The period from 1296 to the early 1500s was an era that saw significant change in the relationship between temporal and ecclesiastical authority. The driving force in relations between these two entities shifted from assessing the role of canon law to the strength of new ideas and political thought. Historians such as Ullmann place emphasis on the translation of Aristotelean ideas for this change whereas others, like Black and Coleman argue the change was as the result of a natural progression of political thought. Regardless, these changes sparked profound crises for ecclesiastical and temporal rulers signified by the disputes between King Philip IV of France and Pope Boniface VIII and the Great Schism of 1378-1418. Despite the existence
…show more content…
Historiographically, Ullmann is the traditional heavyweight on this period of medieval authority and whilst his ideas still have influence in the debate today, they are often challenged and contradicted. Black argues Ullmann’s opinion that ‘Aquinas ‘new’ theory of the state based on Aristotle worked as a catalyst transforming the way people looked at the relationship between church and state’ is too simplistic and that this fails to acknowledge the originality of medieval political thinkers. This challenges the assertion surrounding the importance of the translation of Aristotle’s ideas on causing the changes between temporal and ecclesiastical authority in this era. Coleman offers support for this by indicating that ‘it can no longer be thought that Europeans were taken by storm when Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics and politics were translated into Latin.’ This conveys the evolution of the historiographical debate, portraying that further research has allowed historians to understand more profoundly what influenced medieval political thinkers and how this impacted on the relationship between temporal and ecclesiastical authority. The original nature of the ideas of medieval political thinkers is an argument strongly supported by Canning who suggests ‘radically new ways of discussing power were developed in the period from the end of the 13th to the early …show more content…
The historiography of the relationship is significantly impacted by the outcome of the disputes between King Philip IV of France and Pope Boniface VIII as well as other smaller altercations. Ullmann argues that ecclesiastical authority already had a significant power base at the start of this era and was therefore trying to broaden its authority whereas secular authorities were trying to strengthen their position. It is evident that ecclesiastical authority was a fundamental part of medieval society and Tierney supports Ullmann with the assertion that ‘everyone agreed that the Church exercised a pervasive influence on all aspects of medieval society.’ In contrast to this, Black indicates that temporal authority was becoming more important as there was now ‘a legitimate society that was not the Church.’ This indicates the development of changing roles in society and the fluctuations in power which are clearest in relation to the disputes between King Philip IV of France and Pope Boniface VIII at the turn of the thirteenth century. The different historiographical approaches cause Strayer to argue that King Philip, and thus temporal authority, had more power as ‘a royal mandate was more efficacious than an excommunication’ whereas Black asserts that ecclesiastical authority had the advantage as ‘a king can be
Historiographically, Ullmann is the traditional heavyweight on this period of medieval authority and whilst his ideas still have influence in the debate today, they are often challenged and contradicted. Black argues Ullmann’s opinion that ‘Aquinas ‘new’ theory of the state based on Aristotle worked as a catalyst transforming the way people looked at the relationship between church and state’ is too simplistic and that this fails to acknowledge the originality of medieval political thinkers. This challenges the assertion surrounding the importance of the translation of Aristotle’s ideas on causing the changes between temporal and ecclesiastical authority in this era. Coleman offers support for this by indicating that ‘it can no longer be thought that Europeans were taken by storm when Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics and politics were translated into Latin.’ This conveys the evolution of the historiographical debate, portraying that further research has allowed historians to understand more profoundly what influenced medieval political thinkers and how this impacted on the relationship between temporal and ecclesiastical authority. The original nature of the ideas of medieval political thinkers is an argument strongly supported by Canning who suggests ‘radically new ways of discussing power were developed in the period from the end of the 13th to the early …show more content…
The historiography of the relationship is significantly impacted by the outcome of the disputes between King Philip IV of France and Pope Boniface VIII as well as other smaller altercations. Ullmann argues that ecclesiastical authority already had a significant power base at the start of this era and was therefore trying to broaden its authority whereas secular authorities were trying to strengthen their position. It is evident that ecclesiastical authority was a fundamental part of medieval society and Tierney supports Ullmann with the assertion that ‘everyone agreed that the Church exercised a pervasive influence on all aspects of medieval society.’ In contrast to this, Black indicates that temporal authority was becoming more important as there was now ‘a legitimate society that was not the Church.’ This indicates the development of changing roles in society and the fluctuations in power which are clearest in relation to the disputes between King Philip IV of France and Pope Boniface VIII at the turn of the thirteenth century. The different historiographical approaches cause Strayer to argue that King Philip, and thus temporal authority, had more power as ‘a royal mandate was more efficacious than an excommunication’ whereas Black asserts that ecclesiastical authority had the advantage as ‘a king can be