GERMANY AND ITALY IN THE TENTH AND ELEVENTH CENTURIES
[Sidenote: Contrast between the development of Germany and France.]
56. The history of the kingship in the eastern, or German, part of
Charlemagne's empire is very different from that in France, which was
reviewed in a previous chapter. After a struggle of four hundred years,
it had become clear by the thirteenth century that the successors of
Louis the German (Charlemagne's grandson) could not make of Germany a
kingdom such as St. Louis left to his descendants. From the thirteenth
century down to Napoleon's time there was no Germany in a political
sense, but only a great number of practically independent states, great
and small. It was but a generation ago that, under the leadership of
Prussia,--a kingdom unknown until many centuries after Charlemagne's
time,--the previously independent kingdoms, principalities, and free
towns were formed into the federation now known as the German empire.
[Sidenote: Stem duchies.]
The map of the eastern part of Charlemagne's empire a century after his
death indicates that the whole region had fallen into certain large
divisions ruled over by dukes, who, in Saxony and Bavaria at least, were
kings in all but name.[97] Just how these duchies originated is
something of a mystery, but two things at least are clear which help to
explain their appearance. In the first place, under the weak successors
of Louis the German, the old independent spirit of the various peoples,
or _stems_, that Charlemagne had been able to hold together, once more
asserted itself and they gladly returned to the leadership of their own
chiefs. In the second place, they were driven to do this by the constant
attacks from without, first of the Northmen and the Moravians, a Slavic
people, then of the terrible Hungarian horsemen who penetrated more than
once as far west as France. As there was no competent central power to
defend the people, it was natural that they should look to their local
leaders for help and guidance.
[Sidenote: Henry I, 919-936.]
These _stem duchies_, as the Germans call them, prevented the German
kings from getting a firm hold on their realms. The best that they could
do was to bring about a sort of confederation. Consequently, when the
German aristocracy chose the strong Henry I, of the ducal house of
Saxony,[98] as their king in 919, he wisely made no attempt to deprive
the several dukes of their power. He needed their assistance in the task
of dealing with the invaders who were pressing in on all sides. He
prepared the way for the later subjugation of the Slavs and the final
repulse of the Hungarians, but he left to his famous son, Otto I, the
task of finally disposing of the invaders and attempting to found a real
kingdom.
[Sidenote: Otto the Great, 936-973.]
The reign of Otto I (936-973), called the Great, is one of the most
extraordinary in the history of Germany. He made no attempt to abolish
the duchies, but he succeeded in getting all of them into the hands of
his sons, brothers, or near relatives, as well as in reducing the power
of the dukes. For example, he made his brother Henry duke of Bavaria,
after forgiving him for two revolts. His scholarly brother, Archbishop
Bruno of Cologne,[99] he made duke of Lorraine in the place of his
faithless son-in-law, Conrad, who had rebelled against him. Many of the
old ducal families either died out or lost their heritage by
unsuccessful revolt. None of them offered a long succession of able
rulers. The duchies consequently fell repeatedly into the hands of the
king, who then claimed the right to assign them to whom he wished.
In the middle of the tenth century the northern and eastern boundaries
of Germany were as yet very ill defined. The Slavic peoples across the
Elbe, many of whom were still pagans, were engaged in continual attacks
upon the borders of Saxony. Otto I did more than fight these tribes; he
established dioceses, such as Brandenburg, Havelberg, etc., in a
district which is now the political center of the German empire, and
greatly forwarded the Christianizing and colonization of the tract
between the Elbe and the Oder.
[Sidenote: Final defeat of the Hungarians.]
[Sidenote: Beginnings of Hungary and Austria.]
Moreover, he put an end forever to the invasions of the Hungarians. He
defeated them in a great battle near Augsburg (955) and pursued them to
the confines of Germany. The Hungarians, or Magyars as they are commonly
called, then settled down in their own territory and began to lay the
foundations of that national development which makes them one of the
most important factors in the eastern portion of Europe to-day. A region
which had belonged to the Bavarian duchy was organized as a separate
district, the Austrian _Mark_ (i.e., March), and became the nucleus of
the Austrian empire.
