IMPERIAL TITLES AND PRETENSIONS.
The era of the Hohenstaufen is perhaps the fittest point at which to
turn aside from the narrative history of the Empire to speak shortly
of the legal position which it professed to hold to the rest of
Europe, as well as of certain duties and observances which throw a
light upon the system it embodied. This is not indeed the era of its
greatest power: that was already past. Nor is it conspicuously the era
when its ideal dignity stood highest: for that remained scarcely
impaired till three centuries had passed away. But it was under the
Hohenstaufen, owing partly to the splendid abilities of the princes of
that famous line, partly to the suddenly-gained ascendancy of the
Roman law, that the actual power and the theoretical influence of the
Empire most fully coincided. There can therefore be no better
opportunity for noticing the titles and claims by which it announced
itself the representative of Rome's universal dominion, and for
collecting the various instances in which they were (either before or
after Frederick's time) more or less admitted by the other states of
Europe.
The territories over which Barbarossa would have declared his
jurisdiction to extend may be classed under four heads:--
First, the German lands, in which, and in which alone, the Emperor
was, up till the death of Frederick the Second, effective sovereign.
Second, the non-German districts of the Holy Empire, where the Emperor
was acknowledged as sole monarch, but in practice little regarded.
Third, certain outlying countries, owing allegiance to the Empire, but
governed by kings of their own.
Fourth, the other states of Europe, whose rulers, while in most cases
admitting the superior rank of the Emperor, were virtually independent
of him.
[Sidenote: Limits of the Empire.]
Thus within the actual boundaries of the Holy Empire were included
only districts coming under the first and second of the above classes,
i.e. Germany, the northern half of Italy, and the kingdom of Burgundy
or Arles--that is to say, Provence, Dauphiné, the Free County of
Burgundy (Franche Comté), and Western Switzerland. Lorraine, Alsace,
and a portion of Flanders were of course parts of Germany. To the
north-east, Bohemia and the Slavic principalities in Mecklenburg and
Pomerania were as yet not integral parts of its body, but rather
dependent outliers. Beyond the march of Brandenburg, from the Oder to
the Vistula, dwelt pagan Lithuanians or Prussians[201], free till the
establishment among them of the Teutonic knights.
[Sidenote: Hungary.]
Hungary had owed a doubtful allegiance since the days of Otto I.
Gregory VII had claimed it as a fief of the Holy See; Frederick wished
to reduce it completely to subjection, but could not overcome the
reluctance of his nobles. After Frederick II, by whom it was recovered
from the Mongol hordes, no imperial claims were made for so many years
that at last they became obsolete, and were confessed to be so by the
Constitution of Augsburg, A.D. 1566[202].
[Sidenote: Poland.]
Under Duke Misico, Poland had submitted to Otto the Great, and
continued, with occasional revolts, to obey the Empire, till the
beginning of the Great Interregnum (as it is called) in 1254. Its duke
was present at the election of Richard, A.D. 1258. Thereafter
Primislas called himself king, in token of emancipation, and the
country became independent, though some of its provinces were long
afterwards reunited to the German state. Silesia, originally Polish,
was attached to Bohemia by Charles IV, and so became part of the
Empire; Posen and Galicia were seized by Prussia and Austria, A.D.
1772. Down to her partition in that year, the constitution of Poland
remained a copy of that which had existed in the German kingdom in the
twelfth century[203].
[Sidenote: Denmark.]
Lewis the Pious had received the homage of the Danish king Harold, on
his baptism at Mentz, A.D. 826; Otto the Great's victories over Harold
Blue Tooth made the country regularly subject, and added the march of
Schleswig to the immediate territory of the Empire: but the boundary
soon receded to the Eyder, on whose banks might be seen the
inscription,--
'Eidora Romani terminus imperii.'
King Peter[204] attended at Frederick I's coronation, to do homage,
and receive from the Emperor, as suzerain, his own crown. Since the
Interregnum Denmark has been always free[205].
[Sidenote: France.]
Otto the Great was the last Emperor whose suzerainty the French kings
had admitted; nor were Henry VI and Otto IV successful in their
attempts to enforce it. Boniface VIII, in his quarrel with Philip the
Fair, offered the French throne, which he had pronounced vacant, to
Albert I; but the wary Hapsburg declined the dangerous prize. The
precedence, however, which the Germans continued to assert, irritated
Gallic pride, and led to more than one contest. Blondel denies the
Empire any claim to the Roman name; and in A.D. 1648 the French envoys
at Münster refused for some time to admit what no other European state
disputed. Till recent times the title of the Archbishop of Treves,
'Archicancellarius per Galliam atque regnum Arelatense,' preserved the
memory of an obsolete supremacy which the constant aggressions of
France might seem to have reversed.
[Sidenote: Sweden.]
