E-text prepared by Melissa McDaniel and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made
available by Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org)
Note: Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive. See
http://www.archive.org/details/sourcebookofmedi00oggfuoft
Transcriber's note:
Inconsistent hyphenation and spelling in the original
document have been preserved. Obvious typographical errors
have been corrected.
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).
A SOURCE BOOK OF MEDIAEVAL HISTORY
Documents Illustrative of European Life and Institutions
from the German Invasions to the Renaissance
Edited by
FREDERIC AUSTIN OGG, A.M.
Assistant in History in Harvard University
and Instructor in Simmons College
[Illustration]
New York .:. Cincinnati .:. Chicago
American Book Company
Copyright, 1907, by
Frederic Austin Ogg
Entered at Stationers' Hall, London
W. P. 4
PREFACE
This book has been prepared in consequence of a conviction, derived
from some years of teaching experience, (1) that sources, of proper
kind and in carefully regulated amount, can profitably be made use of
by teachers and students of history in elementary college classes, in
academies and preparatory schools, and in the more advanced years of
the average high school, and (2) that for mediaeval history there
exists no published collection which is clearly adapted to practical
conditions of work in such classes and schools.
It has seemed to me that a source book designed to meet the
requirements of teachers and classes in the better grade of secondary
schools, and perhaps in the freshman year of college work, ought to
comprise certain distinctive features, first, with respect to the
character of the selections presented, and, secondly, in regard to
general arrangement and accompanying explanatory matter. In the
choice of extracts I have sought to be guided by the following
considerations: (1) that in all cases the materials presented should
be of real value, either for the historical information contained in
them or for the more or less indirect light they throw upon mediaeval
life or conditions; (2) that, for the sake of younger students, a
relatively large proportion of narrative (annals, chronicles, and
biography) be introduced and the purely documentary material be
slightly subordinated; (3) that, despite this principle, documents of
vital importance, such as _Magna Charta_ and _Unam Sanctam_, which
cannot be ignored in even the most hasty or elementary study, be
presented with some fulness; and (4) that, in general, the rule should
be to give longer passages from fewer sources, rather than more
fragmentary ones from a wider range.
With respect to the manner of presenting the selections, I have
sought: (1) to offer careful translations--some made afresh from the
printed originals, others adapted from good translations already
available--but with as much simplification and modernization of
language as close adherence to the sense will permit. Literal, or
nearly literal, translations are obviously desirable for maturer
students, but, because of the involved character of mediaeval writings,
are rarely readable, and are as a rule positively repellent to the
young mind; (2) to provide each selection, or group of selections,
with an introductory explanation, containing the historical setting of
the extract, with perhaps some comment on its general significance,
and also a brief sketch of the writer, particularly when he is an
authority of exceptional importance, as Einhard, Joinville, or
Froissart; and (3) to supply, in foot-notes, somewhat detailed aid to
the understanding of obscure allusions, omitted passages, and
especially place names and technical terms.
For permission to reprint various translations, occasionally verbatim
but usually in adapted form, I am under obligation to the following:
Messrs. Houghton, Mifflin and Co., publishers of Miss Henry's
translation of Dante's _De Monarchia_; Messrs. Henry Holt and Co.,
publishers of Lee's _Source Book of English History_; Messrs. Ginn and
Co., publishers of Robinson's _Readings in European History_; Messrs.
Charles Scribner's Sons, publishers of Thatcher and McNeal's _Source
Book for Mediaeval History_; Messrs. G. P. Putnam's Sons, publishers of
Robinson and Rolfe's _Petrarch_; and Professor W. E. Lingelbach, of
the University of Pennsylvania, representing the University of
Pennsylvania _Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of
European History_.
In the preparation of the book I have received invaluable assistance
from numerous persons, among whom the following, at least, should be
named: Professor Samuel B. Harding, of the University of Indiana, who
read the entire work in manuscript and has followed its progress from
the first with discerning criticism; Professor Charles H. Haskins, of
Harvard University, who has read most of the proof-sheets, and whose
scholarship and intimate acquaintance with the problems of history
teaching have contributed a larger proportion of whatever merits the
book possesses than I dare attempt to reckon up; and Professors
Charles Gross and Ephraim Emerton, likewise of Harvard, whose
instruction and counsel have helped me over many hard places.
The final word must be reserved for my wife, who, as careful
amanuensis, has shared the burden of a not altogether easy task.
FREDERIC AUSTIN OGG.
CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
INTRODUCTION
THE NATURE AND USE OF HISTORICAL SOURCES
[Sidenote: The question of authority in a book of history]
If one proposes to write a history of the times of Abraham Lincoln,
how shall one begin, and how proceed? Obviously, the first thing
needed is information, and as much of it as can be had. But how shall
information, accurate and trustworthy, be obtained? Of course there
are plenty of books on Lincoln, and histories enough covering the
period of his career to fill shelf upon shelf. It would be quite
possible to spread some dozens of these before one's self and, drawing
simply from them, work out a history that would read well and perhaps
have a wide sale. And such a book might conceivably be worth while.
But if you were reading it, and were a bit disposed to query into the
accuracy of the statements made, you would probably find yourself
wondering before long just where the writer got his authority for this
or that assertion; and if, in foot-note or appendix, he should seem to
satisfy your curiosity by citing some other biography or history, you
would be quite justified in feeling that, after all, your inquiry
remained unanswered,--for whence did this second writer get _his_
authority? If you were thus persistent you would probably get hold of
the volume referred to and verify, as we say, the statements of fact
or opinion attributed to it. When you came upon them you might find it
there stated that the point in question is clearly established from
certain of Lincoln's own letters or speeches, which are thereupon
cited, and perhaps quoted in part. At last you would be satisfied that
the thing must very probably be true, for there you would have the
words of Lincoln himself upon it; or, on the other hand, you might
discover that your first writer had merely adopted an opinion of
somebody else which did not have behind it the warrant of any
first-hand authority. In either case you might well wonder why,
instead of using and referring only to books of other later authors
like himself, he did not go directly to Lincoln's own works, get his
facts from them, and give authority for his statements at first hand.
