In her essay For the New Intellectual, Ayn Rand describes two “philosophical archetypes”, and implies that they can be seen in history:
“…’it was always the animal’s attributes, not man’s, that humanity worshiped: the idol of instinct and the idol of force -the mystics and the kings…the kings, who ruled by means of claws and muscles, with conquest as their method and looting as their aim…The defenders of man’s soul were concerned with his feelings, and the defenders of man’s body were concerned with his stomach-but both were united against his mind’ [Quoting Atlas Shrugged, Rand]
These two figures -the man of faith and the man of force -are philosophical archetypes, psychological symbols and historical reality…Attila, the man who rules by brute force…the Witch Doctor…escapes into his emotions, into visions of some mystic realm…” (Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, Rand, emphasis added.)
What are some historical examples of these two “philosophical archetypes”? The Middle Ages provide the best example. There were essentially two important institutions in this era: The Nobility and the Clergy.
The Nobility
Feudalism is the term used to describe the social, economic, and political system of the Middle Ages. Feudalism was characterized by: (1) Absolute power over the lives and property of all people in the state by a monarch:
“…the monarch claimed sovereignty over the whole state, even though his actual power was limited by the extent of his personal landholdings…most of the land was held by dukes, counts, archbishops, abbots, and warrior nobles of lesser degree, who owed certain obligations to the king as their overlord.” (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter 5: “The Creation of Europe: Political and Social Foundations”, Pg. 175)
(2) A system of doling out land and human beings (“fiefs” and “serfs”) to the king’s servants (vassals) who then had absolute authority over the lives and property of people in their fiefdoms in exchange for military service to the king; and (3) raw physical force and violence as the essence of the king’s power and the power of his vassals:
“…feudal relationship was extremely vague, consisting essentially of an unwritten bond that was subject to a wide range of interpretations. By the eleventh century, however, the feudal contract had evolved into a fairly standard form prescribing the exchange of property for personal service. The king or the duke -whoever granted property to another- stood in the position of ‘lord’: the recipient of the property was his ‘vassal.’ Property in the Middle Ages nearly always meant real estate, for land was the main source of wealth…since only professional warriors could provide physical protection and undertake the obligations of fief-holding, political and economic power remained in the hands of a military aristocracy (the nobility).” (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter 5: “The Creation of Europe: Political and Social Foundations”, Pg. 175-176, emphasis added.)
The Clergy
In essence, the Church stood for the following: First, selflessness in the here and now for eternal happiness after you die:
“…medieval men and women were more concerned with what lies beyond this world; they looked toward life eternal. And since the central role of the Church was to guide souls to everlasting salvation, the Church was regarded as the primary institution in society. So widespread was the Christian faith, and so confident the expectation of a better life after death, that the era is often called the Age of Faith.” (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter6: “The Flowering of Medieval Culture”, Pg. 189.)
What did the Clergy consider to be the ideal?: Asceticism. One of the earliest philosophers of Christianity set the tone. Augustine:
“…saw the struggle within himself as categorical: his love of worldly things versus his love of the Lord…Augustine concluded that bodily appetites…distract people from the contemplation of God. He denounced as sinful, therefore, even the simplest of physical pleasures…Their only hope for salvation is to pray for God’s help in bringing them to repentance and self-denial. Augustine gave up wife and child and lived like a monk.” (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter 4: “New Roots of Faith: Christianity”, Pg. 137.)
In essence, the Christians denied any values that could be obtained in this life as vice, and regarded them as a distraction from the infinitely better value the virtuous would supposedly receive after they died.
The second essential feature of the Medieval Church was belief in the impossibility of ever being totally virtuous in this life because of your “bodily appetites”:
“The holy life, in the Christian view, is not easily attained. It requires above all, self-discipline -strict control over the natural self and appetites. The very term ‘ascetic’ is derived from the Greek word for exercise practiced by a trained athlete…the ‘perfect’ Christian must gain control over his or her entire body and mind…No mortal can expect to succeed in emulating Jesus…to suffer, even as Christ suffered.” (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter 4: “New Roots of Faith: Christianity”, Pg. 139-140.)
The third and final essential moral and philosophic tenant of the Church was the need for a whole system of forgiveness so that you can still get into heaven when you die, given your “imperfect” existence:
“A general theory of the sacraments…had emerged by the eleventh century. It ran as follows: Adam’s (and Eve’s) Original Sin against God’s will has stained all human beings with guilt. Although this guilt can be washed away through the rite of baptism, men and women, by their sinful nature, continue to fall into disobedience and unseemly acts….the Lord in his goodness has created the sacraments as the means for transmitting that grace. Priests alone can administer the sacraments…” (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter6: “The Flowering of Medieval Culture”, Pg. 190.)