No reliance can be placed on the author who tells us that Sweden was
granted by Frederick I to Waldemar the Dane[206]; the fact is
improbable, and we do not hear that such pretensions were ever put
forth before or after.
[Sidenote: Spain.]
Nor does it appear that authority was ever exercised by any Emperor in
Spain. Nevertheless the choice of Alfonso X by a section of the German
electors, in A.D. 1258, may be construed to imply that the Spanish
kings were members of the Empire. And when, A.D. 1053, Ferdinand the
Great of Castile had, in the pride of his victories over the Moors,
assumed the title of 'Hispaniæ Imperator,' the remonstrance of Henry
III declared the rights of Rome over the Western provinces indelible,
and the Spaniard, though protesting his independence, was forced to
resign the usurped dignity[207].
[Sidenote: England.]
No act of sovereignty is recorded to have been done by any of the
Emperors in England, though as heirs of Rome they might be thought to
have better rights over it than over Poland or Denmark[208]. There
was, however, a vague notion that the English, like other kingdoms,
must depend on the Empire: a notion which appears in Conrad III's
letter to John of Constantinople[209]; and which was countenanced by
the submissive tone in which Frederick I was addressed by the
Plantagenet Henry II[210]. English independence was still more
compromised in the next reign, when Richard I, according to Hoveden,
'Consilio matris suæ deposuit se de regno Angliæ et tradidit illud
imperatori (Henrico VIto) sicut universorum domino.' But as Richard
was at the same time invested with the kingdom of Arles by Henry VI,
his homage may have been for that fief only; and it was probably in
that capacity that he voted, as a prince of the Empire, at the
election of Frederick II. The case finds a parallel in the claims of
England over the Scottish king, doubtful, to say the least, as regards
the domestic realm of the latter, certain as regards Cumbria, which he
had long held from the Southern crown[211]. But Germany had no Edward
I. Henry VI is said at his death to have released Richard from his
submission (this too may be compared with Richard's release to the
Scottish William the Lion), and Edward II declared, 'regnum Angliæ ab
omni subiectione imperiali esse liberrimum[212].' Yet the idea
survived: the Emperor Lewis the Bavarian, when he named Edward III his
vicar in the great French war, demanded, though in vain, that the
English monarch should kiss his feet[213]. Sigismund[214], visiting
Henry V at London, before the meeting of the council of Constance, was
met by the Duke of Gloucester, who, riding into the water to the ship
where the Emperor sat, required him, at the sword's point, to declare
that he did not come purposing to infringe on the king's authority in
the realm of England[215]. One curious pretension of the imperial
crown called forth many protests. It was declared by civilians and
canonists that no public notary could have any standing, or attach any
legality to the documents he drew, unless he had received his diploma
from the Emperor or the Pope. A strenuous denial of a doctrine so
injurious was issued by the parliament of Scotland under James
III[216].
[Sidenote: Naples.]
The kingdom of Naples and Sicily, although of course claimed as a part
of the Empire, was under the Norman dynasty (A.D. 1060-1189) not
merely independent, but the most dangerous enemy of the German power
in Italy. Henry VI, the son and successor of Barbarossa, obtained
possession of it by marrying Constantia the last heiress of the Norman
kings. But both he and Frederick II treated it as a separate
patrimonial state, instead of incorporating it with their more
northerly dominions. After the death of Conradin, the last of the
Hohenstaufen, it passed away to an Angevin, then to an Aragonese
dynasty, continuing under both to maintain itself independent of the
Empire, nor ever again, except under Charles V, united to the Germanic
crown.
[Sidenote: Venice.]
One spot in Italy there was whose singular felicity of situation
enabled her through long centuries of obscurity and weakness, slowly
ripening into strength, to maintain her freedom unstained by any
submission to the Frankish and Germanic Emperors. Venice glories in
deducing her origin from the fugitives who escaped from Aquileia in
the days of Attila: it is at least probable that her population never
received an intermixture of Teutonic settlers, and continued during
the ages of Lombard and Frankish rule in Italy to regard the Byzantine
sovereigns as the representatives of their ancient masters. In the
tenth century, when summoned to submit by Otto, they had said, 'We
wish to be the servants of the Emperors of the Romans' (the
Constantinopolitan), and though they overthrew this very Eastern
throne in A.D. 1204, the pretext had served its turn, and had aided
them in defying or evading the demands of obedience made by the
Teutonic princes. Alone of all the Italian republics, Venice never,
down to her extinction by France and Austria in A.D. 1796, recognized
within her walls any secular authority save her own.
[Sidenote: The East.]
The kings of Cyprus and Armenia sent to Henry VI to confess themselves
his vassals and ask his help. Over remote Eastern lands, where
Frankish foot had never trod, Frederick Barbarossa asserted the
indestructible rights of Rome, mistress of the world. A letter to
Saladin, amusing from its absolute identification of his own Empire
with that which had sent Crassus to perish in Parthia, and had blushed
to see Mark Antony 'consulum nostrum'[217] at the feet of Cleopatra,
is preserved by Hoveden: it bids the Soldan withdraw at once from the
dominions of Rome, else will she, with her new Teutonic defenders, of
whom a pompous list follows, drive him from them with all her ancient
might.