And if you pushed the matter farther it would very soon occur to you
that there are some books on Lincoln and his period which are not
carefully written, and therefore not trustworthy, and that your author
may very well have used some of these, falling blindly into their
errors and at times wholly escaping the correct interpretation of
things which could be had, in incontrovertible form, from Lincoln's
own pen, or from the testimony of his contemporaries. In other words,
you would begin to distrust him because he had failed to go to the
"sources" for his materials, or at least for a verification of them.
[Sidenote: The superiority of direct sources of knowledge]
How, then, shall one proceed in the writing of history in order to
make sure of the indispensable quality of accuracy? Clearly, the first
thing to be borne in mind is the necessity of getting information
through channels which are as direct and immediate as possible. Just
as in ascertaining the facts regarding an event of to-day it would be
desirable to get the testimony of an eye-witness rather than an
account after it had passed from one person to another, suffering more
or less distortion at every step, so, in seeking a trustworthy
description of the battle of Salamis or of the personal habits of
Charlemagne, the proper course would be to lay hold first of all of
whatever evidence concerning these things has come down from Xerxes's
or Charlemagne's day to our own, and to put larger trust in this than
in more recent accounts which have been played upon by the imagination
of their authors and perhaps rendered wholly misleading by errors
consciously or unconsciously injected into them. The writer of history
must completely divest himself of the notion that a thing is true
simply because he finds it in print. He may, and should, read and
consider well what others like himself have written upon his subject,
but he should be wary of accepting what he finds in such books without
himself going to the materials to which these writers have resorted
and ascertaining whether they have been used with patience and
discrimination. If his subject is Lincoln, he should, for example,
make sure above everything else, of reading exhaustively the letters,
speeches, and state papers which have been preserved, in print or in
manuscript, from Lincoln's pen. Similarly, he should examine with care
all letters and communications of every kind transmitted to Lincoln.
Then he should familiarize himself with the writings of the leading
men of Lincoln's day, whether in the form of letters, diaries,
newspaper and magazine articles, or books. The files, indeed, of all
the principal periodicals of the time should be gone through in quest
of information or suggestions not to be found in other places. And, of
course, the vast mass of public and official records would be
invaluable--the journals of the two houses of Congress, the
dispatches, orders, and accounts of the great executive departments,
the arguments before the courts, with the resulting decisions, and the
all but numberless other papers which throw light upon the practical
conditions and achievements of the governing powers, national, state,
and local. However much one may be able to acquire from the reading of
later biographies and histories, he ought not to set about the writing
of a new book of the sort unless he is willing to toil patiently
through all these first-hand, contemporary materials and get some
warrant from them, as being nearest the events themselves, for
everything of importance that he proposes to say. This rule is equally
applicable and urgent whatever the subject in hand--whether the age of
Pericles, the Roman Empire, the Norman conquest of England, the French
Revolution, or the administrations of George Washington--though,
obviously, the character and amount of the contemporary materials of
which one can avail himself varies enormously from people to people
and from period to period.
[Sidenote: Indirect character of all historical knowledge]
History is unlike many other subjects of study in that our knowledge
of it, at best, must come to us almost wholly through indirect means.
That is to say, all our information regarding the past, and most of it
regarding our own day, has to be obtained, in one form or another,
through other people, or the remains that they have left behind them.
No one of us can know much about even so recent an event as the
Spanish-American War, except by reading newspapers, magazines and
books, talking with men who had part in it, or listening to public
addresses concerning it--all indirect means. And, of course, when we
go back of the memory of men now living, say to the American
Revolution, nobody can lay claim to an iota of knowledge which he has
not acquired through indirect channels. In physics or chemistry, if a
student desires, he can reproduce in the laboratory practically any
phenomenon which he finds described in his books; he need not accept
the mere word of his text or of his teacher, but can actually behold
the thing with his own eyes. Such experimentation, however, has no
place in the study of history, for by no sort of art can a Roman
legion or a German comitatus or the battle of Hastings be reproduced
before mortal eye.
[Sidenote: An "historical source" defined]
[Sidenote: Written sources]
For our knowledge of history we are therefore obliged to rely
absolutely upon human testimony, in one form or another, the value of
such testimony depending principally upon the directness with which it
comes to us from the men and the times under consideration. If it
reaches us with reasonable directness, and represents a well
authenticated means of studying the period in question from the
writings or other traces left by that period, it is properly to be
included in the great body of materials which we have come to call
historical sources. An historical source may be defined as any product
of human activity or existence that can be used as direct evidence in
the study of man's past life and institutions. A moment's thought will
suggest that there are "sources" of numerous and widely differing
kinds. Roughly speaking, at least, they fall into two great groups:
(1) those in writing and (2) those in some form other than writing.
The first group is by far the larger and more important. Foremost in
it stand annals, chronicles, and histories, written from time to time
all along the line of human history, on the cuneiform tablets of the
Assyrians or the parchment rolls of the mediaeval monks, in the
polished Latin of a Livy or the sprightly French of a Froissart. Works
of pure literature also--epics, lyrics, dramas, essays--because of the
light that they often throw upon the times in which they were written,
possess a large value of the same general character. Of nearly equal
importance is the great class of materials which may be called
documentary--laws, charters, formulae, accounts, treaties, and official
orders or instructions. These last are obviously of largest value in
the study of social customs, land tenures, systems of government, the
workings of courts, ecclesiastical organizations, and political
agencies--in other words, of _institutions_--just as chronicles and
histories are of greatest service in unraveling the _narrative_ side
of human affairs.