In essence, the Church created a centuries-wide “con game”, in which people were convinced they would either get eternal happiness or eternal suffering, but no one can be assured of that because of the need to give up everything necessary for living to achieve it. According to Church doctrine, achieving perfection on Earth is impossible without dying, since everything you need to do to live leads to “sin”. They then provided dispensation to those who wanted to live, which was almost everyone, in exchange for obedience to the Church and the dictates of its leadership.
What of the Producers In Medieval Europe?
What of the people who actually produced the food and other necessities for living in the Medieval Europe? This group had the least power, and was often tied to the land as serfs, which was a legal status just slightly better than slavery:
“In medieval society, the clergy, as guardians of people’s souls, were regarded as constituting the ‘first estate’ (class). The nobility, as protectors of life and property, were ranked as members of the ‘second estate’. All other men fell into the ‘third estate’ and were considered ‘commoners’. Though they made up about 90 percent of the population of Europe, these commoners had little political voice and even less social prestige.” (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter 5: “The Creation of Europe: Political and Social Foundations”, Pg. 178)
This is not to say that all nobles and priests were, in practice, 100% parasitic. They could farm the land too, and they did, but, to that extent, they weren’t Attila’s or Witch Doctors, they were producers. Keep in mind, these are philosophic archetypes, and few people are 100% “pure”. Additionally, we are talking more about institutions, the Church and the Nobility, rather than particular members of those institutions.
Attila Needs The Witch Doctor For Legitimacy With the Population He Subjugates
An obvious question is this: Why did the monarch and his vassals need the Church at all? They’ve got the weapons, don’t they? Couldn’t they force everyone into submission and take what they want?
Attila has a dilemma. He wants to rule over other people and extract material values from them rather than being productive himself. But, why him? Why not some other guy? If he rules purely on the basis of physical force, serfs will escape the first chance they get. No one will obey when his soldiers aren’t around. He’ll be assassinated by someone who thinks they should rule instead. He’ll risk being deposed by someone with a bigger army. He’d prefer to have the majority of people give a certain level of sanction or consent to his rule, so that their compliance is more voluntary. Attila wants the relationship with his subjects to be less involuntary than an outright hostage situation, where you’d constantly have to keep a weapon trained on your victims to keep them from running away.
Attila can’t say: “I should rule because I protect you better from the looters.” Does he want people thinking about his provision of an actual value to their lives? What if they decide someone else does that better and for cheaper? What if they start thinking about holding an election to decide who will hold political power? (Democracy had occurred prior to the Middle Ages.)
In early medieval history, there were often succession fights when a monarch died. His sons would vie for power, and the society would descend into chaos, and possibly be attacked from outside. For instance, when Charlemagne’s son, Louis the Pious died, he divided the kingdom of the Carolingian Empire between his three sons, and it disintegrated as dukes, counts, and other lords of the Empire usurped royal prerogatives. (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter 5: “The Creation of Europe: Political and Social Foundations”, Pg. 173) Attila needs a way of ensuring succession of his children when he dies.
The Church could provide the sanction, or legitimacy, the Nobles needed:
“Attila feels that the Witch Doctor can give him what he lacks: a long-range view, an insurance against the dark unknown of tomorrow or next week or next year, a code of moral values to sanction his actions and to disarm his victims.” (For the New Intellectual, Ayn Rand, emphasis added.)
Examples of How the Medieval Church Controlled The Nobility
But, in exchange for the legitimacy that the Church provided to the Nobility, the Nobility of Europe were somewhat beholden to the Church. They had to take into account Church opinion when setting domestic and foreign policy.
The vast majority of people in Europe took Christianity very seriously in this time. They believed that they could only be assured of getting into heaven, and not going to hell, through the Church.
As a result, the Church could control the nobility through the power of excommunication, which involved denying persons the sacraments, such as baptism, marriage, and penance. Especially without the last of these, there could be no forgiveness of sins. Every Christian believed that sin was inevitable, so without forgiveness through the Church they were certain to go to hell.