[Sidenote: The Byzantine Emperors.]
[Sidenote: Rivalry of the two Empires.]
Unwilling as were the great kingdoms of Western Europe to admit the
territorial supremacy of the Emperor, the proudest among them never
refused, until the end of the Middle Ages, to recognize his precedence
and address him in a tone of respectful deference. Very different was
the attitude of the Byzantine princes, who denied his claim to be an
Emperor at all. The separate existence of the Eastern Church and
Empire was not only, as has been said above, a blemish in the title of
the Teutonic sovereigns; it was a continuing and successful protest
against the whole system of an Empire Church of Christendom, centering
in Rome, ruled by the successor of Peter and the successor of
Augustus. Instead of the one Pope and one Emperor whom mediæval theory
presented as the sole earthly representatives of the invisible head of
the Church, the world saw itself distracted by the interminable feud
of rivals, each of whom had much to allege on his behalf. It was easy
for the Latins to call the Easterns schismatics and their Emperor an
usurper, but practically it was impossible to dethrone him or reduce
them to obedience: while even in controversy no one could treat the
pretensions of communities who had been the first to embrace
Christianity and retained so many of its most ancient forms, with the
contempt which would have been felt for any Western sectaries.
Seriously, however, as the hostile position of the Greeks seems to us
to affect the claims of the Teutonic Empire, calling in question its
legitimacy and marring its pretended universality, those who lived at
the time seem to have troubled themselves little about it, finding
themselves in practice seldom confronted by the difficulties it
raised. The great mass of the people knew of the Greeks not even by
name; of those who did, the most thought of them only as perverse
rebels, Samaritans who refused to worship at Jerusalem, and were
little better than infidels. The few ecclesiastics of superior
knowledge and insight had their minds preoccupied by the established
theory, and accepted it with too intense a belief to suffer anything
else to come into collision with it: they do not seem to have even
apprehended all that was involved in this one defect. Nor, what is
still stranger, in all the attacks made upon the claims of the
Teutonic Empire, whether by its Papal or its French antagonists, do we
find the rival title of the Greek sovereigns adduced in argument
against it. Nevertheless, the Eastern Church was then, as she is to
this day, a thorn in the side of the Papacy; and the Eastern Emperors,
so far from uniting for the good of Christendom with their Western
brethren, felt towards them a bitter though not unnatural jealousy,
lost no opportunity of intriguing for their evil, and never ceased to
deny their right to the imperial name. The coronation of Charles was
in their eyes an act of unholy rebellion; his successors were
barbarian intruders, ignorant of the laws and usages of the ancient
state, and with no claim to the Roman name except that which the
favour of an insolent pontiff might confer. The Greeks had themselves
long since ceased to use the Latin tongue, and were indeed become more
than half Orientals in character and manners. But they still continued
to call themselves Romans, and preserved most of the titles and
ceremonies which had existed in the time of Constantine or Justinian.
They were weak, although by no means so weak as modern historians have
been till lately wont to paint them, and the weaker they grew the
higher rose their conceit, and the more did they plume themselves upon
the uninterrupted legitimacy of their crown, and the ceremonial
splendour wherewith custom had surrounded its wearer. It gratified
their spite to pervert insultingly the titles of the Frankish princes.
Basil the Macedonian reproached Lewis II with presuming to use the
name of 'Basileus,' to which Lewis retorted that he was as good an
emperor as Basil himself, but that, anyhow, _Basileus_ was only the
Greek for _rex_, and need not mean 'Emperor' at all. Nicephorus would
not call Otto I anything but 'King of the Lombards[218],' Conrad III
was addressed by Calo-Johannes as 'amice imperii mei Rex[219];' Isaac
Angelus had the impudence to style Frederick I 'chief prince of
Alemannia[220].' The great Emperor, half-resentful, half-contemptuous,
told the envoys that he was 'Romanorum imperator,' and bade their
master call himself 'Romaniorum' from his Thracian province. Though
these ebullitions were the most conclusive proof of their weakness,
the Byzantine rulers sometimes planned the recovery of their former
capital, and seemed not unlikely to succeed under the leadership of
the conquering Manuel Comnenus. He invited Alexander III, then in the
heat of his strife with Frederick, to return to the embrace of his
rightful sovereign, but the prudent pontiff and his synod courteously
declined[221]. The Greeks were, however, too unstable and too much
alienated from Latin feeling to have held Rome, could they even have
seduced her allegiance. A few years later they were themselves the
victims of the French and Venetian crusaders.
[Sidenote: Dignities and titles.]
