In early medieval times, penance took on two forms : public and private, corresponding to how widely a certain sin was known to people. The synodal courts of the carolingian period represented one form of public penance. The main purpose of this essay is to illuminate the context in which public penance functioned during the Carolingian period. The revival of public penance was, in the view of this paper, one of the most important outcomes of the Carolingian theocracy. The author examines this form of penance for this period, because it has been very underestimated by historians to date. Public penance included not only strictly religious penances, but also sanctions invoked by both secular and ecclesiastical authorities, since there was the idea that both secular and ecclesiastical authorities should suppress crime and maintain the public order. Public penance is seldom mentioned in the penitentials, but we find much mention of it in the capitularies, episcopal decrees and conciliar acts. Through studying public penance, we can learn the basic ideas about preservation of public law and order during this period.

抄録全体を表示

Die evangelische Kirchengeschichte in der Weimarer Republik ist bisher in erster Linie als eine Vorgeschichte des deutschen Kirchenkampfes, also der Widerstandsbewegung der Kirchen unter dem Nazi-Regime behandelt. Von den vielen uber den Kirchenkampf erschienenen Arbeiten beschaftgt sich also ein Teil auch mit der Kirchengeschichte in der Weimarer Zeit. Bei diesen Arbeiten geht die Diskussion hauptsachlich um den konservativen Charakter der Widerstandsbewegung. Konservativ in dem Sinne, daB sich die Bewegung wenigstens in ihrer ersten Phase nur gegen die Deutschen Christen, eine Nazi-orientierte Gruppe in der evangelischen Kirche, die 1933 gewaltsam die Kirchenverwaltung ubernahm, richtete, nicht aber gegen die Regierung der Nazis. Viele dieser Arbeiten neigen dazo, die Hauptmotive zum Kirchen kampf vor allem in der theologischen Abwehrhaltung zusuchen, mit der die zeitgenossischen Kirchenfuhrer und Theologen gegen die heidnischen Gedanken der Deutschen Christen protestierten. Auf dieser Auffassung beruht z. B. die Arbeit von K. Scholer, der den Kirchenkampf als einen Kampf gegen die Tradition des Nationalprotestantismus, aus dem sich auch die Deutschen Christen rekrutieren, interpretiert, und entsprechend die Erneuerung der Theologie in der Weimarer Zeit durch K. Barth u. a. besonders hoch bewertet. Diese Ansicht zeigt aber nur eine Seite der Kirchengeschichte in der Weimarer Zeit. Gleichzeitig muB man berucksichtigen, daB im Fruhsommer 1933 der Kirchenkampf erst einmal als Machtkampf zwischen den Deutschen Christen und den traditionellen Kirchenfuhrern um die Kirchenregierung angefangen hatte, daB also die Theologie die Richtung des Kampfes noch nicht beeinfluBte. Man kann mit einer rein theologischen Perspektive kein vollstandiges Bild des Kampfes bekommen, weil dabei die Machtstruktur der evangelischen Kirchen in dieser Zeit auBer Betracht bleibt. Um diese Machtstruktur zu verstehen, muB man sich zuerst die neue Rechtslage nach der Novemberrevolution und die dadurch entstandene Veranderung der evangelischen Landeskirchen in der Weimarer Republik ins BewuBtsein rufen. Deshalb mochte ich bei der folgenden Arbeit zuerst die Neuordnung der evangelischen Landeskirchen in der Weimarer Republik erlautern, dann im Hinblick darauf den EntstehungsprozeB des Kirchenkampfes untersuchen. Die Ergebnisse lassen sich folgendermaBen zusammenfassen : 1)Nach der Novemberrevolution haben die evangelischen Landeskirchen, auf die Forderungen der republikanischen Regierung hin, MaBnahmen zur Demokratisierung der Kirche getroffen, darunter vor allem die Einfuhrung der demokratischen Kirchenwahlen, um die verfassungsrechtliche Lucke nach dem Fortfall des monarchischen Summepiskopats zu schlieBen. Weil die Kirchenfuhrer aber um die Aufrechterhaltung einer straffen Organisation mit einer vom Kirchenvolk unabhangigen Fuhrungsspitze bemuht waren, blieb die Kirchenreform, insgesamt gesehen, in Ansatzen stecken. 2)Andererseits gab die Demokratisierung der Landeskirchen, wenn auch formell und oberflachlich, den verschiedenen Kirchengruppen unter dem Kirchenvolk die Moglichkeit, starkeren EinfluB auf die Kirchenpolitik auszuuben. In der Machtstruktur der evangelischen Landeskirchen in der Weimarer Zeit herrschte also eine Art von Dualismus zwischen Kirchenvolk und Kirchenregierung. 3)Aus den obengenannten Grunden bestand in der Weimarer Zeit zwischen dem Kirchenvolk, politisiert und mobilisiert durch politische Parteien, und den traditionellen und burokratischen Kirchenleitungen immer die Moglichkeit eines Konflikts um die Machtverteilung in der Kirche. Einer von diesen Konflikten um die Machtverteilung in der Kirche bildet auch einen AnlaB zum evangelischen Kirchenkampf.