[Sidenote: Otto interferes in Italian affairs.]
57. The most noteworthy, however, of Otto's acts was his interference in
Italian affairs, which led to his assuming the imperial crown which
Charlemagne had worn. There is no more gloomy chapter in European
history than the experiences of Italy and the papacy after the
deposition of Charles the Fat in 887. We know little of what went on,
but we hear of the duke of Spoleto, the marquis of Friuli, and
Burgundian princes from across the Alps, assuming the Italian crown at
different times. The Mohammedan invasions added to the confusion, so
that Germany and France, in spite of their incessant wars, appear
almost tranquil compared with the anarchy in Italy.[100] Three Italian
kings were crowned emperor by the popes during the generation following
the deposition of Charles the Fat. Then for a generation the title of
emperor disappeared altogether in the West, until it was again assumed
by the German Otto.
[Sidenote: Otto is crowned emperor, 962.]
Italy was a tempting field of operations for an ambitious ruler. Otto
first crossed the Alps in 951, married the widow of one of the ephemeral
Italian kings, and, without being formally crowned, was generally
acknowledged as king of Italy. The revolt of his son compelled him to
return to Germany, but a decade later the pope called him to his
assistance. Otto answered the summons promptly, freed the pope from his
enemies, and was crowned emperor at Rome in 962.
[Sidenote: Important results for Germany of the coronation of Otto the
Great.]
The coronation of Otto the Great, like that of Charlemagne, was a
momentous event in mediæval history. By assuming the imperial crown he
imposed so great a burden on his successors, the German kings, that they
finally succumbed beneath it. For three centuries they strove to keep
Germany together and at the same time control Italy and the papacy.
After interminable wars and incalculable sacrifices, they lost all.
Italy escaped them, the papacy established its complete independence,
and Germany, their rightful patrimony, instead of growing into a strong
monarchy, fell apart into weak little states.
[Sidenote: Example of emperor's trouble in controlling popes and Italian
affairs.]
Otto's own experiences furnish an example of the melancholy results of
his relations with the pope, to whom he owed his crown. Hardly had he
turned his back before the pope began to violate his engagements. It
became necessary for the new emperor to hasten back to Rome and summon a
council for the deposition of the pontiff, whose conduct certainly
furnished ample justification. But the Romans refused to accept a pope
chosen under Otto's auspices, and he had to return again to Rome and
besiege the city before his pope was acknowledged. A few years later,
still a third expedition was necessary in order to restore another of
the emperor's popes who had been driven out of Rome by the local
factions.
[Illustration: EUROPE ABOUT A.D. 1000]
The succeeding emperors had usually to make a similar series of costly
and troublesome journeys to Rome,--a first one to be crowned, and then
others either to depose a hostile pope or to protect a loyal one from
the oppression of neighboring lords. These excursions were very
distracting, especially to a ruler who left behind him in Germany a
rebellious nobility that always took advantage of his absence to revolt.
[Sidenote: The Holy Roman Empire.]
Otto's successors dropped their old title of King of the East Franks as
soon as they had been duly crowned by the pope at Rome, and assumed the
magnificent and all-embracing designation, "Emperor Ever August of the
Romans."[101] Their "Holy Roman Empire," as it came to be called later,
which was to endure, in name at least, for more than eight centuries,
was obviously even less like that of the ancient Romans than was
Charlemagne's. As _kings_ of Germany and Italy they had practically all
the powers that they enjoyed as _emperors_, except the fatal right that
they claimed of taking part in the election of the pope. We shall find
that, instead of making themselves feared at home and building up a
great state, the German emperors wasted their strength in a long
struggle with the popes, who proved themselves in the end incomparably
the stronger, and eventually reduced the Empire to a mere shadow.
58. We have no space to speak of the immediate successors of Otto the
Great.[102] Like him they had to meet opposition at home as well as the
attacks of their restless neighbors, especially the Slavs. The Empire is
usually considered to have reached its height under Conrad II
(1024-1039) and Henry III (1039-1056), the first two representatives of
the new Franconian line which succeeded the Saxon house upon its
extinction in 1024.