[Sidenote: The four crowns.]
Though Otto the Great and his successors had dropped all titles save
their highest (the tedious lists of imperial dignities were happily
not yet in being), they did not therefore endeavour to unite their
several kingdoms, but continued to go through four distinct
coronations at the four capitals of their Empire[222]. These are
concisely given in the verses of Godfrey of Viterbo, a notary of
Frederick's household[223]:--
'Primus Aquisgrani locus est, post hæc Arelati,
Inde Modoetiæ regali sede locari
Post solet Italiæ summa corona dari:
Cæsar Romano cum vult diademate fungi
Debet apostolicis manibus reverenter inungi.'
By the crowning at Aachen, the old Frankish capital, the monarch
became 'king;' formerly 'king of the Franks,' or, 'king of the Eastern
Franks;' now, since Henry II's time, 'king of the Romans, always
Augustus.' At Monza, (or, more rarely, at Milan) in later times, at
Pavia in earlier times, he became king of Italy, or of the
Lombards[224]; at Rome he received the double crown of the Roman
Empire, 'double,' says Godfrey, as 'urbis et orbis:'--
'Hoc quicunque tenet, summus in orbe sedet;'
though others hold that, uniting the mitre to the crown, it typifies
spiritual as well as secular authority. The crown of Burgundy[225] or
the kingdom of Arles, first gained by Conrad II, was a much less
splendid matter, and carried with it little effective power. Most
Emperors never assumed it at all, Frederick I not till late in life,
when an interval of leisure left him nothing better to do. These four
crowns[226] furnish matter of endless discussion to the old writers;
they tell us that the Roman was golden, the German silver, the Italian
iron, the metal corresponding to the dignity of each realm[227].
Others say that that of Aachen is iron, and the Italian silver, and
give elaborate reasons why it should be so[228]. There seems to be no
doubt that the allegory created the fact, and that all three crowns
were of gold, though in that of Italy there was and is inserted a
piece of iron, a nail, it was believed, of the true Cross.
[Sidenote: Meaning of the four coronations.]
Why, it may well be asked, seeing that the Roman crown made the
Emperor ruler of the whole habitable globe, was it thought necessary
for him to add to it minor dignities which might be supposed to have
been already included in it? The reason seems to be that the imperial
office was conceived of as something different in kind from the regal,
and as carrying with it not the immediate government of any particular
kingdom, but a general suzerainty over and right of controlling all.
Of this a pertinent illustration is afforded by an anecdote told of
Frederick Barbarossa. Happening once to inquire of the famous jurists
who surrounded him whether it was really true that he was 'lord of the
world,' one of them simply assented, another, Bulgarus, answered, 'Not
as respects ownership.' In this dictum, which is evidently conformable
to the philosophical theory of the Empire, we have a pointed
distinction drawn between feudal sovereignty, which supposes the
prince original owner of the soil of his whole kingdom, and imperial
sovereignty, which is irrespective of place, and exercised not over
things but over men, as God's rational creatures. But the Emperor, as
has been said already, was also the East Frankish king, uniting in
himself, to use the legal phrase, two wholly distinct 'persons,' and
hence he might acquire more direct and practically useful rights over
a portion of his dominions by being crowned king of that portion, just
as a feudal monarch was often duke or count of lordships whereof he
was already feudal superior; or, to take a better illustration, just
as a bishop may hold livings in his own diocese. That the Emperors,
while continuing to be crowned at Milan and Aachen, did not call
themselves kings of the Lombards and of the Franks, was probably
merely because these titles seemed insignificant compared to that of
Roman Emperor.
[Sidenote: 'Emperor' not assumed till the Roman coronation.]
[Sidenote: Origin and results of this practice.]
In this supreme title, as has been said, all lesser honours were blent
and lost, but custom or prejudice forbade the German king to assume it
till actually crowned at Rome by the Pope[229]. Matters of phrase and
title are never unimportant, least of all in an age ignorant and
superstitiously antiquarian: and this restriction had the most
important consequences. The first barbarian kings had been
tribe-chiefs; and when they claimed a dominion which was universal,
yet in a sense territorial, they could not separate their title from
the spot which it was their boast to possess, and by virtue of whose
name they ruled. 'Rome,' says the biographer of St. Adalbert, 'seeing
that she both is and is called the head of the world and the mistress
of cities, is alone able to give to kings imperial power, and since
she cherishes in her bosom the body of the Prince of the Apostles, she
ought of right to appoint the Prince of the whole earth[230].' The
crown was therefore too sacred to be conferred by any one but the
supreme Pontiff, or in any city less august than the ancient capital.