抄録全体を表示

In the county of Barcelona during the age of the Gregorian Reform, the relationship between the Count of Barcelona and the Church was transformed both in form and in substance. At some church councils, it was decided that the Church should revive the right of clerical investiture. Consequently, bishops, who had been elected exclusively from upper aristocratic families, like those of counts or viscounts, could now be chosen from middle or lower aristocratic families. There are three reasons which enabled such a change. The first is the cooperation received from the Count of Barcelona. Counts of the age were trying to reestablish their relations with the Church in the role of protectors and collaborators. Secondly, in Catalonia of the age exisled social circumstances which are tavorable for the change in the form of rising middle or lower aristocratic families. Thirdly, there exisled the political interest of the Count of Barcelona, who needed the Pope's friendship to carry out his war against the Muslims. Therefore, the bishoprics were removed from the Count's control in Barcelona without any conflict between the secular ruler and the clergy, but rather with the ruler's cooperation. It was inevitable that such changes would bring about a transformation of the political system, in which bishops had played a more important role. First, it took place the secularization of the Count's rule over the county : for example, some rights of a bishopric were transferred to the Count's seneschal, and the relationship between the Count and one viscount of the region was reinforced. Secondly, although upper aristocratic families lost their exclusive influence over the bishoprics, the Count did not lose his influence over the bishoprics, by holding on to his right to confirm the investiture of the bishop elect. Thirdly, through the authority of the Count over bishoprics in charge of personal affairs regressed, it appeared the policy of the Count to make use of church councils by exercising his authority as the protector of the Church. In this way, a new political order was being born in the county of Barcelona in the form of a regression to direct control over the bishoprics by the Count's family.

抄録全体を表示

The primary purpose of this article is to offer a new perspective on the use of the written word by the government of the Carolingian through an examination of the "capitularies". The capitularies are traditionally recognized as "the edicts of the kings"; and it is widely accepted that their "Golden Age" occurred during the reign of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious. The research to date has concentrated mainly on manuscripts, but this method is not appropriate for an analysis of the governmental system of the Carolingian age, because manuscripts were composed some time after the initial authoring of any given text and show us only information about their later phases. In order to clarify the earliest phase, the author explores references to the use of documents in narrative sources. His results show that with some exceptions, there are only two categories of information about the use of the written word which emerge in the narrative sources; namely lex (or "texts that should be added to lex") and "texts on behalf of the church". In view of the quantity of such cases, there is little diversity during the Carolingian age, a fact that would belie the alleged "Golden Age"; moreover, references to texts for the church can also be found in the east Frankish kingdom, which historians have considered as a land where no capitulary was issued. The reason for the discrepancy between the author's conclusions and the conventional view concerning a "Golden Age" lies in the fact that many "capitularies" of Charlemagne and Louis were texts which had only subordinate functions for the communication, for in the later Carolingian age the communication system had been transformed into a face-to-face system via assemblies; and rulers had not as much need for such texts as before. There are also indications that in the west Frankish kingdom fundamental changes appeared to have occurred in the use of the written word by the government. The age of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious can be called the "Golden Age" of those texts that had only subordinate functions in communicating the wishes of the kings ; that is to say Charlemagne and Louis the Pious should be not regarded as "great legislators who issued many written edicts". Therefore, we should reexamine the use of the written word in each kingdom without considering the text category of "capitulary".