[Sidenote: Conrad II, 1024-1039.]
[Sidenote: Poland.]
By an amicable arrangement the kingdom of Burgundy came into the hands
of Conrad II in 1032. This large and important territory long remained a
part of the Empire, serving to render intercourse between Germany and
Italy easier, and forming a barrier between Germany and France. On the
eastern borders of the Empire the Slavs had organized the kingdom of
Poland in the latter half of the tenth century, and its kings, although
often at war with the emperor, generally acknowledged his suzerainty.
Conrad, following the policy of Otto the Great, endeavored to bring as
many of the stem duchies as possible into the hands of his son and
successor, Henry III, who was made duke of Franconia, Swabia, and
Bavaria. This was the firmest of all foundations for the kingly power.
[Sidenote: Henry III, 1039-1056.]
Notwithstanding the energy and ability of Conrad II and Henry III, the
fact that the Empire stands forth as the great power of western Europe
during the first half of the eleventh century is largely due to the
absence of any strong rivals. The French kings had not yet overcome the
feudal disruption, and although Italy objected to the control of the
emperor, it never could agree to combine against him.
[Sidenote: Henry III and the Church.]
59. The most important question that Henry III had to face was that of a
great reform of the Church. This was already under way and it was bound,
if carried out, to destroy the control of the emperors not only over
the papacy but also over the German bishops and abbots, whom they had
strengthened by grants of land and authority with the special purpose of
making them the chief support of the monarchy. The reform was not
directed particularly against the emperor, but he was, as will become
apparent, more seriously affected by the changes proposed by the
reforming party than any other of the European rulers.
[Sidenote: Wealth of the Church.]
In order to understand the reform and the long struggle between the
emperors and the popes which grew out of it, we must stop a moment to
consider the condition of the Church in the time of Henry III. It seemed
to be losing all its strength and dignity and to be falling apart, just
as Charlemagne's empire had dissolved into feudal bits. This was chiefly
due to the vast landed possessions of the clergy. Kings, princes, and
rich landowners had long considered it meritorious to make donations to
bishoprics and monasteries, so that a very considerable portion of the
land in western Europe had come into the hands of churchmen.
[Sidenote: The church lands drawn into the feudal system.]
When landowners began to give and receive land as fiefs the property of
the Church was naturally drawn into the feudal relations. A king, or
other proprietor, might grant fiefs to churchmen as well as to laymen.
The bishops became the vassals of the king or of other feudal lords by
doing homage for a fief and swearing fidelity, just as any other vassal
would do. An abbot sometimes placed his monastery under the protection
of a neighboring lord by giving up his land and receiving it back again
as a fief.
[Sidenote: Fiefs held by churchmen not hereditary.]
One great difference, however, existed between the church lands and the
ordinary fiefs. According to the law of the Church, the bishops and
abbots could not marry and so could have no children to whom they might
transmit their property. Consequently, when a landholding churchman
died, some one had to be chosen in his place who should enjoy his
property and perform his duties. The rule of the Church had been, from
time immemorial, that the clergy of the diocese should choose the
bishop, their choice being ratified by the people. As the church law
expresses it, "A bishop is therefore rightly appointed in the church of
God when the people acclaim him who has been elected by the common vote
of the clergy." As for the abbots, they were, according to the rule of
St. Benedict, to be chosen by the members of the monastery.
[Sidenote: Bishops and abbots practically chosen by the feudal lords.]
In spite of these rules the bishops and abbots had come, in the tenth
and eleventh centuries, to be selected, to all intents and purposes, by
the various kings and feudal lords. It is true that the outward forms of
a regular ("canonical") election were usually permitted; but the feudal
lord made it clear whom he wished chosen, and if the wrong person was
elected, he simply refused to hand over to him the lands attached to the
bishopric or abbey. The lord could in this way control the choice of the
prelates, for in order to become a real bishop or abbot one had not only
to be elected, he had also to be solemnly "invested" with the
appropriate powers of a bishop or abbot and with his lands.
[Sidenote: Investiture.]