[Sidenote: Sources other than in writing]
Of sources which are not in the form of writing, the most important
are: (1) implements of warfare, agriculture, household economy, and
the chase, large quantities of which have been brought to light in
various parts of the world, and which bear witness to the manner of
life prevailing among the peoples who produced and used them; (2)
coins, hoarded up in treasuries or buried in tombs or ruins of one
sort or another, frequently preserving likenesses of important
sovereigns, with dates and other materials of use especially in fixing
chronology; (3) works of art, surviving intact or with losses or
changes inflicted by the ravages of weather and human abuse--the tombs
of the Egyptians, the sculpture of the Greeks, the architecture of the
Middle Ages, or the paintings of the Renaissance; (4) other
constructions of a more practical character, particularly
dwelling-houses, roads, bridges, aqueducts, walls, gates, fortresses,
and ships,--some well preserved and surviving as they were first
fashioned, others in ruins, and still others built over and more or
less obscured by modern improvement or adaptation.
[Sidenote: Various ways of using sources]
These are some of the things to which the writer of history must go
for his facts and for his inspiration, and it is to these that the
student, whose business is to learn and not to write, ought
occasionally to resort to enliven and supplement what he finds in the
books. As there are many kinds of sources, so there are many ways in
which such materials may be utilized. If, for example, you are
studying the life of the Greeks and in that connection pay a visit to
a museum of fine arts and scrutinize Greek statuary, Greek vases, and
Greek coins, you are very clearly using sources. If your subject is
the church life of the later Middle Ages and you journey to Rheims or
Amiens or Paris to contemplate the splendid cathedrals in these
cities, with their spires and arches and ornamentation, you are, in
every proper sense, using sources. You are doing the same thing if you
make an observation trip to the Egyptian pyramids, or to the excavated
Roman forum, or if you traverse the line of old Watling Street--nay,
if you but visit Faneuil Hall, or tramp over the battlefield of
Gettysburg. Many of these more purely "material" sources can be made
use of only after long and sometimes arduous journeys, or through the
valuable, but somewhat less satisfactory, medium of pictures and
descriptions. Happily, however, the art of printing and the practice
of accumulating enormous libraries have made possible the indefinite
duplication of _written_ sources, and consequently the use of them at
almost any time and in almost any place. There is but one Sphinx, one
Parthenon, one Sistine Chapel; there are not many Roman roads, feudal
castles, or Gothic cathedrals; but scarcely a library in any civilized
country is without a considerable number of the monumental _documents_
of human history--the funeral oration of Pericles, the laws of
Tiberius Gracchus, Magna Charta, the theses of Luther, the Bill of
Rights, the Constitution of the United States--not to mention the all
but limitless masses of histories, biographies, poems, letters,
essays, memoirs, legal codes, and official records of every variety
which are available for any one who seriously desires to make use of
them.
[Sidenote: The value of sources to the student]
But why should the younger student trouble himself, or be troubled,
with any of these things? Might he not get all the history he can be
expected to know from books written by scholars who have given their
lives to exploring, organizing, and sifting just such sources? There
can be no question that schools and colleges to-day have the use of
better text-books in history than have ever before been available, and
that truer notions of the subject in its various relations can be had
from even the most narrow devotion to these texts than could be had
from the study of their predecessors a generation ago. If the object
of studying history were solely to acquire facts, it would, generally
speaking, be a waste of time for high school or younger college
students to wander far from text-books. But, assuming that history is
studied not alone for the mastery of facts but also for the broadening
of culture, and for certain kinds of mental training, the properly
regulated use of sources by the student himself is to be justified on
at least three grounds: (1) Sources help to an understanding of the
point of view of the men, and the spirit of the age under
consideration. The ability to dissociate one's self from his own
surroundings and habits of thinking and to put himself in the company
of Caesar, of Frederick Barbarossa, or of Innocent III., as the
occasion may require, is the hardest, but perhaps the most valuable,
thing that the student of history can hope to get. (2) Sources add
appreciably to the vividness and reality of history. However
well-written the modern description of Charlemagne, for example, the
student ought to find a somewhat different flavor in the account by
the great Emperor's own friend and secretary, Einhard; and, similarly,
Matthew Paris's picture of the raving and fuming of Frederick II. at
his excommunication by Pope Gregory ought to bring the reader into a
somewhat more intimate appreciation of the character of the proud
German-Sicilian emperor. (3) The use of sources, in connection with
the reading of secondary works, may be expected to train the student,
to some extent at least, in methods of testing the accuracy of modern
writers, especially when the subject in hand is one that lends itself
to a variety of interpretations. In the sources the makers of history,
or those who stood close to them, are allowed to speak for themselves,
or for their times, and the study of such materials not only helps
plant in the student's mind the conception of fairness and
impartiality in judging historical characters, but also cultivates the
habit of tracing things back to their origins and verifying what
others have asserted about them. So far as practicable the student of
history, from the age of fourteen and onwards, should be encouraged to
develop the critical or judicial temperament along with the purely
acquisitive.
[Sidenote: Simplicity of many mediaeval sources]
In preparing a source book, such as the present one, the purpose is to
further the study of the most profitable sources by removing some of
the greater difficulties, particularly those of accessibility and
language. Clearly impracticable as anything like historical "research"
undoubtedly is for younger students, it is none the less believed that
there are abundant first-hand materials in the range of history which
such students will not only find profitable but actually enjoy, and
that any acquaintance with these things that may be acquired in
earlier studies will be of inestimable advantage subsequently. It is
furthermore believed, contrary to the assertions that one sometimes
hears, that the history of the Middle Ages lends itself to this sort
of treatment with scarcely, if any, less facility than that of other
periods. Certainly Gregory's Clovis, Asser's Alfred, Einhard's
Charlemagne, and Joinville's St. Louis are living personalities, no
less vividly portrayed than the heroes of a boy's storybook. Tacitus's
description of the early Germans, Ammianus's account of the crossing
of the Danube by the Visigoths and his pictures of the Huns, Bede's
narrative of the Saxon invasion of Britain, the affectionate letter
Stephen of Blois to his wife and children, the portrayal of the
sweet-spirited St. Francis by the Three Companions, and Froissart's
free and easy sketch of the battle of Crecy are all interesting,
easily comprehended, and even adapted to whet the appetite for a
larger acquaintance with these various people and events. Even solid
documents, like the Salic law, the Benedictine Rule, the Peace of
Constance, and the Golden Bull, if not in themselves exactly
attractive, may be made to have a certain interest for the younger
student when he realizes that to know mediaeval history at all he is
under the imperative necessity of getting much of the framework of
things either from such materials or from text-books which essentially
reproduce them. It is hoped that at least a reasonable proportion of
the selections herewith presented may serve in some measure to
overcome for the student the remote and intangible character which the
Middle Ages have much too commonly, though perhaps not unnaturally,
been felt to possess.
CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
CHAPTER I.--THE EARLY GERMANS
1. A Sketch by Caesar 19
2. A Description by Tacitus 23
CHAPTER II.--THE VISIGOTHIC INVASION
3. The Visigoths Cross the Danube (376) 32
4. The Battle of Adrianople (378) 37
CHAPTER III.--THE HUNS
5. Description by a Graeco-Roman Poet and a Roman Historian 42
CHAPTER IV.--THE EARLY FRANKS
6. The Deeds of Clovis as Related by Gregory of Tours 47
7. The Law of the Salian Franks 59
CHAPTER V.--THE ANGLES AND SAXONS IN BRITAIN
8. The Saxon Invasion (cir. 449) 68
9. The Mission of Augustine (597) 72
CHAPTER VI.--THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
10. Pope Leo's Sermon on the Petrine Supremacy 78
11. The Rule of St. Benedict 83
12. Gregory the Great on the Life of the Pastor 90
CHAPTER VII.--THE RISE OF MOHAMMEDANISM
13. Selections from the Koran 97
CHAPTER VIII.--THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CAROLINGIAN DYNASTY OF
FRANKISH KINGS
14. Pepin the Short Takes the Title of King (751) 105
CHAPTER IX.--THE AGE OF CHARLEMAGNE
15. Charlemagne the Man 108
16. The War with the Saxons (772-803) 114
17. The Capitulary Concerning the Saxon Territory (cir. 780) 118
18. The Capitulary Concerning the Royal Domains (cir. 800) 124
19. An Inventory of one of Charlemagne's Estates 127
20. Charlemagne Crowned Emperor (800) 130
21. The General Capitulary for the _Missi_ (802) 134
22. A Letter of Charlemagne to Abbot Fulrad 141
23. The Carolingian Revival of Learning 144
CHAPTER X.--THE ERA OF THE LATER CAROLINGIANS
24. The Oaths of Strassburg (842) 149
25. The Treaty of Verdun (843) 154
26. A Chronicle of the Frankish Kingdom in the Ninth Century 157
27. The Northmen in the Country of the Franks 163
28. Later Carolingian Efforts to Preserve Order 173
29. The Election of Hugh Capet (987) 177
CHAPTER XI.--ALFRED THE GREAT IN WAR AND IN PEACE
30. The Danes in England 181
31. Alfred's Interest in Education 185
32. Alfred's Laws 194
CHAPTER XII.--THE ORDEAL
33. Tests by Hot Water, Cold Water, and Fire 196
CHAPTER XIII.--THE FEUDAL SYSTEM
34. Older Institutions Involving Elements of Feudalism 203
35. The Granting of Fiefs 214
36. The Ceremonies of Homage and Fealty 216
37. The Mutual Obligations of Lords and Vassals 220
38. Some of the More Important Rights of the Lord 221
39. The Peace and the Truce of God 228
CHAPTER XIV.--THE NORMAN CONQUEST
40. The Battle of Hastings: the English and the Normans 233
41. William the Conqueror as Man and as King 241
CHAPTER XV.--THE MONASTIC REFORMATION OF THE TENTH, ELEVENTH,
AND TWELFTH CENTURIES
42. The Foundation Charter of the Monastery of Cluny (910) 245
43. The Early Career of St. Bernard and the Founding of
Clairvaux 250
44. A Description of Clairvaux 258
CHAPTER XVI.--THE CONFLICT OVER INVESTITURE
45. Gregory VII.'s Conception of the Papal Authority 261
46. Letter of Gregory VII. to Henry IV. (1075) 264
47. Henry IV.'s Reply to Gregory's Letter (1076) 269
48. Henry IV. Deposed by Gregory (1076) 272
49. The Penance of Henry IV. at Canossa (1077) 273
50. The Concordat of Worms (1122) 278
CHAPTER XVII.--THE CRUSADES
51. Speech of Pope Urban II. at the Council of Clermont
(1095) 282
52. The Starting of the Crusaders (1096) 288
53. A Letter from a Crusader to his Wife 291
CHAPTER XVIII.--THE GREAT CHARTER
54. The Winning of the Great Charter 297
55. Extracts from the Charter 303
CHAPTER XIX.--THE REIGN OF SAINT LOUIS
56. The Character and Deeds of the King as Described by
Joinville 311
CHAPTER XX.--MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION AND ACTIVITY