Had it become hereditary in any family, Lothar I's, for instance, or
Otto's, this feeling might have worn off; as it was, each successive
transfer, to Guido, to Otto, to Henry II, to Conrad the Salic,
strengthened it. The force of custom, tradition, precedent, is
incalculable when checked neither by written rules nor free
discussion. What sheer assertion will do is shewn by the success of a
forgery so gross as the Isidorian decretals. No arguments are needed
to discredit the alleged decree of Pope Benedict VIII[231], which
prohibited the German prince from taking the name or office of Emperor
till approved and consecrated by the pontiff, but a doctrine so
favourable to papal pretensions was sure not to want advocacy; Hadrian
IV proclaims it in the broadest terms, and through the efforts of the
clergy and the spell of reverence in the Teutonic princes, it passed
into an unquestioned belief. That none ventured to use the title till
the Pope conferred it, made it seem in some manner to depend on his
will, enabled him to exact conditions from every candidate, and gave a
colour to his pretended suzerainty. Since by feudal theory every
honour and estate is held from some superior, and since the divine
commission has been without doubt issued directly to the Pope, must
not the whole earth be his fief, and he the lord paramount, to whom
even the Emperor is a vassal? This argument, which derived
considerable plausibility from the rivalry between the Emperor and
other monarchs, as compared with the universal and undisputed[232]
authority of the Pope, was a favourite with the high sacerdotal party:
first distinctly advanced by Hadrian IV, when he set up the
picture[233] representing Lothar's homage, which had so irritated the
followers of Barbarossa, though it had already been hinted at in
Gregory VII's gift of the crown to Rudolf of Suabia, with the line,--
'Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rudolfo.'
Nor was it only by putting him at the pontiff's mercy that this
dependence of the imperial name on a coronation in the city injured
the German sovereign[234]. With strange inconsistency it was not
pretended that the Emperor's rights were any narrower before he
received the rite: he could summon synods, confirm papal elections,
exercise jurisdiction over the citizens: his claim of the crown itself
could not, at least till the times of the Gregorys and the Innocents,
be positively denied. For no one thought of contesting the right of
the German nation to the Empire, or the authority of the electoral
princes, strangers though they were, to give Rome and Italy a master.
The republican followers of Arnold of Brescia might murmur, but they
could not dispute the truth of the proud lines in which the poet who
sang the glories of Barbarossa[235], describes the result of the
conquest of Charles the Great:--
'Ex quo Romanum nostra virtute redemptum
Hostibus expulsis, ad nos iustissimus ordo
Transtulit imperium, Romani gloria regni
Nos penes est. Quemcunque sibi Germania regem
Præficit, hunc dives summisso vertice Roma
Suscipit, et verso Tiberim regit ordine Rhenus.'
But the real strength of the Teutonic kingdom was wasted in the
pursuit of a glittering toy: once in his reign each Emperor undertook
a long and dangerous expedition, and dissipated in an inglorious and
ever to be repeated strife the forces that might have achieved
conquest elsewhere, or made him feared and obeyed at home.
[Sidenote: The title 'Holy Empire.']
At this epoch appears another title, of which more must be said. To
the accustomed 'Roman Empire' Frederick Barbarossa adds the epithet of
'Holy.' Of its earlier origin, under Conrad II (the Salic), which some
have supposed[236], there is no documentary trace, though there is
also no proof to the contrary[237]. So far as is known it occurs first
in the famous Privilege of Austria, granted by Frederick in the fourth
year of his reign, the second of his empire, 'terram Austriæ quæ
clypeus et cor sacri imperii esse dinoscitur[238]:' then afterwards,
in other manifestos of his reign; for example, in a letter to Isaac
Angelus of Byzantium[239], and in the summons to the princes to help
him against Milan: 'Quia ... urbis et orbis gubernacula tenemus ...
sacro imperio et divæ reipublicæ consulere debemus[240];' where the
second phrase is a synonym explanatory of the first. Used occasionally
by Henry VI and Frederick II, it is more frequent under their
successors, William, Richard, Rudolf, till after Charles IV's time it
becomes habitual, for the last few centuries indispensable. Regarding
the origin of so singular a title many theories have been advanced.
Some declared it a perpetuation of the court style of Rome and
Byzantium, which attached sanctity to the person of the monarch: thus
David Blondel, contending for the honour of France, calls it a mere
epithet of the Emperor, applied by confusion to his government[241].
Others saw in it a religious meaning, referring to Daniel's prophecy,
or to the fact that the Empire was contemporary with Christianity, or
to Christ's birth under it[242]. Strong churchmen derived it from the
dependence of the imperial crown on the Pope. There were not wanting
persons to maintain that it meant nothing more than great or splendid.
We need not, however, be in any great doubt as to its true meaning and
purport. The ascription of sacredness to the person, the palace, the
letters, and so forth, of the sovereign, so common in the later ages
of Rome, had been partly retained in the German court. Liudprand calls
Otto 'imperator sanctissimus[243].' Still this sanctity, which the
Greeks above all others lavished on their princes, is something
personal, is nothing more than the divinity that always hedges a king.