Since, to the worldly minded, the spiritual powers attached to church
offices possessed little attraction if no property went along with them,
the feudal lord was really master of the situation. When his appointee
was duly chosen he proceeded to the _investiture_. The new bishop or
abbot first became the "man" of the feudal lord by doing him homage, and
then the lord transferred to him the lands and rights attached to the
office. No careful distinction appears to have been made between the
property and the spiritual prerogatives. The lord often conferred both
by bestowing upon a bishop the ring and the crosier, the emblems of
religious authority. It seemed shocking enough that the lord, who was
often a rough soldier, should dictate the selection of the bishops, but
it was still more shocking that he should audaciously assume to confer
spiritual powers with spiritual emblems. Yet even worse things might
happen, since sometimes the lord, for his greater convenience, had
himself made bishop.
[Sidenote: Attitude of the Church towards its property.]
[Sidenote: Attitude of the king.]
The Church itself naturally looked at the property attached to a
benefice as a mere incident and considered the spiritual prerogatives
the main thing. And since the clergy alone could rightly confer these,
it was natural that they should claim the right to bestow ecclesiastical
offices, including the lands ("temporalities") attached to them, upon
whomsoever they pleased without consulting any layman whatever. Against
this claim the king might urge that a simple minister of the Gospel, or
a holy monk, was by no means necessarily fitted to manage the interests
of a feudal state, such as the great archbishoprics and bishoprics, and
even the abbeys, had become in Germany and elsewhere in the eleventh
century.
[Sidenote: Complicated position of the bishops in Germany and
elsewhere.]
In short, the situation in which the bishops found themselves was a very
complicated one. (1) As an officer of the Church, the bishop had certain
ecclesiastical and religious duties within the limits of his diocese. He
saw that parish priests were properly selected and ordained, he tried
certain cases in his court, and performed the church ceremonies. (2) He
managed the lands which belonged to the bishopric, which might, or might
not, be fiefs. (3) As a vassal of those who had granted lands to the
bishopric upon feudal terms, he owed the usual feudal dues, not
excluding the duty of furnishing troops to his lord. (4) Lastly, in
Germany, the king had found it convenient, from about the beginning of
the eleventh century, to confer upon the bishops in many cases the
authority of a count in the districts about them. In this way they might
have the right to collect tolls, coin money, and perform other important
governmental duties.[103] When a prelate was inducted into office he
was invested with all these various functions at once, both spiritual
and governmental.
To forbid the king to take part in the investiture was, consequently, to
rob him not only of his feudal rights but also of his authority over
many of his government officials, since bishops, and sometimes even
abbots, were often counts in all but name. Moreover, the monarch relied
upon the clergy, both in Germany and France, to counterbalance the
influence of his lay vassals, who were always trying to exalt their
power at his expense. He therefore found it necessary to take care who
got possession of the important church offices.
[Sidenote: The marriage of the clergy threatens the wealth of the
Church.]
60. Still another danger threatened the wealth and resources of the
Church. During the tenth and eleventh centuries the rule of the Church
prohibiting the clergy from marrying[104] appears to have been widely
and publicly neglected in Italy, Germany, France, and England. To the
stricter critics of the time this appeared a terrible degradation of the
clergy, who, they felt, should be unencumbered by family cares and
wholly devoted to the service of God. The question, too, had another
side. It was obvious that the property of the Church would soon be
dispersed if the clergy were allowed to marry, since they would wish to
provide for their children. Just as the feudal tenures had become
hereditary, so the church lands would become hereditary unless the
clergy were forced to remain unmarried.
[Sidenote: Buying and selling of church offices.]
Besides the feudalizing of its property and the marriage of the clergy,
there was a third great and constant source of weakness and corruption
in the Church, namely, the temptation to buy and sell church offices.
Had the duties and responsibilities of the bishops, abbots, and priests
always been arduous and exacting, and their recompense barely enough to
maintain them, there would have been little tendency to bribe those who
could bestow the appointments. But the incomes of bishoprics and abbeys
were usually considerable, sometimes very great, while the duties
attached to the office of bishop or abbot, however serious in the eyes
of the right-minded, might easily be neglected by the unscrupulous. The
revenue from a great landed estate, the distinction of high
ecclesiastical rank, and the governmental prerogatives that went with
the office, were enough to induce the members of the noblest families to
vie with each other in securing church positions. The king or prince who
possessed the right of investiture was sure of finding some one willing
to pay something for important benefices.