57. Some Twelfth Century Town Charters 325
58. The Colonization of Eastern Germany 330
59. The League of Rhenish Cities (1254) 334
CHAPTER XXI.--UNIVERSITIES AND STUDENT LIFE
60. Privileges Granted to Students and Masters 340
61. The Foundation of the University of Heidelberg (1386) 345
62. Mediaeval Students' Songs 351
CHAPTER XXII.--THE FRIARS
63. The Life of St. Francis 362
64. The Rule of St. Francis 373
65. The Will of St. Francis 376
CHAPTER XXIII.--THE PAPACY AND THE TEMPORAL POWERS IN THE
LATER MIDDLE AGES
66. The Interdict Laid on France by Innocent III. (1200) 380
67. The Bull "Unam Sanctam" of Boniface VIII. (1302) 383
68. The Great Schism and the Councils of Pisa and Constance 389
69. The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438) 393
CHAPTER XXIV.--THE EMPIRE IN THE TWELFTH, THIRTEENTH, AND
FOURTEENTH CENTURIES
70. The Peace of Constance (1183) 398
71. Current Rumors Concerning the Life and Character of
Frederick II. 402
72. The Golden Bull of Charles IV. (1356) 409
CHAPTER XXV.--THE HUNDRED YEARS' WAR
73. An Occasion of War between the Kings of England and France 418
74. Edward III. Assumes the Arms and Title of the King of
France 421
75. The Naval Battle of Sluys (1340) 424
76. The Battle of Crecy (1346) 427
77. The Sack of Limoges (1370) 436
78. The Treaties of Bretigny (1360) and Troyes (1420) 439
CHAPTER XXVI.--THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE
79. Dante's Defense of Italian as a Literary Language 445
80. Dante's Conception of the Imperial Power 452
81. Petrarch's Love of the Classics 462
82. Petrarch's Letter to Posterity 469
CHAPTER XXVII.--FORESHADOWINGS OF THE REFORMATION
83. The Reply of Wyclif to the Summons of Pope Urban VI.
(1384) 474
A SOURCE BOOK OF MEDIAEVAL HISTORY
CHAPTER I.
THE EARLY GERMANS
1. A Sketch by Caesar
One of the most important steps in the expansion of the Roman Republic
was the conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar just before the middle of the
first century B.C. Through this conquest Rome entered deliberately
upon the policy of extending her dominion northward from the
Mediterranean and the Alps into the regions of western and central
Europe known to us to-day as France and Germany. By their wars in this
direction the Romans were brought into contact with peoples concerning
whose manner of life they had hitherto known very little. There were
two great groups of these peoples--the Gauls and the Germans--each
divided and subdivided into numerous tribes and clans. In general it
may be said that the Gauls occupied what we now call France and the
Germans what we know as Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Germany, and
Austria. The Rhine marked a pretty clear boundary between them.
During the years 58-50 B.C., Julius Caesar, who had risen to the
proconsulship through a long series of offices and honors at Rome,
served the state as leader of five distinct military expeditions in
this country of the northern barbarians. The primary object of these
campaigns was to establish order among the turbulent tribes of Gauls
and to prepare the way for the extension of Roman rule over them. This
great task was performed very successfully, but in accomplishing it
Caesar found it necessary to go somewhat farther than had at first been
intended. In the years 55 and 54 B.C., he made two expeditions to
Britain to punish the natives for giving aid to their Celtic kinsfolk
in Gaul, and in 55 and 53 he crossed the Rhine to compel the Germans
to remain on their own side of the river and to cease troubling the
Gauls by raids and invasions, as they had recently been doing. When
(about 51 B.C.) he came to write his _Commentaries on the Gallic War_,
it is very natural that he should have taken care to give a brief
sketch of the leading peoples whom he had been fighting, that is, the
Gauls, the Britons, and the Germans. There are two places in the
_Commentaries_ where the Germans are described at some length. At the
beginning of Book IV. there is an account of the particular tribe
known as the Suevi, and in the middle of Book VI. there is a longer
sketch of the Germans in general. This latter is the passage
translated below. Of course we are not to suppose that Caesar's
knowledge of the Germans was in any sense thorough. At no time did he
get far into their country, and the people whose manners and customs
he had an opportunity to observe were only those who were pressing
down upon, and occasionally across, the Rhine boundary--a mere fringe
of the great race stretching back to the Baltic and, at that time, far
eastward into modern Russia. We may be sure that many of the more
remote German tribes lived after a fashion quite different from that
which Caesar and his legions had an opportunity to observe on the
Rhine-Danube frontier. Still, Caesar's account, vague and brief as it
is, has an importance that can hardly be exaggerated. These early
Germans had no written literature and but for the descriptions of them
left by a few Roman writers, such as Caesar, we should know almost
nothing about them. If we bear in mind that the account in the
_Commentaries_ was based upon very keen, though limited, observation,
we can get out of it a good deal of interesting information concerning
the early ancestors of the great Teutonic peoples of the world to-day.
Source--Julius Caesar, _De Bello Gallico_ ["The Gallic War"],
Bk. VI., Chaps. 21-23.
[Sidenote: Their religion]
=21.= The customs of the Germans differ widely from those of the
Gauls;[1] for neither have they Druids to preside over religious
services,[2] nor do they give much attention to sacrifices. They
count in the number of their gods those only whom they can see, and
by whose favors they are clearly aided; that is to say, the Sun,
Vulcan,[3] and the Moon. Of other deities they have never even
heard. Their whole life is spent in hunting and in war. From
childhood they are trained in labor and hardship....
[Sidenote: Their system of land tenure]
=22.= They are not devoted to agriculture, and the greater portion
of their food consists of milk, cheese, and flesh. No one owns a
particular piece of land, with fixed limits, but each year the
magistrates and the chiefs assign to the clans and the bands of
kinsmen who have assembled together as much land as they think
proper, and in whatever place they desire, and the next year compel
them to move to some other place. They give many reasons for this
custom--that the people may not lose their zeal for war through
habits established by prolonged attention to the cultivation of the
soil; that they may not be eager to acquire large possessions, and
that the stronger may not drive the weaker from their property;
that they may not build too carefully, in order to avoid cold and
heat; that the love of money may not spring up, from which arise
quarrels and dissensions; and, finally, that the common people may
live in contentment, since each person sees that his wealth is kept
equal to that of the most powerful.
