At the end of the 9th century the building built by Charlemagne it had now flaked apart. The Frankish monarchy had separated from the empire which, under the dynasty of the Ottos, became the one that will go down in history as the Roman-Germanic Empire. Meanwhile, the Normans set out to conquer a part of northern France and England.
Also the Palatine school disappears:we are at the end of the ninth century. In some centers, such as in Auxerre, in the second half of the ninth century, philosophy did not seem to give up. Dialectical studies continued and there were numerous comments on the logical and theological writings of Boethius (especially on the age-old problem of universals).
The tenth century will be an era of cultural poverty with the sole exception of monastic life and culture, but Gerberto , monk of Aurillac, is an exception. Gerbert had lived as a monk in the Ripoll monastery in Catalonia, on the edge of a Muslim-controlled territory. He then moved on to Reims where his fame linked to teaching the arts of the crossroads and crossroads had brought him numerous students. Finally, we find him in Bobbio where he had held the office of abbot on the appointment of Emperor Otto II.
That of Gerbert of Aurillac is a multifaceted, fascinating figure, on the border between history, philosophy, myth and folklore. Let's see what we can say with "certainty". Otto III remembered him when it came to holding the archbishopric of Ravenna in 998, then the papal throne in 999. As pope, Sylvester II was much more than a "simple" court chaplain. He was the first to understand the importance of Christian societies which were forming east of the German world; in fact, he promoted the evangelization of the Slavic peoples and, just to give an example, he recognized Stephen I as king of a new Christian nation, the Hungarian one. He died in 1003, after being expelled together with the emperor two years earlier, and after suffering a strong humiliation by the noble Crescenzi family.
But why is he such an important figure? He is not the only philosopher, politician and scientist of his time! This is exactly the point. He is not the only one, certainly, but is the only one not aligned with the dominant culture. I am not referring so much to his work as a philosopher which you find, if you are interested, especially in an essay, On rationality and the use of reason, thought of as a dispute in the court of Otto III. I am referring instead to his activity as a “scientist”.
From traveling to Spain he inherited a strong passion for mathematics and astronomy ; he often went in search of books and tools - such as the abacus and the armillary sphere - to observe and study the stars. he undoubtedly had a new vision of culture and teaching, if compared to that spread around the year 1000, culture intended primarily as the reading and exegesis of sacred texts (later by ancient philosophers).
It was precisely this feature that created a legendary halo around him that painted him as a wizard , a sorcerer who had come to terms with the devil to learn the ways that led to the treasures buried in the subsoil of Rome. Either for the desire to know or, again, to get fame and recognition. These instances are found in Arturo Graf's work, entitled Myths, legends and superstitions of the Middle Ages.
Who is Arturo Graf? Born in Athens in 1848 to a German father and an Italian mother, Graf spent his childhood in Trieste and Romania; he completed his high school and university studies in Naples where he came into contact with De Sanctis. In 1876 he began his university career in Rome and in 1882 he became a professor at the University of Turin where in 1883 he was appointed rector. In 1883 he was one of the founders of the Historical Journal of Italian Literature .
He left teaching in 1907 (he died in 1913). Between 1892 and 1893 he published in two volumes a collection of essays entitled Myths, legends and superstitions of the Middle Ages which was unsuccessful due to the negative judgment given by Benedetto Croce, according to which Graf would have been incapable of an authentic scientific industriousness (fortunately the French school of the Annales has finally recognized the merits).
Graf did not only make contributions to Dante's demonology. In the essay The legend of a pontiff (Sylvester II) retraces the story of Aurillac's scholar, portraying him as a magician in the context of the study of the suspicions and distrust that popular opinion harbored towards the attractions of power. In this context, Sylvester II becomes an emblem of the use of demonic-derived magic precisely because of his familiarity with science. What's the point? The myth in Graf is not only an expression of fantastic thought, but has a historical root as it is intended as a projection of a belief (or inner fantasy) in time and space.
And here is the popular belief that originates the myth of the "wicked magician" originates from the distrust of science. The use of the cloak of magic is certainly a good literary artifice. If, however, we abstract from this aspect and ask ourselves some questions about the meaning of a story of this type, we discover that the topic is current. I recommend Graf's book not only because it is well written and is a mine of curiosities for the history buff, but above all because it can make us reflect on the power that false beliefs end up having if stubbornly shared by many, in the reconstruction of the history of science (of which ours certainly belongs).
Bibliography:
ARTURO GRAF, Myths, legends and superstitions in the Middle Ages, Mondadori.