Harrell Prospectus

[George Harrell]

I will argue that lay investiture was an integral part of the formation of a united, ecclesiastical Christendom during Europe’s shift from micro-Christendoms to Christendom. Political union was underway with Pope Leo’s crowning of Charlemagne as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in 800, but during this time the Church continued to lack any centralization or structure from within. While the Church often looked to the bishopric of Rome for guidance, the papacy lacked the force and power to establish orthodoxy and hierarchy over the various Christian denominations of Europe. Thus, the kings and emperors provided a centralized focus for the Church in the absence of any ecclesiastical hierarchy. The monarchs proclaimed, established, maintained, and enforced orthodoxy most importantly through their investing and deposing of bishops and church leaders. The work of these Christo-mimetic kings enabled the Church to establish itself within the political unity until the Church was capable of taking over the reins of its own governing, as it did with Pope Gregory VII, with his ending of lay investiture and declaration of supremacy over the emperor through Henry III’s excommunication in 1076. Lay investiture gave the Church a theological unity, assisting it in its move from an ecclesial body to an ecclesiastical one.

[Chris Schlect]

 

George,

This is a fruitful topic for you to take on. Basic thrust is good. Some matters can use adjustment, per below, but after adjustments you will be on the right track.

1. Centralization entails a process of negotiation between center and periphery. A centralizing process can never be adequately explained by focusing only on the agency of the party who winds up holding power at the center. In your case, be sure that you don’t focus exclusively on the papacy in your explanation of how ecclesiastical power came to be centralized in the papacy.

2. Centralization is not inevitable, not inescapable, not a gravitational force pulling all power naturally inward. Be careful that you don’t frame centralization as a sort of natural condition toward which historical processes inevitably tend. Recognizing that a proposal like this is not your full-orbed thought on the matter, I don’t want to make too much of some of your remarks. At the same time, the way you discuss Charlemagne and monarchs and the church (e.g., when you say the church "lacked" centralization, as though it is a sign of immaturity or underdevelopment that is later remedied), I wonder whether you give due acknowledgment to centrifugal forces in history for all your attention to centripetal ones. This is a long way of saying that I want you to be sure and develop your discussion of centralization with attention to contingency in history.

3. On your treatment of monarchs…Remember that Carolingian unity was rather fleeting. Also, be sure to distinguish between western monarchs and Byzantine monarchs. Finally, I am also curious about your focus on monarchs in an age when other lords were often more influential. For instance, you might have a really hard time proving that monarchs preserved orthodoxy.

 

Look forward to your paper, George!

 

CRS