[Sidenote: Leaders and officers in war and peace]
=23.= It is a matter of the greatest glory to the tribes to lay
waste, as widely as possible, the lands bordering their territory,
thus making them uninhabitable.[4] They regard it as the best
proof of their valor that their neighbors are forced to withdraw
from those lands and hardly any one dares set foot there; at the
same time they think that they will thus be more secure, since the
fear of a sudden invasion is removed. When a tribe is either
repelling an invasion or attacking an outside people, magistrates
are chosen to lead in the war, and these are given the power of
life and death. In times of peace there is no general magistrate,
but the chiefs of the districts and cantons render justice among
their own people and settle disputes.[5] Robbery, if committed
beyond the borders of the tribe, is not regarded as disgraceful,
and they say that it is practised for the sake of training the
youth and preventing idleness. When any one of the chiefs has
declared in an assembly that he is going to be the leader of an
expedition, and that those who wish to follow him should give in
their names, they who approve of the undertaking, and of the man,
stand up and promise their assistance, and are applauded by the
people. Such of these as do not then follow him are looked upon as
deserters and traitors, and from that day no one has any faith in
them.
[Sidenote: German hospitality]
To mistreat a guest they consider to be a crime. They protect from
injury those who have come among them for any purpose whatever, and
regard them as sacred. To them the houses of all are open and food
is freely supplied.
2. A Description by Tacitus
Tacitus (54-119),[6] who is sometimes credited with being the greatest
of Roman historians, published his treatise on the _Origin, Location,
Manners, and Inhabitants of Germany_ in the year 98. This was about a
century and a half after Caesar wrote his _Commentaries_. During this
long interval we have almost no information as to how the Germans were
living or what they were doing. There is much uncertainty as to the
means by which Tacitus got his knowledge of them. We may be reasonably
sure that he did not travel extensively through the country north of
the Rhine; there is, in fact, not a shred of evidence that he ever
visited it at all. He tells us that he made use of Caesar's account,
but this was very meager and could not have been of much service. We
are left to surmise that he drew most of his information from books
then existing but since lost, such as the writings of Posidonius of
Rhodes (136-51 B.C.) and Pliny the Elder (23-79). These sources were
doubtless supplemented by the stories of officials and traders who had
been among the Germans and were afterwards interviewed by the
historian. Tacitus's essay, therefore, while written with a desire to
tell the truth, was apparently not based on first-hand information.
The author nowhere says that he had _seen_ this or that feature of
German life. We may suppose that what he really did was to gather up
all the stories and reports regarding the German barbarians which were
already known to Roman traders, travelers, and soldiers, sift the true
from the false as well as he could, and write out in first class Latin
the little book which we know as the _Germania_. The theory that the
work was intended as a satire, or sermon in morals, for the benefit of
a corrupt Roman people has been quite generally abandoned, and this
for the very good reason that there is nothing in either the
treatise's contents or style to warrant such a belief. Tacitus wrote
the book because of his general interest in historical and
geographical subjects, and also, perhaps, because it afforded him an
excellent opportunity to display a literary skill in which he took no
small degree of pride. That it was published separately instead of in
one of his larger histories may have been due to public interest in
the subject during Trajan's wars in the Rhine country in the years 98
and 99. The first twenty-seven chapters, from which the selections
below are taken, treat of the Germans in general--their origin,
religion, family life, occupations, military tactics, amusements, land
system, government, and social classes; the last nineteen deal with
individual tribes and are not so accurate or so valuable. It will be
found interesting to compare what Tacitus says with what Caesar says
when both touch upon the same topic. In doing so it should be borne in
mind that there was a difference in time of a century and a half
between the two writers, and also that while Tacitus probably did not
write from experience among the Germans, as Caesar did, he nevertheless
had given the subject a larger amount of deliberate study.
Source--C. Cornelius Tacitus, _De Origine, Situ, Moribus, ac
Populis Germanorum_ [known commonly as the "Germania"], Chaps.
4-24, _passim_. Adapted from translation by Alfred J. Church
and William J. Brodribb (London, 1868), pp. 1-16. Text in
numerous editions, as that of William F. Allen (Boston, 1882)
and that of Henry Furneau (Oxford, 1894).
[Sidenote: Physical characteristics]
=4.= For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes
of Germany are free from all trace of intermarriage with foreign
nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like
none but themselves. Hence it is that the same physical features
are to be observed throughout so vast a population. All have fierce
blue eyes, reddish hair, and huge bodies fit only for sudden
exertion. They are not very able to endure labor that is
exhausting. Heat and thirst they cannot withstand at all, though to
cold and hunger their climate and soil have hardened them.
[Sidenote: Their weapons and mode of fighting]
=6.= Iron is not plentiful among them, as may be inferred from the
nature of their weapons.[7] Only a few make use of swords or long
lances. Ordinarily they carry a spear (which they call a _framea_),
with a short and narrow head, but so sharp and easy to handle that
the same weapon serves, according to circumstances, for close or
distant conflict. As for the horse-soldier, he is satisfied with a
shield and a spear. The foot-soldiers also scatter showers of
missiles, each man having several and hurling them to an immense
distance, and being naked or lightly clad with a little cloak. They
make no display in their equipment. Their shields alone are marked
with fancy colors. Only a few have corselets,[8] and just one or
two here and there a metal or leather helmet.[9] Their horses are
neither beautiful nor swift; nor are they taught various wheeling
movements after the Roman fashion, but are driven straight forward
so as to make one turn to the right in such a compact body that
none may be left behind another. On the whole, one would say that
the Germans' chief strength is in their infantry. It fights along
with the cavalry, and admirably adapted to the movements of the
latter is the swiftness of certain foot-soldiers, who are picked
from the entire youth of their country and placed in front of the
battle line.[10] The number of these is fixed, being a hundred from
each _pagus_,[11] and from this they take their name among their
countrymen, so that what was at the outset a mere number has now
become a title of honor. Their line of battle is drawn up in the
shape of a wedge. To yield ground, provided they return to the
attack, is regarded as prudence rather than cowardice. The bodies
of their slain they carry off, even when the battle has been
indecisive. To abandon one's shield is the basest of crimes. A man
thus disgraced is not allowed to be present at the religious
ceremonies, or to enter the council. Many, indeed, after making a
cowardly escape from battle put an end to their infamy by hanging
themselves.[12]
[Sidenote: The Germans in battle]
=7.= They choose their kings[13] by reason of their birth, but
their generals on the ground of merit. The kings do not enjoy
unlimited or despotic power, and even the generals command more by
example than by authority. If they are energetic, if they take a
prominent part, if they fight in the front, they lead because they
are admired. But to rebuke, to imprison, even to flog, is allowed
to the priests alone, and this not as a punishment, or at the
general's bidding, but by the command of the god whom they believe
to inspire the warrior. They also carry with them into battle
certain figures and images taken from their sacred groves.[14] The
thing that most strengthens their courage is the fact that their
troops are not made up of bodies of men chosen by mere chance, but
are arranged by families and kindreds. Close by them, too, are
those dearest to them, so that in the midst of the fight they can
hear the shrieks of women and the cries of children. These loved
ones are to every man the most valued witnesses of his valor, and
at the same time his most generous applauders. The soldier brings
his wounds to mother or wife, who shrinks not from counting them,
or even demanding to see them, and who provides food for the
warriors and gives them encouragement.