抄録全体を表示

In this paper we reassess Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica 8.1 and offer a new interpretation of the Great Persecution. To elucidate its origin Chap 10 of Lactantius' De Mortibus Persecutorum does not help us since it seems to be affected by a Christian bias, revealing a literary motif of anti-pagan propaganda. Eusebius, on the other hand, who vaguely describes how the Church incurred a persecution as divine punishment for her internal strife gives crucial clues to the present inquiry, though his account needs more careful analyses; internal strife had generally not been a cause, but a result of persecution, as was clearly attested in the letters of Cyprian and some passages from Tertullian(e.g. Scorp 1.5). We should understand that the strife mentioned in HE 8.1 originated from the "persecution" within the army (and not vice versa! Cf. MartPalaest 12.1 [S]) which Diocletian launched in the last decade of the third century. Given this, we could reconstruct the prelude to the Great Persecution as follows. During the Persian War the Emperor realises the necessity of redressing the military discipline and cancelled the exemption (given as a privilege to the Christian soldiers probably by Galienus) from performance of any pagan ritual. Thus there arose a serious difference of opinion in the Church, and this developed in the course of time into a fatal schism among three groups, namely laxists, rigorists and moderates. The moderates to which most of the orthodoxy fathers belonged followed the traditional line endorsed by Callistus the Pope of Roman Church. Feeling obliged as soldiers of Christ (II Tim 2.3) to serve only one master, not two, they called upon all the church members to make a tenacious resistance to the demonic worship imposed by Romans. It was when Diocletian had taken notice of these apparently rebellious and well-organised activities of the Church that the Great Persecution was triggered off. The Church intended in fact nothing but to keep her faith pure by refusing to participate in any pagan rituals whereas the government regarded it as a kind of political sedition or even a declaration of war against the Empire. This interpretation fits in with the fact that at the end of the third century the image of Church held by the government changed. We should emphasise that in this period the Church had been for the first time acknowledged to be, not only a nation εθνοζ at all (e.g. HE 9.9a.1), but a nation seditious and pernicious to the Empire (MartPalaest 9.12; cf. Liv 39.13.14), as was explicitly accused of disloyalty in the "Edict of Toleration" of Galerius who complained of their "assembling various nations" for an evil purpose. Recognition of the Church as a nation means that the government recognised her as a political body with whom to negotiate. Thus the repressive measure could be followed and replaced immediately by a protective one. Persecution and protection were the two contradictory fruits proceeding from one and the same seed.

抄録全体を表示

Many scholars have pointed out that at the end of the fifteenth century, there were "Heretics" in Novgorod and that they either formed a sect of Judaism, or a group of iconoclasts or antitrinity proponents. However the problem of the heresy cannot be solved without discussing why and how churchmen judged them as heretics. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the process of such judgments. The author not only discusses the private view of the Archbishop of Novgorod, Gennadii (1485-1504), who first "discovered" the Heretics of Novgorod, but also investigate how his view differed from the official one. In the early days, Gennadii discovered the "Heretics of Markion and Messaria," who denied Christ, His Holy Mother and icons, and presented evidence of their heresy at their trial. In 1488, the council of Moscow accepted part of the evidence given by Gennadii and declared the three clerics changed to be heretics. However one diiak (the holy man of the church) was not convinced of this heresy for a lack of sufficient testimony. After the council of 1488, several others, who had settled in Moscow, were seen as heretics. At that time, the clergy of Novgorod was led by a priest of Arkhangelskii, Denis, and launched an attack on Gennadii. In addition to this group, a monk of Pskov, Zakhar, also attacked Gennadii and accused him of heresy. These counter-accusations were effective because Ivan III, the grand prince of Moscow (1462-1505), and the metropolitan Zosima of Moscow (1490-1494), were not very close to Gennadii, who immediately reaccused those groups as heretical. At the council in 1490, Gennadii's re-accusations were not accepted at first ; however, when the bishops who took part in the council arrested Denis and took him to the trial, Zakhar, Denis and the other clerics were condemned as the same heretics. It was this stage that finally Gennadii's orthodoxy was settled.

抄録全体を表示