Response to Cantor's Heritage of the Ancient World

In his Chapter 1 (The Heritage of the Ancient World) of the Civilization of the Middle Ages Norman Cantor lucidly describes the evolution that lead to the formation of the basic tenets of the Medieval Europe. I found his discussion of philosophy and religion especially illuminating. Cantor shows that the Medieval world drew upon two conflicting traditions: one descending from Classical world and one from Judaism.

The figure that was most influential on Medieval thinkers was Plato whose theories of eternal forms and unchangeability as well as ugliness and corrupt nature of the material world (including the body) seem to have permeated deep into the unconscious of the Medieval men. They not only influenced Christian thought that rejected physicality but also, as Cantor explains, were to blame for the peasants' high tolerance of abuses they suffered from the elites (Cantor claims that the rarity of uprisings and social upheavals was caused by men's belief that the order in which they lived in not only ordered by god but also permanent and even ahistorical). I felt that in this case his interpretation is going too far as I don't really see how Plato's teaching could even indirectly reach the lowest levels of the society (Cantor does not really elaborate how that could have happened).

On the other hand, Cantor invokes the Judaic tradition with its very unique traditions of: universal omnipotent and omnipresent God and believe in perpetual change (importance of history and the essential role of people in fulfilling the covenant). This tradition, as Cantor argues, was crucial for all the radicals within or outside the dominant Church (heretics, variety of dissenters and visionaries). At the same time Church embraced the idea of the covenant and saw itself as the heir that is very close to fulfilling it. This in turn strengthen the missionary zeal and lead the authorities to justify the use of violence and force against the non-Christians. These two disparate forces dominating the Medieval world seem to clash most pronouncedly in philosophy that developed through the urge to try to understand the Bible, and in turn lead to one of the most important inventions, the establishment of universities.

Cantor's idea of two strains of thought systems, Platonism and Judaic tradition, intertwined and oftentimes at battle with each other truly seem to somehow evoke the spirit of the Middle Ages with its highly stable and ordered hierarchies on the one hand, and with the frequent outbreaks of dissident activities (heretics, new social initiatives e.g. Franciscans etc). Cantor's theory seems very convincing in evoking the complexities and contrasts of the period but I just wonder if his generalizations are not too sweeping. How did the balance between them change throughout the long period between 300 and 1500. When was one or the other more dominant? What was the role of other, especially indigenous, pagan traditions? Also, what I don't entirely grasp is how do we get from this theoretical level (let's say attainable for "intellecutals" of Middle Ages) to the practical dimension (daily interactions of simple people including peasants and aristocrats).