[Sidenote: Their popular assemblies]
=11.= About matters of small importance the chiefs alone take
counsel, but the larger questions are considered by the entire
tribe. Yet even when the final decision rests with the people the
affair is always thoroughly discussed by the chiefs. Except in the
case of a sudden emergency, the people hold their assemblies on
certain fixed days, either at the new or the full moon; for these
they consider the most suitable times for the transaction of
business. Instead of counting by days, as we do, they count by
nights, and in this way designate both their ordinary and their
legal engagements. They regard the night as bringing on the day.
Their freedom has one disadvantage, in that they do not all come
together at the same time, or as they are commanded, but two or
three days are wasted in the delay of assembling. When the people
present think proper, they sit down armed. Silence is proclaimed by
the priests who, on these occasions, are charged with the duty of
keeping order. The king or the leader speaks first, and then others
in order, as age, or rank, or reputation in war, or eloquence, give
them right. The speakers are heard more because of their ability to
persuade than because of their power to command. If the speeches
are displeasing to the people, they reject them with murmurs; if
they are pleasing, they applaud by clashing their weapons together,
which is the kind of applause most highly esteemed.[15]
[Sidenote: The chiefs and their companions]
=13.= They transact no public or private business without being
armed, but it is not allowable for any one to bear arms until he
has satisfied the tribe that he is fit to do so. Then, in the
presence of the assembly, one of the chiefs, or the young man's
father, or some kinsman, equips him with a shield and a spear.
These arms are what the toga is with the Romans, the first honor
with which a youth is invested. Up to this time he is regarded as
merely a member of a household, but afterwards as a member of the
state. Very noble birth, or important service rendered by the
father, secures for a youth the rank of chief, and such lads attach
themselves to men of mature strength and of fully tested valor. It
is no shame to be numbered among a chief's companions.[16] The
companions have different ranks in the band, according to the will
of the chief; and there is great rivalry among the companions for
first place in the chief's favor, as there is among the chiefs for
the possession of the largest and bravest throng of followers. It
is an honor, as well as a source of strength, to be thus always
surrounded by a large body of picked youths, who uphold the rank of
the chief in peace and defend him in war. The fame of such a chief
and his band is not confined to their own tribe, but is spread
among foreign peoples; they are sought out and honored with gifts
in order to secure their alliance, for the reputation of such a
band may decide a whole war.
[Sidenote: The German love of war]
=14.= In battle it is considered shameful for the chief to allow
any of his followers to excel him in valor, and for the followers
not to equal their chief in deeds of bravery. To survive the chief
and return from the field is a disgrace and a reproach for life. To
defend and protect him, and to add to his renown by courageous
fighting is the height of loyalty. The chief fights for victory;
the companions must fight for the chief. If their native state
sinks into the sloth of peace and quiet, many noble youths
voluntarily seek those tribes which are waging some war, both
because inaction is disliked by their race and because it is in war
that they win renown most readily; besides, a chief can maintain a
band only by war, for the men expect to receive their war-horse and
their arms from their leader. Feasts and entertainments, though not
elegant, are plentifully provided and constitute their only pay.
The means of such liberality are best obtained from the booty of
war. Nor are they as easily persuaded to plow the earth and to wait
for the year's produce as to challenge an enemy and earn the glory
of wounds. Indeed, they actually think it tame and stupid to
acquire by the sweat of toil what they may win by their blood.[17]
[Sidenote: Life in times of peace]
=15.= When not engaged in war they pass much of their time in the
chase, and still more in idleness, giving themselves up to sleep
and feasting. The bravest and most warlike do no work; they give
over the management of the household, of the home, and of the land
to the women, the old men, and the weaker members of the family,
while they themselves remain in the most sluggish inactivity. It is
strange that the same men should be so fond of idleness and yet so
averse to peace.[18] It is the custom of the tribes to make their
chiefs presents of cattle and grain, and thus to give them the
means of support.[19] The chiefs are especially pleased with gifts
from neighboring tribes, which are sent not only by individuals,
but also by the state, such as choice steeds, heavy armor,
trappings, and neck-chains. The Romans have now taught them to
accept money also.
[Sidenote: Lack of cities and towns]
=16.= It is a well-known fact that the peoples of Germany have no
cities, and that they do not even allow buildings to be erected
close together.[20] They live scattered about, wherever a spring,
or a meadow, or a wood has attracted them. Their villages are not
arranged in the Roman fashion, with the buildings connected and
joined together, but every person surrounds his dwelling with an
open space, either as a precaution against the disasters of fire,
or because they do not know how to build. They make no use of stone
or brick, but employ wood for all purposes. Their buildings are
mere rude masses, without ornament or attractiveness, although
occasionally they are stained in part with a kind of clay which is
so clear and bright that it resembles painting, or a colored
design....
