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，米兰教会是西方教会中罗马的主要竞争对手，也是一个重要的教区，在那里进行了授权竞争。通过对地区主义与普遍主义的分析，它将加深我们对微观和宏观层面上相互冲突的身份认同的认识，并通过对制度主体内竞争等级的评估，它将增强我们如何在更广泛的范围内解释制度内的权力模型。目的是：1)以米兰为案例研究，提供一种修正的方法，这种方法将改变我们在激进的制度转型时期理解拉丁基督教会内部竞争等级的方式。2)考虑到十世纪意大利国王的“失败”，以及随着帝国权威逐渐向更本地化的权力结构倾斜，米兰如何接受教皇的普世权威主张。3)通过米兰教会的棱镜，调和公民爱国主义在米兰的发展，以及对罗马的忠诚。米兰是研究拉丁教会内部制度等级的理想候选城市，因为它享有盛誉，地理位置接近，并有潜在威胁罗马的竞争对手。米兰的经济实力超过了罗马教皇，它具有强烈的身份和丰富的教会历史；大主教有自己的原始主张，甚至有自己的礼拜仪式——这两者都与11世纪诞生的复活的教皇的主张不一致，它在其他地方与之争论。教皇尖锐地主张对拉丁基督教世界的普遍权威，甚至与那些挑战它的人交战。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中涉及多少政治权宜之计。对教皇和米兰人的关系进行新的、扩展的分析有很大的空间，因为米兰人对教会和公共的忠诚，从神圣罗马帝国蜿蜒到教皇——我打算发现这是为什么，以及最终教皇的忠诚有多安全——它是如何影响和受社会和公民身份的影响的。安布罗斯的传统受到珍视，这激起了对教皇改革的抵制——在拉丁教会的等级制度中，大主教的这种强烈身份在哪里？在这个权力结构发生巨大变化的时期，人们的注意力主要集中在regnum（王国）和sacerdotium（祭司）之间的冲突上。迫切需要对机构间动态进行研究，以便准确地勾勒出更臭名昭著的冲突。该方法将包括对与米兰教会有关的宪章证据的详尽分析，以及任何大主教和教皇的文件，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。在这些来源中，我将进行细致的词法分析，提供用于定义关系的关键拉丁术语的仔细检查。我们目前的大部分认知都是基于有问题的翻译/解释和潜在的误读，而对词汇的更密切的批判性和上下文关注将使我能够修改和细微地理解教皇与米兰人的相互关系。我将研究官方语言是如何被呈现和改变的，某些惯例有时被省略或包括在内，并密切关注官方语言的词汇如何与外交背后的政治操纵变化联系起来——最终归结为：语言就是力量。评估双方如何展示自己和对方，将发现有关各自感知身份的重要证据。我将测试这是一种便利的友谊的假设，从而全面修改对教皇君主制自上而下的理解，在一个普遍主义模型的位置。

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.