周雪慧

貝基特 (Thomas Becket) 的被殺1170

 

11701229日的早上,坎特伯里大主教貝基特在大教堂內為四名武士所謀殺,而此事竟令致4年後英王享利二世需向教會及人民負荊請罪。

貝基特乃英格蘭人,他出身於中產階級家庭,並曾在巴黎受教於大哲學家艾比拉(Abelard)門下[1]。他於25歲之年,開始參與了英國坎特伯里大主教德奧保(Theobald)的教會事務,並受賞識成為培植的人才。為建立教會與皇權的一度橋樑,或是在皇權身旁放下一只棋子,大主教德奧保把貝基特介紹給英王享利二世作為顧問,而貝基特在很短的時間便成為享利非常要好的朋友,並於1155年受享利任命擔當了英國的首相。在任期間,他盡力為皇權經營,如作為英國特使與法國結盟、在教會與俗世事務中永遠站於皇權的一方等[2]。貝基特在大主教德奧保於1161年逝世後被享利提名接任坎特伯里大主教一職,享利希望將貝基特安插於英格蘭最崇高的教職,憑藉他與貝基特的密切關係,最終可對教會作出控制(包括對人民的信仰及土地),藉此使皇權更穩固。

但貝基特於接任後卻對享利的態度有了重大的改變,他們的關係因土地的徵稅、神職人員犯罪後的司法處理等問題變得愈來愈惡劣,最後貝基特於1164年被迫流亡法國,他雖於1170年得享利的許可回到坎特伯里,但最後得到被殺的下場,這一切都在他就任大主教前隱隱在他的談話中透露了出來。[3]

教權與皇權的鬥爭在中世紀時有發生,但貝基特大主教的被殺除了是教權與皇權的爭鬥的結果外,在俗世皇權的管治中帶茯し繴N義?貝基特的死亡又帶來甚麼意義?

(一)教權與皇權的鬥爭

基督教會被承認為合法的宗教團體始於313年君士坦丁大帝的「米蘭諭旨」呼籲異教與基督教互相容忍,自此教會的勢力逐漸穩固及強大。

五世紀時教皇的理論是在基督教世界,君主及地主接受教士和主教的精神領導,而教士和主教則以教皇為領袖,帶出了宗教的權力勝於俗世侯王、君主及帝皇的權力。[4]

至十一世紀期間,教會為負擔世俗的行政責任,已逐漸荒忽其神聖使命,成為依附世俗皇權的從屬,為世俗政要支配。[5]

此時不少改革者要求教會及教皇作出改革,他們認為教皇是基督教世界堻怜空v力所在,世俗的皇權亦應聽命於教皇及教會。自此教權和皇權之鬥爭無日無之。

諾曼第公爵威廉於1066年以外來者征服了英格蘭而成為英王威廉一世,他所要做的第一件事便是要鞏固皇權。他除了將一些土地分封給他的貴族以保障皇權外,他亦選用了忠心的蘭法朗(Lanfranc)來協助他管治英格蘭的教會,以及安排一些對他盡忠的人在教會作主教,用以控制教會的勢力,他亦制定了數項措施以防止羅馬教會對英格蘭教會作出影響。[6]此後的英王如威廉二世、享利一世等大致都跟隨征服者威廉的方向去控制教會的權力,但由於享利一世的女兒與外甥史提芬爭奪王位,至令教權開始膨脹起來。[7]直到享利二世登位後,他亦希望能像曾祖父一般控制教會的勢力,使他的皇權可穩固地發展。

(二)享利二世與貝基特之間的矛盾

享利安排好友貝基特接任坎特伯里大主教一職便是他要控制教會的第一步,可惜事與願違,貝基特尚沒有接任前已警告享利有關他日後在教會內的行事所為。[8]可惜享利沒有意會到貝基特說話的含意,一意認為以他們密切的關係,並未想到貝基特會背叛他。

貝基特任大主教後對皇權的態度及行為與任首相時大相逕庭[9],有說他是一個非常有野心的人,對權力渴望,在擁有權力後便不惜代價來實踐;亦有說他真心想侍奉教會,期望以他的影響力來為教會作事。無論那一說都使他及享利的關係及複雜,雙方之間的裂痕更深,導至無法修補,並為此付出沉重的代價。

他們雙方的矛盾始於皇權要徵收教會稅項,而貝基特認為這是對教會的無理要求,拒絕繳交,而享利亦對此讓步。但神職人員犯罪後因其身份的關係不可能到俗世司法法庭接受審判,只在教會法庭受[10],這讓享利感到君王對人民的管治權受到破壞和牽制,皇權的威望受損,這是他作為一個有魄力的君王所不能接受的。

為此,享利決意仿效他的曾祖父征服者威廉對教會的強烈控制,他制定了卡蘭登憲法(Constitution of Clarendon),憲法內16項條款中有數項被教皇認為是對教會造成侮辱及損害[11],所以貝基特拒絕簽署確認,這令他跟享利的抗衡更強烈,而他亦被借故召喚到法庭及開始其流亡生涯。

(三)死亡的意義

細看卡蘭登憲法中的被認為是羞辱教會的條款,不難發現享利只是想將教會的狀態回復到威廉一世及享利一世的時期[12],而這情況是在史提芬時期被破壞了的。享利只期望教會受到君王的控制,但卻保持良好的關係,他無意超越其祖上的做法,他只是決心維護作為君王對英格蘭的管治權[13],但貝基特的堅持拒絕接受條款,不但導致流亡海外,亦導致死亡。在教皇的調停下,1170年時享利容許貝基特回到坎特伯里,但他不理勸告,堅持把站在享利一方的人開除其教藉,使享利震怒不已,而四位武士在他不知情下謀殺了貝基特,期望結束雙方多年來的紛爭。