[Sidenote: Origin of the term simony.]
The sin of buying or selling church offices was recognized as a most
heinous one. It was called _simony_,[105] a name derived from Simon the
Magician, who, according to the account in the Acts of the Apostles,
offered Peter money if he would give him the power of conferring the
Holy Spirit upon those upon whom he should lay his hands. As the apostle
denounced this first simonist, so the Church has continued ever since to
denounce those who propose to purchase its sacred powers,--"Thy silver
perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God
with money" (Acts viii. 20).
[Sidenote: Simony not really the sale of church offices.]
Doubtless very few bought positions in the Church with the view of
obtaining the "gift of God," that is to say, the religious office. It
was the revenue and the honor that were chiefly coveted. Moreover, when
a king or lord accepted a gift from one for whom he procured a benefice,
he did not regard himself as selling the office; he merely shared its
advantages. No transaction took place in the Middle Ages without
accompanying gifts and fees of various kinds. The church lands were well
managed and remunerative. The clergyman who was appointed to a rich
bishopric or abbey seemed to have far more revenue than he needed and so
was expected to contribute to the king's treasury, which was generally
empty.
[Sidenote: Simony corrupts the lower clergy.]
The evil of simony was, therefore, explicable enough, and perhaps
ineradicable under the circumstances. It was, nevertheless, very
demoralizing, for it spread downward and infected the whole body of the
clergy. A bishop who had made a large outlay in obtaining his office
naturally expected something from the priests, whom it was his duty to
appoint. The priest in turn was tempted to reimburse himself by improper
exactions for the performance of his regular religious duties, for
baptizing and marrying his parishioners, and for burying the dead.
So it seemed, at the opening of the eleventh century, as if the Church
was to be dragged down by its property into the anarchy of feudalism
described in a preceding chapter. There were many indications that its
great officers were to become merely the vassals of kings and princes
and no longer to represent a great international institution under the
headship of the popes. The Bishop of Rome had not only ceased, in the
tenth century, to exercise any considerable influence over the churches
beyond the Alps, but was himself controlled by the restless nobles of
central Italy. He appears much less important, in the chronicles of the
time, than the Archbishop of Rheims or Mayence. There is no more
extraordinary revolution recorded in history than that which raised the
weak and demoralized papacy of the tenth century to a supreme place in
European affairs.
[Sidenote: Three rival popes.]
61. One of the noble families of Rome had got the selection of the popes
into its own hands, and was using the papal authority to secure its
control over the city. In the same year (1024) in which Conrad II became
emperor, a layman was actually exalted to the headship of the Church,
and after him a mere boy of ten or twelve years, Benedict IX, who, in
addition to his youth, proved to be thoroughly evil-minded. His powerful
family maintained him, however, on the papal throne for a decade, until
he proposed to marry. This so scandalized even the not over-sensitive
Romans that they drove him out of the city. A rich neighboring bishop
then secured his own election. Presently a third claimant appeared in
the person of a pious and learned priest who bought out the claims of
Benedict IX for a large sum of money and assumed the title of Gregory
VI.
[Sidenote: The interference of Henry III in papal affairs and its
momentous consequences.]
This state of affairs seemed to the emperor, Henry III, to call for his
interference. He accordingly went to Italy and summoned a council at
Sutri, north of Rome, in 1046, where two of the claimants were deposed.
Gregory VI, more conscientious than his rivals, not only resigned his
office but tore his pontifical robes in pieces and admitted his
monstrous crime in buying the papal dignity, though his motives had been
of the purest. The emperor then secured the election of a worthy German
bishop as pope, whose first act was to crown Henry and Agnes his
wife.[106]
The appearance of Henry III in Italy at this juncture, and the
settlement of the question of the three rival popes, are among the most
important events of all mediæval history in their results. In lifting
the papacy out of the realm of petty Italian politics, Henry unwittingly
helped to raise up a rival to the imperial authority which was destined,
before the end of the next century, to overshadow it and to become
without question the greatest power in western Europe.
