Competing Hierarchies and Civic Identity: The Papacy and the Church of Milan, c.1000-1250

拟议的研究将调查教皇和米兰教会之间的政治和教会关系，米兰教会是罗马在西方教会的主要竞争对手，也是授勋竞赛争夺的一个关键教区。分析地区主义与普世主义，它将加深我们对微观和宏观层面上相互冲突的身份的认识，并通过对机构机构内相互竞争的等级的评估，将加强我们在更广泛范围内解释机构内权力模式的方式。目的是：1)以米兰为案例研究，提供一种修正性的方法，将改变我们在激进制度变革时期理解拉丁基督教教会内部相互竞争的等级的方式。2)理解如何在10世纪意大利国王失败的情况下，随着帝国权威的衰落，转向更本地化的权力结构。米兰接受了教皇关于普世权威的主张。3)为了调和公民爱国主义在米兰是如何通过其教会的棱镜发展起来的，以及对罗马的效忠。米兰是一个理想的案例研究对象，研究拉丁教会内的制度等级制度，因为它是罗马的著名、地理上接近的、潜在的威胁对手。米兰的经济实力超过了教皇，它拥有强大的身份和丰富的教会历史；大主教拥有自己的原始主张，甚至有自己的礼拜仪式--这两者都与11世纪诞生的复兴教皇的主张相抵触，而它在其他地方对此提出了质疑。教皇强硬地维护着对拉丁基督教世界的普遍权威，甚至与那些挑战它的人发生了冲突。对米兰的让步与此形成对比，并提出了一个问题，即教皇君主制的起源在多大程度上涉及政治上的权宜之计。对教皇和米兰人的关系进行新的、广泛的分析有很大的空间，因为米兰人对教会和公共性的忠诚从神圣罗马帝国到教皇-我打算发现这是为什么，以及最终的教皇忠诚是多么可靠-它是如何影响和影响社会和公民身份的。安布罗西亚传统受到珍视，引发了对教皇改革的抵制--这种强烈的身份认同在拉丁教会等级制度中处于大主教的什么位置？在这个权力结构急剧变化的时期，人们的注意力主要集中在regnum(王国)和saerdotium(神职人员)之间的冲突上。迫切需要对机构间动态进行研究，以便准确地框定更多臭名昭著的外部冲突。这种方法将涉及对与米兰教会有关的宪章证据以及任何档案主教和教皇文件的详尽分析，如与教皇和米兰大主教之间关系有关的信件、法令和理事会报告。在这些资料中，我将进行细致的词汇分析，仔细研究用来定义这种关系的关键拉丁语术语。我们目前的许多看法都是基于有问题的翻译/解释和潜在的误读，对词汇的更密切的批判性、语境的关注将使我能够修改和细微差别地理解教皇和米兰人的相互关系。我将研究官方语言是如何呈现和改变的，有时会省略或纳入某些惯例，密切关注官方语言的词语与外交背后政治操作的变化--最终归结为：语言就是力量--之间的关系。对双方如何呈现自己和对方的评估，将发现关于各自感知身份的重要证据。我将检验这是一种便利之友的假设，从而全面修正对教皇君主制的理解，即从普遍主义模式的立场出发，自上而下。

The proposed research will investigate the political and ecclesiastical relationship between the papacy and the Church of Milan, the chief competitor to Rome in the western Church, and a crucial diocese over which the Investiture Contest was fought. Analysing regionalism versus universalism, it will deepen our knowledge of conflicting identities at both the micro and the macro level, and through the assessment of competing hierarchies within an institutional body it will enhance how we interpret models of power within institutions on a broader scale.The aims are:1)Using Milan as a case study, to offer a revisionary approach which will change the way we understand competing hierarchies within the Latin Christian Church at a time of radical institutional transformation.2)To understand how, given the 'failure' of the Italian kings in the tenth century, and as imperial authority receded in favour of more localised power structures, the papal claim of universal authority was received in Milan.3)To reconcile how civic patriotism developed in Milan, through the prism of its Church, alongside allegiance to Rome.Milan is an ideal candidate for a case study on institutional hierarchies within the Latin Church as it was a prestigious, geographically close, and potentially threatening rival of Rome. Milan's economic power exceeded that of the papacy, it had a strong identity and rich ecclesiastical history; the archbishopric held its own primatial claims and even had its own liturgy - both at odds with the assertions of the revived papacy born in the eleventh century, which it contested elsewhere. The papacy stridently asserted universal authority over Latin Christendom, even warring with those who challenged it. Concessions made to Milan contrast this and beg the question of how much political expediency was involved in the genesis of the papal monarchy.There is great scope for a new, extended analysis of the papal-Milanese relationship, as Milanese allegiances, of both the Church and commonality, meandered from Holy Roman Empire to papacy - I intend to discover why this was, and how secure the eventual papal loyalty was - how it affected and was affected by social and civic identity. Ambrosian traditions were cherished, spurring resistance to papal reform - where did this strong identity sit in the archbishopric's place in the Latin Church hierarchy? In this period of dramatic change in power structures, attention has predominantly been focused on clashes between regnum (kingdom) and sacerdotium (priesthood). A study of inter-institutional dynamics is desperately needed in order to accurately frame more notorious conflicts without. The methodology will involve an exhaustive analysis of the charter evidence relating to the Milanese Church, and any archiepiscopal and papal documents such as letters, decrees, and council reports relevant to the relationship between the papacy and the archbishopric of Milan. In these sources I will undertake a meticulous lexical analysis, offering a close examination of key Latin terminology used to define the relationship. Much of our current perception is based on problematic translations/interpretations and potential mis-readings, and a closer critical, contextual focus on vocabulary will enable me to revise and nuance understandings of the papal-Milanese interrelationship. I will examine how official language was presented and changed, with certain conventions at times omitted or included, paying close attention to how the words of official language relate to shifts in political manoeuvring behind the diplomatic - ultimately boiling down to: language is power. Assessment of how both parties presented themselves, and the other, will unearth important evidence regarding respective perceived identities. I will test the hypothesis that this was a friendship of convenience and thus comprehensively revise the understanding of the papal monarchy as top-down in a position of a universalist model.