[Sidenote: Their food and drink]
=23.= A liquor for drinking is made out of barley, or other grain,
and fermented so as to be somewhat like wine. The dwellers along
the river-bank[21] also buy wine from traders. Their food is of a
simple variety, consisting of wild fruit, fresh game, and curdled
milk. They satisfy their hunger without making much preparation of
cooked dishes, and without the use of any delicacies at all. In
quenching their thirst they are not so moderate. If they are
supplied with as much as they desire to drink, they will be
overcome by their own vices as easily as by the arms of an enemy.
[Sidenote: German amusements]
=24.= At all their gatherings there is one and the same kind of
amusement. This is the dancing of naked youths amid swords and
lances that all the time endanger their lives. Experience gives
them skill, and skill in turn gives grace. They scorn to receive
profit or pay, for, however reckless their pastime, its reward is
only the pleasure of the spectators. Strangely enough, they make
games of chance a serious employment, even when sober, and so
venturesome are they about winning or losing that, when every other
resource has failed, on the final throw of the dice they will stake
even their own freedom. He who loses goes into voluntary slavery
and, though the younger and stronger of the players, allows himself
to be bound and sold. Such is their stubborn persistency in a bad
practice, though they themselves call it honor. Slaves thus
acquired the owners trade off as speedily as possible to rid
themselves of the scandal of such a victory.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] In chapters 11-20, immediately preceding the present passage,
Caesar gives a comparatively full and minute description of Gallic life
and institutions. He knew more about the Gauls than about the Germans,
and, besides, it was his experiences among them that he was writing
about primarily.
[2] The Druids were priests who formed a distinct and very influential
class among the Gauls. They ascertained and revealed the will of the
gods and were supreme in the government of the tribes. Druids existed
also among the Britons.
[3] By Vulcan Caesar means the German god of fire.
[4] Of the Suevi, a German tribe living along the upper course of the
Danube, Caesar says: "They consider it their greatest glory as a nation
that the lands about their territories lie unoccupied to a very great
extent, for they think that by this it is shown that a great number of
nations cannot withstand their power; and thus on one side of the
Suevi the lands are said to lie desolate for about six hundred
miles."--_Gallic War_, Bk. IV., Chap. 3.
[5] This statement is an instance of Caesar's vagueness, due possibly
to haste in writing, but more likely to lack of definite information.
How large these districts and cantons were, whether they had fixed
boundaries, and how the chiefs rendered justice in them are things we
should like to know but are not told.
[6] All dates from this point, unless otherwise indicated, are A.D.
[7] In reality iron ore was abundant in the Germans' territory, but it
was not until long after the time of Tacitus that much use began to be
made of it. By the fifth century iron swords were common.
[8] Coats of mail.
[9] Defensive armor for the head and neck.
[10] See Caesar's description of this mode of fighting.--_Gallic War_,
Bk. I., Chap. 48.
[11] The canton was known to the Romans as a _pagus_ and to the
Germans themselves as a _gau_. It was made up of a number of
districts, or townships (Latin _vicus_, German _dorf_), and was itself
a division of a tribe or nation.
[12] A later law of the Salian Franks imposed a fine of 120 _denarii_
upon any man who should accuse another of throwing down his shield and
running away, without being able to prove it [see p. 64].
[13] Many of the western tribes at the time Tacitus wrote did not have
kings, though in eastern Germany the institution of kingship seems to
have been quite general. The office, where it existed, was elective,
but the people rarely chose a king outside of a privileged family,
assumed to be of divine origin.
[14] Evidently these were not images of their gods, for in another
place (Chap. 9) Tacitus tells us that the Germans deemed it a dishonor
to their deities to represent them in human form. The images were
probably those of wild beasts, as the wolf of Woden (or Odin), or the
ram of Tyr, and were national standards preserved with religious care
in the sacred groves, whence they were brought forth when the tribe
was on the point of going to war.
[15] The German popular assembly was simply the periodical gathering
of free men in arms for the discussion and decision of important
points of tribal policy. It was not a legislative body in the modern
sense. Law among the Germans was immemorial custom, which, like
religion, could be changed only by a gradual shifting of popular
belief and practice. It was not "made" by any process of deliberate
and immediate choice. Nevertheless, the assembly constituted an
important democratic element in the government, which operated in a
measure to offset the aristocratic element represented by the
_principes_ and _comitatus_ [see p. 28]. Its principal functions were
the declaring of war and peace, the election of the kings, and,
apparently, the hearing and deciding of graver cases at law.
[16] This relation of _principes_ (chiefs) and _comites_ (companions)
is mentioned by Caesar [see p. 22]. The name by which the Romans
designated the band of companions, or followers, of a German chieftain
was _comitatus_.
[17] Apparently the Germans did not now care much more for agriculture
than in the time of Caesar. The women, slaves, and old men sowed some
seeds and gathered small harvests, but the warrior class held itself
above such humble and unexciting employment. The raising of cattle
afforded a principal means of subsistence, though hunting and fishing
contributed considerably.
[18] Compare the Germans and the North American Indians in this
respect. The great contrast between these two peoples lay in the
capacity of the one and the comparative incapacity of the other for
development.
[19] The Germans had no system of taxation on land or other property,
such as the Romans had and such as we have to-day. It was not until
well toward the close of the Middle Ages that the governments of
kingdoms built up by Germanic peoples in western Europe came to be
maintained by anything like what we would call taxes in the modern
sense.
[20] The lack of cities and city life among the Germans struck Tacitus
with the greater force because of the complete dominance of city
organization to which he, as a Roman, was accustomed. The Greek and
Roman world was made up, in the last analysis, of an aggregation of
_civitates_, or city states. Among the ancient Greeks these had
usually been independent; among the Romans they were correlated under
the greater or lesser control of a centralized government; but among
the Germans of Tacitus's time, and long after, the mixed agricultural
and nomadic character of the people effectually prevented the
development of anything even approaching urban organization. Their
life was that of the forest and the pasture, not that of forum,
theatre, and circus.
[21] That is, on the Rhine, where traders from the south brought in
wines and other Roman products. The drink which the Germans themselves
manufactured was, of course, a kind of beer.