雖然貝基特隨時願意為基督及教會作出犧牲,甚至付出生命[14],但貝基特的死亡並沒有意義,它不能解決他與享利又或是皇權與教權之間存在的問題。

貝基特應理解到教會是服務上主及作為人民精神的領導,縱使有不少支持者,但在俗世中仍不能與皇權並行,因皇權擁有土地及人民的管治權,甚至三次十字軍東征,若沒有君王經濟的投入,一切亦是徒勞無功,固此教權與皇權之間應互相協調,達至和平相處。



[1] 卓伊Å柯拉尼克Å卡普蘭,《開創時代政治巨人Å艾利諾》,頁69

[2] http://www.bartleby.com/65/th/ThomasaB.html

[3] "Should God permit me to be the archbishop of Canterbury, I would soon lose your Majesty's favor, and the affection with which you honor me would be changed into hatred. For there are several things you do now in prejudice of the rights of the Church which make me fear you would require of me what I could not agree to;”  http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/THOMBECK.htm

[4] C.Warren Hollister,張學明譯,西洋中古史》,頁189-190

[5] C.Warren Hollister,張學明譯,西洋中古史》,頁180-191

[6] ‘When there were rival Popes, as was liable to happen at this period, he, William, would decide which one should be recognized. He would allow no emissary from the Pope to visit his land without special permission, and then only as an envoy to himself. None of his tenants-in-chief might be excommunicated without his permission, and no letter from the Pope might be received by any of his subjects without his authorization. And even then he claimed the right to read it first. Still less was any subject to be allowed to leave the kingdon and visit the Pope without asking the King’s leave. And this was not easy to obtain for William appears to have felt, and not reasonably, that a great deal of unnecessary trouble would be avoided if ecclesiastics were kept well away from the papal court.’  Nesta Pain, The King And Becket, page 62

[7] ‘In particular , the Church courts succeeded in widening their powers to a considerable extent, partly because the secular courts, during the years of civil war, had tended to become ineffective. Stephen had little of the spirit of his grandfather, William the Conqueror, and he seems to have thought that he could not afford to alienate the Church by refusing to obey.  He did refuse to appear as a defendant in person, but he consented to come to Winchester where the Council was held, and he allowed his subjects to sit in judgment on him. It was altogether a stange and humiliating situation for an English king.  Nesta Pain, The King And Becket, page 71-72

[8] ‘You are choosing a fine dress to figure at the head of your Canterbury monks,’ he said. And then he warned Henry that he would soon learn to hate him as much as he loved him now, for if once he were made Archbishop he would never allow Henry to interfere in Church affairs in the way he intended.  Nesta Pain, The King And Becket, page 77

[9] Becket transformed himself. He put aside his rich clothing which had been the admiration of Europe, and wore instead the sober habit of a monk. Nor was this all. Next to his skin he put on a hair-shirt of the roughest kind which fell to his knees and swarmed, so a devoted admirer tells us, with lice. His charities, his persistence in prayer, his mortifications, became as famous as his banquets had been in days gone by.’  Nesta Pain, The King And Becket, page 84

[10] ‘The crunch came with Henry’s attempts to deal with the problem of ‘criminous clerks’. About one in six of the population of England were clergymen, many of whom were not ordained to the priesthood. These lay clergy could claim the right to be tried in ecclesiastical courts like their ordained brethren, where they would invariably receive a more lenient sentence than if tried in the criminal courts of the land. For Henry, the problem was part and parcel of the need to restore order after the chaos of the tempus were (a term coined by the medieval chroniclers to describe the time of war and anarchy which marked the civil war between and Matilda), but for Becket, the King’s concern over criminous clerks was a question of clerical immunity from secular jurisdiction.’  http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/church_reformation/becket_03.shtml

[11] ‘The clauses which aroused particular hostility from churchmen dealt with the treatment of criminous clerks, the excommunication of tenants-in-chief, the right of clergy to leave the kingdom, and appeals to Rome.’   Nesta Pain,The King And Becket, page 101

[12] ‘The provision that tenants-in-chief were not to be excommunicated without the King’s permission was unquestionably in force in the days of William the Conqueror and Henry I. The provision that clergy were not to leave the kingdom without the King’s permission was also genuinely and ‘ancestral custom’ which went back to the days of the Conqueror.  It was, however, the clause dealing with men in holy orders who had committed crimes which aroused the most violent opposition.  The clause lays down that a clerk ‘cited and accused on any account shall come before the King’s court when summoned by the King’s Justice and shall there answer concerning whatever matters seem to the court to be answerable there; the clerk shall then answer before the ecclesiastical court for whatever seems to that court to be answerable there; but the King’s Justice shall send an officer to the court of holy Church to watch the course of the trial; and if the clerk be convicted, or shall confess, the Church ought no longer to protect him.’  Nesta Pain,The King And Becket, page 101-102

[13] ‘There seems to be no reason to suppose that Henry’s motives in proposing these reforms lay in hostility to the Church or a desire to harm her.  Certainly he intended to be master in his kingdom and to put right what he considered to be the back-slidings of Stephen’s day.’  Nesta Pain,The King And Becket, page 103

[14] ‘And I will die for my Lord when the time comes,’ was Becket’s answer.’  Nesta Pain,The King And Becket, page 96