Eleventh-Century Context

Goals (September 19th and 21st)

This week will conclude our rapid introduction to the prehistory of the Investiture Controversy and introduce students to Reacting to the Past game play. We will:

• learn about the immediate historical background for the Pataria minigame that we will play on Wednesday. Students will read a primary source that conveys the events but also how historical actors spoke, as a necessary starting point for gameplay

• the professor will distribute character sheets for the game (September 20th)

• on Monday we will give you a sense of what to expect in the game and Wednesday's session should be understood as a "soft opening" – a chance to practice speaking and getting into character before the main game narrative opens...

• submit your written profile on September 23rd, 4pm.

Overview

• learn about the political, social and religious conflict of the mid and late eleventh century

• play a minigame on the Pataria (Patarene) movement in Milan. This should really be viewed as an in-game tutorial of sorts. It allows students to spend a day getting acquainted with the mechanics and issues of the game and getting comfortable with role playing and public speaking. Each player’s character sheet will contains a short addendum describing their Milanese alter-ego. As the opening vignette lays out, this first session takes place in the rowdy streets of Milan where passionate (but perhaps uninformed) folk argue (and fight?) over the current state of affairs in the Milanese church.

• For our first day of game play, we will meet up in the streets of Milan, to join a passionate discussion of commoners who are arguing over what the raging fires augur for the future of Milan. Will the Patarenes be triumphant in imposing their religious Reform on the Milanese clergy or will the establishment force a return to the old ways? Be prepared (arguments, texts to cite) and at very least know your "Milanese name" (see the last page of your character description). Your goal is to be dramatic, to be passionate, to be in character. And if you don't have an answer, the point of this is also to practice your rhetorical skills. If someone makes a good point that you can't refute, suggest that they are incomprehensible. If they cite too much scripture, call them too "bookish". IF someone seems to be swaying hearts and minds, accuse them of adultery..... Anything (well mostly) goes on the hard streets of Milan.

  • The session is centered around the issues of papal supremacy over secular rulers and the validity of lay investiture. For this session, players should be sure to carefully read at least Dictatus papae from the primary sources section of the game book. For this session the GM will act as the moderator of the debates, taking on the persona of the truffle-forager from the opening vignette of the game book.

  • For this session, I (Marc) will act as the moderator of the debates, taking on the persona of the truffle-forager from the opening vignette of the game book. At the top of the session, players will have a few moments to discuss strategy with their factions before launching into debate. In future weeks, faction leaders will be leading the discussion, starting with Henry IV.

  • The social and religious uproar in Milan revolved around who got to appoint the bishop of Milan. Within Milan there were different factions and they appealed to both Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII. A local conflict thus became the catalyst for an opposition between king and pope.

[Henry IV began his rule with a major conflict:] Milan, where a new archbishop had to be elected after the incumbent Guido had resigned. The social unrest leading to Guido’s resignation continued to disrupt the city and led to violence at the archiepiscopal election. As in all other churches, there was no established procedure that would have allowed them to reach a peaceful decision. The only electoral “law” available was a venerable old formula stipulating that an episcopal election should be done “by clergy and people” (clero et populo). This formula was not concerned with procedure but presumed unanimity in acceding to the will of God. In actual practice, the will of God was believed to manifest itself in the consensus of the important men of a given community, whose authority the others were made to follow. This, however, could not be had in strife-ridden Milan, where the faction that had supported Guido followed custom by turning to the king for the investiture of their candidate, whereas the revolting “Pataria” sought and received support from the popes, an unlikely alliance given the proud self-assertion of the Ambrosian Church. Popes supported the Patarene candidate in the name of “church reform” against “evil customs.” Thus Henry became the enemy of the papacy. The conflict escalated when Gregory VII became pope in 1073. He claimed to be speaking and acting in the name of “truth” and “the liberty of the church,” and demanded obedience from the king, which Henry refused, claiming to defend his customary royal rights against unheard-of presumptions.

Hanna Vollrath, "Sutri 1046—Canossa 1077—Rome 1111: Problems of Communication and the Perception of Neighbors" (p. 146)

Read/Watch/Listen

Before Wednesday's class, read and annotate Andrea di Sturmo's Passion of Arialdo describing the end of the Patarine movement in Milan. This account is a hagiographic work, which means the author is writing (graphos) in order to argue that the subject is a saint (hagios). Your goal is to pick up how the author is writing as a way to think about how you might speak and argue in the opening gameplay/ debate on Wednesday.

If you really want to get a sense of how to understand the text/ these events, read (and annotate) the optional article by Piroska Nagy looking at how the text (and speakers in the moment) used emotion to harness support and provoke a reaction (and ultimately spark violence).

Practice

On September 21st, we will play the Pataria minigame, which simulates the religious foment happening in Italian urban communities in the eleventh century. Whichever faction wins the debate/ game gains a minor advantage in future sessions.