Far more intimate and peculiar was the relation of the revived Roman
Empire to the church and religion. As has been said already, it was
neither more nor less than the visible Church, seen on its secular
side, the Christian society organized as a state under a form divinely
appointed, and therefore the name 'Holy Roman Empire' was the needful
and rightful counterpart to that of 'Holy Catholic Church.' Such had
long been the belief, and so the title might have had its origin as
far back as the tenth or ninth century, might even have emanated from
Charles himself. Alcuin in one of his letters uses the phrase
'imperium Christianum.' But there was a further reason for its
introduction at this particular epoch. Ever since Hildebrand had
claimed for the priesthood exclusive sanctity and supreme
jurisdiction, the papal party had not ceased to speak of the civil
power as being, compared with that of their own chief, merely secular,
earthly, profane. It may be conjectured that to meet this reproach, no
less injurious than insulting, Frederick or his advisers began to use
in public documents the expression 'Holy Empire;' thereby wishing to
assert the divine institution and religious duties of the office he
held. Previous Emperors had called themselves 'Catholici,'
'Christiani,' 'ecclesiæ defensores[244];' now their State itself is
consecrated an earthly theocracy. 'Deus Romanum imperium adversus
schisma ecclesiæ præparavit[245],' writes Frederick to the English
Henry II. The theory was one which the best and greatest Emperors,
Charles, Otto the Great, Henry III, had most striven to carry out; it
continued to be zealously upheld when it had long ceased to be
practicable. In the proclamations of mediæval kings there is a
constant dwelling on their Divine commission. Power in an age of
violence sought to justify while it enforced its commands, to make
brute force less brutal by appeals to a higher sanction. This is seen
nowhere more than in the style of the German sovereigns: they delight
in the phrases 'maiestas sacrosancta[246],' 'imperator divina
ordinante providentia,' 'divina pietate,' 'per misericordiam Dei;'
many of which were preserved till, like those used now by other
European kings, like our own 'Defender of the Faith,' they had become
at last more grotesque than solemn. The Emperor Joseph II, at the end
of the eighteenth century, was 'Advocate of the Christian Church,'
'Vicar of Christ,' 'Imperial head of the faithful,' 'Leader of the
Christian army,' 'Protector of Palestine, of general councils, of the
Catholic faith[247].'
The title, if it added little to the power, yet certainly seems to
have increased the dignity of the Empire, and by consequence the
jealousy of other states, of France especially. This did not, however,
go so far as to prevent its recognition by the Pope and the French
king[248], and after the sixteenth century it would have been a breach
of diplomatic courtesy to omit it. Nor have imitators been
wanting[249]: witness such titles as 'Most Christian king,' 'Catholic
king,' 'Defender of the Faith[250].'
FOOTNOTES:
[201] 'Pruzzi,' says the biographer of St. Adalbert, 'quorum Deus est
venter et avaritia iuncta cum morte.'--_M. G. H._ t. iv.
It is curious that this non-Teutonic people should have given their
name to the great German kingdom of the present.
[202] Conring, _De Finibus Imperii_. It is hardly necessary to observe
that the connection of Hungary with the Hapsburgs is of comparatively
recent origin, and of a purely dynastic nature. The position of the
archdukes of Austria as kings of Hungary had nothing to do legally
with the fact that many of them were also chosen Emperors, although
practically their possession of the imperial crown had greatly aided
them in grasping and retaining the thrones of Hungary and Bohemia.
[203] Cf. Pfeffel, _Abrégé Chronologique_.
[204] Letter of Frederick I to Otto of Freising, prefixed to the
latter's History. This king is also called Sweyn.
[205] See Appendix, Note B.
[206] Albertus Stadensis apud Conringium, _De Finibus Imperii_.
[207] There is an allusion to this in the poems of the Cid. Arthur
Duck, _De Usu et Authoritate Iuris Civilis_, quotes the view of some
among the older jurists, that Spain having been, as far as the Romans
were concerned, a _res derelicta_, recovered by the Spaniards
themselves from the Moors, and thus acquired by _occupatio_, ought not
to be subject to the Emperors.
[208] One of the greatest of English kings appears performing an act
of courtesy to the Emperor which was probably construed into an
acknowledgment of his own inferior position. Describing the Roman
coronation of the Emperor Conrad II, Wippo (c. 16) tells us 'His ita
peractis in duorum regum præsentia Ruodolfi regis Burgundiæ et
Chnutonis regis Anglorum divino officio finito imperator duorum regum
medius ad cubiculum suum honorifice ductus est.'
[209] Letter in Otto Fris. i.: 'Nobis submittuntur Francia et
Hispania, Anglia et Dania.'
[210] Letter in Radewic says, 'Regnum nostrum vobis exponimus....
Vobis imperandi cedat auctoritas, nobis non deerit voluntas
obsequendi.'