“If excommunication did not bring a ruler to his knees, the pope could resort to interdict. This was an order closing the churches and suspending the sacraments in a particular area or realm. A ruler, no matter what his own religious convictions, could scarcely ignore the interdict. For the faithful, fearing that their own souls were in jeopardy, would press the ruler to yield so that the churches might be reopened. Moreover, with the appearance of any sign of royal revolt the pope could supplement the interdict by declaring the ruler deposed, and releasing his subjects from obedience.” (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter6: “The Flowering of Medieval Culture”, Pg. 198.)
Why was excommunication and interdict by the Church so effective? Because the King’s secular authority flowed from the appearance in the public’s mind that he was chosen by god, through the Church, to be their ruler. Additionally, since the whole point of life was to prepare for the hereafter, the state, any state, was viewed as relatively unimportant if it threatened the faithful’s entrance into heaven.
The Witch Doctor Needs Attila To Provide Him With (Looted) Material Values to Survive
The Witch Doctor has his own dilemma. He believes in a “higher good”, and says that the production of the things necessary for living distract you form this “higher good”. He convinces others of this, in part, through his devotion to asceticism. The Church separated itself from the rest of society through monasteries and other institutions. Additionally, since Church leaders are acting on nothing but their feelings, they have no recourse to reason when other people say their feelings tell them something different. The Church needed to eliminate anyone who might tell their flock someone besides them holds the key to eternal salvation. Rational debate is not possible, since it’s all a matter of faith. The Witch Doctor refuses to produce material values on his own, so he is dependent on the producers for survival. He needs someone to plunder producers who refuse to feel guilty, and he also needs an enforcer to keep the faithful from straying from the “true word of god” -as only the Witch Doctor knows it.
Maintaining the Church’s flock is essential because, without it, the institution will perish. The Church membership could start producing material goods of their own. In fact, this would occur in the Middle Ages with some regularity. In A Brief History of Western Man, Greer notes that different monastic orders would regularly go through a cycle. They’d start out as institutions dedicated to asceticism and living a life free of “materialism”. Over time, a monastery like the house of Benedict would then acquire large land holdings, and become more and more involved in the affairs of the state and the world:
“The head of a monastery -the abbot- held the monastery’s property as a fief from some overlord, and he had the usual military, financial, and political responsibilities of a vassal. He met his obligations, in part, by granting some of the monastery’s lands to knights, who, as vassals of the abbot, performed the required military duties. From the ninth to the twelfth century, military contingents from monastic fiefs were important components of feudal armies.” (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter6: “The Flowering of Medieval Culture”, Pg. 194.)
There would then be a cycle of reform, in which a new monastic order would come about, rededicated to asceticism and staying out of “worldly affairs”. For instance, the Burgundian monastery of Cluny, founded in 910, placed itself under the direct authority of the pope. Simony, which was the selling of ecclesiastical services or offices, was reduced, and priestly celibacy was more strictly enforced. By the twelfth century, however: “…the monks of Cluny slipped into the ways of material ease.” (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter6: “The Flowering of Medieval Culture”, Pg. 196.)
This pattern of increased Church involvement in “worldly affairs” occurred in the realm of politics as well. Several popes tried to bring the Church into a position of secular supremacy over the Nobility, and not just “spiritual supremacy”. Pope Gregory VII:
“…linked the battle against simony and for clerical celibacy—chief characteristics of 11th-century ecclesiastical reform—with a marked emphasis on the papal primacy… Papal primacy included the subordination of all secular governments to papal authority…” (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Gregory-VII/Pontificate )
In 1202, Pope , Innocent III became involved in a conflict between King Philip II Augustus of France and King John of England. Philip had stripped John of his holdings in France, starting a war:
“The pope responded in a decretal letter, Novit ille (“He Knows”), in which he refused to condemn Philip but stated that he could intervene in secular matters by ratio peccati (“reason of sin”). Novit ille became a part of canon law and justified papal and ecclesiastical interference in secular affairs for centuries.” (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Innocent-III-pope )
In the early Fourteenth Century, Pope Boniface VIII came into conflict with King Philip IV of France over the state’s taxation of Church property and other issues that eventually resulted in Philip capturing the Pope before he could publicly excommunicate the King. (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Boniface-VIII/ )
The taxation issue illustrates an example of the Church’s probable loss of legitimacy due to its increased “materialism”. I hypothesize that by the 1300’s the church would have acquired large sums of wealth. (This would require more historical research to confirm.) I base this hypothesis on economic principles. If the Medieval policy wasn’t to tax church wealth, then, in effect, this would have created a massive tax shelter for acquiring and accumulating fortunes:
“Over the centuries the religious houses became large landholders, and, though the monks themselves were bound by vows of poverty, the corporate wealth of the monasteries rose steadily.” (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter6: “The Flowering of Medieval Culture”, Pg. 194.)
