For Erasmus, in the strictest sense there is only one office within the church, that of love. Hence the institutional aspect of church life has value and meaning for him as an expression of the inner dynamism of the Spirit and as leading towards a deepening participation in the life of charity on the part of each of its members. What binds Christians together in love is that they are all brothers in Christ. Second, the church as the Body of Christ means a peaceful unity of Christians who love one another under the headship of Christ. Erasmus explains the peace of the Church in connection with the concepts of unity, concord, love, charity, and harmony. The highest form of peace and concord, the peace of the members of the one body, holds sway, and mutual charity makes everything the common property of all. Christians must express their love for Christ by living according to his teachings on peace. For Erasmus, peace and love are two sides of the same coin. If the Church is not ruled with Christ's peace, the name of the Church is worthless. Christ hates discord most of all.