[Sidenote: Difficulties to be overcome in establishing the supremacy of
the popes in western Europe.]
For nearly two hundred years the popes had assumed very little
responsibility for the welfare of Europe at large. It was a gigantic
task to make of the Church a great international monarchy, with its head
at the old world-center, Rome; the difficulties in the way seemed,
indeed, well-nigh insurmountable. The great archbishops, who were as
jealous of the power of the pope as the great vassals were of the kingly
power, must be brought into subjection. National tendencies which made
against the unity of the Church must be overcome. The control enjoyed by
kings, princes, and other feudal lords in the selection of church
officials must be done away with. Simony with its degrading influence
must be abolished. The marriage of the clergy must be checked, so that
the property of the Church should not be dissipated. The whole body of
churchmen, from the priest to the archbishop, must be redeemed from the
immorality and worldliness which degraded them in the eyes of the
people.
[Sidenote: Pope Leo IX, 1049-1054.]
It is true that during the remainder of his life Henry III himself
controlled the election of the popes; but he was sincerely and deeply
interested in the betterment of the Church and took care to select able
and independent German prelates to fill the papal office. Of these the
most important was Leo IX (1049-1054). He was the first to show clearly
how the pope might not only become in time the real head and monarch of
the Church but might also aspire to rule kings and emperors as well as
bishops and abbots. Leo refused to regard himself as pope simply because
the emperor had appointed him. He held that the emperor should aid and
protect, but might not create, popes. So he entered Rome as an humble
barefoot pilgrim and was duly elected by the Roman people according to
the rule of the Church.
[Sidenote: Papal legates.]
Leo IX undertook to visit France and Germany and even Hungary in person,
with the purpose of calling councils to check simony and the marriage of
the clergy. But this personal oversight on the part of the popes was
not feasible in the long run, if for no other reason, because they were
generally old men who would have found traveling arduous and often
dangerous. Leo's successors relied upon legates, to whom they delegated
extensive powers and whom they dispatched to all parts of western Europe
in something the same way that Charlemagne employed his _missi_. It is
supposed that Leo IX was greatly influenced in his energetic policy by a
certain sub-deacon, Hildebrand by name. Hildebrand was himself destined
to become one of the greatest popes, under the title of Gregory VII, and
to play a part in the formation of the mediæval Church which justifies
us in ranking him, as a statesman, with Cæsar, Charlemagne, Richelieu,
and Bismarck.
[Sidenote: Pope Nicholas II places the election of the popes in the
hands of the cardinals, 1059.]
62. The first great step toward the emancipation of the Church from the
control of the laity was taken by Nicholas II. In 1059 he issued a
remarkable decree which took the election of the head of the Church once
for all out of the hands of both the emperor and the people of Rome, and
placed it definitely and forever in the hands of the _cardinals_, who
represented the Roman clergy.[107] Obviously the object of this decree
was to preclude all lay interference, whether of the distant emperor, of
the local nobility, or of the Roman mob. The college of cardinals still
exists and still elects the pope.[108]
[Sidenote: Opposition to further reforms.]
The reform party which directed the policy of the popes had, it hoped,
freed the head of the Church from the control of worldly men by putting
his election in the hands of the Roman clergy. It now proposed to
emancipate the Church as a whole from the base entanglements of earth:
first, by strictly forbidding the married clergy to perform religious
functions and by exhorting their flocks to refuse to attend their
ministrations; and secondly, by depriving the kings and feudal lords of
their influence over the choice of the bishops and abbots, since this
influence was deemed the chief cause of worldliness among the prelates.
Naturally these last measures met with far more general opposition than
the new way of electing the pope. An attempt to expel the married clergy
from Milan led to a popular revolt, in which the pope's legate actually
found his life in danger. The decrees forbidding clergymen to receive
their lands and offices from laymen received little attention from
either the clergy or the feudal lords. The magnitude of the task which
the popes had undertaken first became fully apparent when Hildebrand
himself ascended the papal throne, in 1073, as Gregory VII.