The Church’s legitimacy lay in its assertion that the matters of this world were unimportant and that poverty and self-denial were the ideal. Most people would see the opulence of Monasteries and the interference of popes in affairs of state as hypocritical. If the Church became too independent in the production of its own wealth, then that would tend to undercut its professed purpose. The Church couldn’t become a secular producer of wealth without undercutting its reason for existence as a saver of souls from worldly sin. The internal logic of its own doctrine required that the Church remain dependent on Attila, the Nobility, for its existence.
The Church and Monarchy Had an Uneasy Alliance
The only way for the Church and Nobility to maintain their respective monopolies on morality and the use of physical force was for each to provide support for the other, but this alliance was always uneasy. The conflicts between the monarchy and Popes Gregory, Innocent, and Boniface discussed previously illustrate this fact. Ayn Rand described it this way:
“…the alliance of the two rulers is precarious: it is based on mutual fear and mutual contempt. Attila is an extrovert, resentful of any concern with consciousness -the Witch Doctor is an introvert, resentful of any concern with physical existence. Attila professes scorn for values, ideals, principles, theories, abstractions -the Witch Doctor professes scorn for material property, for wealth, for man’s body, for this earth. Attila considers the Witch Doctor impractical -the Witch Doctor considers Attila immoral. But, secretly, each of them believes that the other possesses a mysterious faculty he lacks, that the other is the true master of reality, the true exponent of the power to deal with existence. In terms, not of thought, but of chronic anxiety, it is the Witch Doctor who believes that brute force rules the world -and it is Attila who believes in the supernatural; his name for it is ‘fate’ or ‘luck’.” (Rand, For the New Intellectual)
Conclusion
The alliance between the Nobility and the Church lasted for about a thousand years. The system would eventually break down as new ideas entered the European scene. Thinkers began to question both the Church’s monopoly on morality, and also the fundamental philosophical underpinnings of that morality:
“Growing contact with Constantinople and the Muslim world prompted Latin translations, from Greek Arabic, or Hebrew, of many of the works of Aristotle as well as books of Hellenistic science, mathematics, and medicine…The stimulus from the East lifted the intellectual life of Europe beyond the level of earlier monastic and cathedral education.” (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter6: “The Flowering of Medieval Culture”, Pg. 214.)
The social system was transformed by increased trade and production:
“The relatively static, agrarian economy of the Middle Ages steadily gave way to a more dynamic, commercial economy, and this economic change produced social change. New social ranks appeared; serfdom grew obsolete; the entire class structure became more fluid….freedom of the individual was enhanced….ethical and philosophical views were bound to alter…medieval ideals of asceticism, poverty, and humility were thrust aside by the ‘modern’ aspirations for pleasure, money, and status.” (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter 7: “Transformation and Expansion of Europe”, Pg. 233-234.)
Initially, monarchs became less dependent on the Church for legitimacy, and often became more despotic in the short-run:
“…monarchs found that they could exercise a larger measure of direct authority over their kingdoms. Feudal regimes gradually gave way to despotic national states.” (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter 7: “Transformation and Expansion of Europe”, Pg. 234.)
But, without the Church to provide the monarchs with legitimacy, they needed some other basis for justifying their existence. There was an intellectual turn to the secular, earthly benefits the state could produce. Machiavelli’s work, The Prince, rejected a heavenly basis for the state:
“The state, he thought, does not rest on any supernatural sanction. It provides its own justification, and it operates according to rules that have grown out of the ‘facts’ of human nature. He thereby removed politics from Christian ideology and placed it on a purely secular level.” (“A Brief History of Western Man”, 3d Ed., Greer, Thomas, 1977 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Chapter 7: “Transformation and Expansion of Europe”, Pg. 254.)
In essence, the State became just another institution among men, serving purely secular needs. It was not much different from the newly emerging corporations and other capitalist institutions. The state served the people’s interests.
The logic of these ideas would eventually suggest that if government wasn’t performing its function, it could be reformed or abolished. After the Renaissance, the Medieval version of Attila, the Nobility, was living on borrowed time. Complete fruition of these ideas came with the American Revolution of 1765, when Attila and the Witch Doctor were banished from the State in favor of rule of law and freedom of conscience, as embodied in the US Constitution.