[211] The alleged instances of homage by the Scots to the Saxon and
early Norman kings are almost all complicated in some such way. They
had once held also the earldom of Huntingdon from the English crown,
and some have supposed (but on no sufficient grounds) that homage was
also done by them for Lothian.
[212] Selden, _Titles of Honour_, part i. chap. ii.
[213] Edward refused upon the ground that he was '_rex inunctus_.'
[214] Sigismund had shortly before given great offence in France by
dubbing knights.
[215] Sigismund answered, 'Nihil se contra superioritatem regis
prætexere.'
[216] Selden, _Titles of Honour_, part i. chap. ii. Nevertheless,
notaries in Scotland, as elsewhere, continued for a long time to style
themselves 'Ego M. auctoritate imperiali (or papali) notarius.'
[217] It is not necessary to prove this letter to have been the
composition of Frederick or his ministers. If it be (as it doubtless
is) contemporary, it is equally to the purpose as an evidence of the
feelings and ideas of the age. As a reviewer of a former edition of
this book has questioned its authenticity, I may mention that it is to
be found not only in Hoveden, but also in the 'Itinerarium regis
Ricardi,' in Ralph de Diceto, and in the 'Chronicon Terrae Sanctae.'
[See Mr. Stubbs' edition of Hoveden, vol. ii. p. 356.]
[218] Liutprand, _Legatio Constantinopolitana_. Nicephorus says, 'Vis
maius scandalum quam quod se imperatorem vocat.'
[219] Otto of Freising, i.
[220] 'Isaachius a Deo constitutus Imperator, sacratissimus,
excellentissimus, potentissimus, moderator Romanorum, Angelus totius
orbis, heres coronæ magni Constantini, dilecto fratri imperii sui,
maximo principi Alemanniæ.' A remarkable speech of Frederick's to the
envoys of Isaac, who had addressed a letter to him as 'Rex Alemaniæ'
is preserved by Ansbert (_Historia de Expeditione Friderici
Imperatoris_):--'Dominus Imperator divina se illustrante gratia
ulterius dissimulare non valens temerarium fastum regis (_sc._
Græcorum) et usurpantem vocabulum falsi imperatoris Romanorum, hæc
inter cætera exorsus est:--"Omnibus qui sanæ mentis sunt constat, quia
unus est Monarchus Imperator Romanorum, sicut et unus est pater
universitatis, pontifex videlicet Romanus; ideoque cum ego Romani
imperii sceptrum plusquam per annos XXX absque omnium regum vel
principum contradictione tranquille tenuerim et in Romana urbe a summo
pontifice imperiali benedictione unctus sim et sublimatus, quia
denique Monarchiam prædecessores mei imperatores Romanorum plusquam
per CCCC annos etiam gloriose transmiserint, utpote a Constantinopolitana
urbe ad pristinam sedem imperii, caput orbis Romam, acclamatione
Romanorum et principum imperii, auctoritate quoque summi pontificis et
S. catholicæ ecclesiæ translatam, propter tardum et infructuosum
Constantinopolitani imperatoris auxilium contra tyrannos ecclesiæ,
mirandum est admodum cur frater meus dominus vester Constantinopolitanus
imperator usurpet inefficax sibi idem vocabulum et glorietur stulte
alieno sibi prorsus honore, cum liquido noverit me et nomine dici et
re esse Fridericum Romanorum imperatorem semper Augustum."'
Isaac was so far moved by Frederick's indignation that in his next
letter he addressed him as 'generosissimum imperatorem Alemaniæ,' and
in a third thus:--
'Isaakius in Christo fidelis divinitus coronatus, sublimis, potens,
excelsus, hæres coronæ magni Constantini et Moderator Romeon Angelus
nobilissimo Imperatori antiquæ Romæ, regi Alemaniæ et dilecto fratri
imperii sui, salutem,' &c., &c. (Ansbert, _ut supra_.)
[221] Baronius, ad ann.
[222] See Appendix, Note C.
[223] Godefr. Viterb., _Pantheon_, in Mur., _S. R. I._, tom. vii.
[224] Dönniges, _Deutsches Staatsrecht_, thinks that the crown of
Italy, neglected by the Ottos, and taken by Henry II, was a
recognition of the separate nationality of Italy. But Otto I seems to
have been crowned king of Italy, and Muratori (_Ant. It._ Dissert.
iii.) believes that Otto II and Otto III were likewise.
[225] See Appendix, note A.
[226] Some add a fifth crown, of Germany (making that of Aachen
Frankish), which they say belonged to Regensburg--Marquardus Freherus.
[227] 'Dy erste ist tho Aken: dar kronet men mit der Yseren Krone, so
is he Konig over alle Dudesche Ryke. Dy andere tho Meylan, de is
Sulvern, so is he Here der Walen. Dy drüdde is tho Rome; dy is guldin,
so is he Keyser over alle dy Werlt.'--Gloss to the _Sachsenspiegel_,
quoted by Pfeffinger. Similarly Peter de Andlo.
[228] Cf. Gewoldus, _De Septemviratu imperii Romani_. One would expect
some ingenious allegorizer to have discovered that the crown of
Burgundy must be, and therefore is, of copper or bronze, making the
series complete, like the four ages of men in Hesiod. But I have not
been able to find any such.
[229] Hence the numbers attached to the names of the Emperors are
often different in German and Italian writers, the latter not
reckoning Henry the Fowler nor Conrad I. So Henry III (of Germany)
calls himself 'Imperator Henricus Secundus;' and all distinguish the
years of their _regnum_ from those of the _imperium_. Cardinal
Baronius will not call Henry V anything but Henry III, not recognizing
Henry IV's coronation, because it was performed by an antipope.
[230] Life of S. Adalbert (written at Rome early in the eleventh
century, probably by a brother of the monastery of SS. Boniface and
Alexius) in Pertz, _M. G. H._ iv.
[231] Given by Glaber Rudolphus. It is on the face of it a most
impudent forgery: 'Ne quisquam audacter Romani Imperii sceptrum
præpostere gestare princeps appetat neve Imperator dici aut esse
valeat nisi quem Papa Romanus morum probitate aptum elegerit, eique
commiserit insigne imperiale.'
[232] Universal and undisputed in the West, which, for practical
purposes, meant the world. The denial of the supreme jurisdiction of
Peter's chair by the eastern churches affected very slightly the
belief of Latin Christendom, just as the existence of a rival emperor
at Constantinople with at least as good a legal title as the Teutonic
Cæsar, was readily forgotten or ignored by the German and Italian
subjects of the latter.
[233] Odious especially for the inscription,--
'Rex venit ante fores nullo prius urbis honore;
Post homo fit Papæ, sumit quo dante coronam.'--Radewic.
[234] Mediæval history is full of instances of the superstitious
veneration attached to the rite of coronation (made by the Church
almost a sacrament), and to the special places where, or even utensils
with which it was performed. Everyone knows the importance in France
of Rheims and its sacred _ampulla_; so the Scottish king must be
crowned at Scone, an old seat of Pictish royalty--Robert Bruce risked
a great deal to receive his crown there; so no Hungarian coronation
was valid unless made with the crown of St. Stephen; the possession
whereof is still accounted so valuable by the Austrian court.
Great importance seems to have been attached to the imperial globe
(Reichsapfel) which the Pope delivered to the Emperor at his
coronation.
[235] Whether the poem which passes under the name of Gunther
Ligurinus be his work or that of some scholar in a later age is for
the present purpose indifferent.
[236] Zedler, _Universal Lexicon_, s. v. _Reich_.
[237] It does not occur before Frederick I's time in any of the
documents printed by Pertz; and this is the date which Boeclerus also
assigns in his treatise, _De Sacro Imperio Romano_, vindicating the
terms 'sacrum' and 'Romanum' against the aspersions of Blondel.
[238] Pertz, _M. G. H._, tom. iv. (legum ii.)
[239] Ibid. iv.
[240] Radewic. _ap._ Pertz.
[241] Blondellus adv. Chiffletium. Most of these theories are stated
by Boeclerus. Jordanes (_Chronica_) says, 'Sacri imperii quod non est
dubium sancti Spiritus ordinatione, secundum qualitatem ipsam et
exigentiam meritorum humanorum disponi.'
[242] Marquard Freher's notes to Peter de Andlo, book i. chap. vii.
[243] So in the song on the capture of the Emperor Lewis II by
Adalgisus of Benevento, we find the words, 'Ludhuicum comprenderunt
sancto, pio, Augusto.' (Quoted by Gregorovius, _Geschichte der Stadt
Rom im Mittelalter_, iii. p. 185.)
[244] Goldast, _Constitutiones_.
[245] Pertz, _M. G. H._, legg. ii.
[246] 'Apostolic majesty' was the proper title of the king of Hungary.
The Austrian court has recently revived it.
[247] Moser, _Römische Kayser_.
[248] Urban IV used the title in 1259: Francis I (of France) calls the
Empire 'sacrosanctum.'
[249] Cf. 'Holy Russia.'
[250] It is almost superfluous to observe that the beginning of the
title 'Holy' has nothing to do with the beginning of the Empire
itself. Essentially and substantially, the Holy Roman Empire was, as
has been shewn already, the creation of Charles the Great. Looking at
it more technically, as the monarchy, not of the whole West, like that
of Charles, but of Germany and Italy, with a claim, which was never
more than a claim, to universal sovereignty, its beginning is fixed by
most of the German writers, whose practice has been followed in the
text, at the coronation of Otto the Great. But the title was at least
one, and probably two centuries later.