The pleasant historical novel which is now offered to the American
public, refers to a period of history very much misrepresented, though
very frequently written about, or at least referred to by popular
writers. In the contest between Pope Alexander III. and the Emperor
Frederic Barbarossa, we see a very important phase of the long struggle
between the spiritual and civil power; a struggle, in which was fought
the battle of real liberty, and real Christian civilization, against
brute force and Pagan tyranny. Perhaps nothing has been so badly
understood as the real _casus belli_ in this struggle of centuries.
Most non-Catholics firmly believe that the conflict arose from an
effort of the Church to obtain universal dominion; to make princes and
people bow to her behests on all matters; to reduce the civil ruler to
the condition of a mere lieutenant of the Pontiff, to be removed at
will by that spiritual autocrat, and, of course, to improve the
condition of her own officials; securing for them the choicest and
fairest portions of all the good things of the earth. The Emperors and
Kings who were hostile to the Church are painted, on the other hand, as
the assertors of civil liberty, the William Tells that refused to
salute the tyrant's cap, even though it were called a tiara; the
heroes, that in a superstitious age braved the terrors of
excommunication, rather than sink into a degraded servitude, to the
heartless ambition of churchmen.
Nothing can be farther from the truth than this view of the subject. In
reality, what the Church fought for during this long struggle was--not
power, but--liberty. She refused to admit that she was a corporation
existing by the permission, or the creation of the State. She claimed
to be a spiritual society, existing by the fiat of the will of God,
entirely independent in her own sphere, having a government of her own;
executive, legislative, and judicial rights and duties of her own; an
end of her own, far above and beyond the affairs of this world. It was
for this liberty and independence that her martyrs had died, her
confessors languished in prison, her saints prayed and suffered. When
the rulers of the world became Christian, the difficulties in the way
of her liberty did not cease; they only assumed a new form. Open
opposition became oppression, under the specious name of protection;
and the State made every effort to restrain and shackle a power, the
indomitable energy and dauntless courage of which it imagined it had
reason to fear.
This was, indeed, one of the "empty" things which the sons of men,
crafty in their own generation, allow themselves to say when they speak
of spiritual things. The unrestrained power of the city of God on earth
cannot hinder, or in any way interfere with the true development of the
earthly commonwealth. Truth, morality, justice, are the surest
foundations of civil peace, liberty, and prosperity. Under the pretence
of defending their rights and those of their people, civil rulers have
endeavored to subjugate the Church, enslave her ministers, make her, in
a word, merely a piece of government machinery, to register their
decrees, and enforce them with her anathemas. Had they succeeded, the
only bulwark of freedom would have been swept away; for as man has no
right higher or holier than freedom of conscience, that is, freedom to
serve God rather than man, had this right been sacrificed to the
imperious demands of the civil power, other rights less important, such
as those which constitute civil liberty, would have been lost with it.
Thus the medieval Pontiffs--living in exile, wandering from one city to
another, often in prison, rarely suffered to live in peace--were the
martyrs of the highest and truest freedom. To their indomitable
courage, untiring perseverance, and clear-sighted intelligence, we owe
whatever idea of true freedom (that is of the existence of the rights
of man independently of the permission, toleration, or concession of
the civil power) still survives in modern society.
These fundamental truths are well illustrated in the following pages.
The special period of history chosen, serves to show clearly the real
points of dispute. Even Voltaire acknowledged that it was the "wisdom"
of Alexander III. that triumphed over the "violence" of Barbarossa. As
the same writer observes:--"Alexander revived the rights of the people
and suppressed the crimes of Kings." A Pontiff to whom such testimony
is borne by Voltaire, cannot fairly be accused of ambitious designs. In
his contest with Frederic, from the beginning to the end, he simply
asserted the independence of the Church. Antipope after antipope was
opposed to him, all of them were puppets of the Emperor; but in the
end, even Frederic was obliged to yield, and to acknowledge the patient
but determined Alexander as the Vicar of Christ.
The subserviency of these pretended Pontiffs is well described by our
author. There is no exaggeration here. These men were merely Vicars of
the Emperor, existing by his favor, the creatures of his breath. They
cared little for the ratification of their decrees in Heaven; so that
they knew that they pleased the rulers of this world! What the Emperor
wished bound, they did bind, and what he wished loosed, they did loose,
even the holy bonds of matrimony. Their degradation and that of the
courtier bishops, so graphically depicted in these pages, is a
practical proof of the great truth, that while there is no human
greatness more exalted than the dignity of the ecclesiastical
character, there is no fall lower than that of a churchman who,
forgetful of his calling, makes himself the slave of the world's power,
be it wielded by a crowned King or by an uncrowned mob.
The heartless repudiation of his wife by Henry the Lion, after the mock
sentence of the miserable Victor, and the recourse of Constance to
Alexander, himself a fugitive, and persecuted, is a touching instance
of the manners of the times, and of the protection the Church and her
real Pontiffs ever gave to the sanctity of marriage. Little do women in
our day think how much they owe to the Popes, who so bravely and so
constantly fought their battles in those rude and licentious ages,
protecting their innocence, defending their rights, making them the
companions, not the servants of those rough warriors. There was more
than one Constance in those ages: but never did any of them appeal to
the Head of Christendom, that her demand for justice was not heard, and
her rights courageously vindicated.
The simple threads of the love-story of Erwin and Hermengarde serve
pleasantly to connect together the other more important events of the
tale, and serve to illustrate on the one hand the finest type of
feminine affection and constancy, and on the other that of manly
nobility and courage. We think the author can fairly lay claim to
historical accuracy in the main events of his tale. Every matter of
public interest, even the wonderful pestilence which checked Frederic
in his victorious career at Rome, is related as given by contemporary
writers.
We venture to bespeak for BARBAROSSA a kind and gracious reception from
the American public. It is a well told tale, which will afford real
instruction, as well as pleasant amusement. It will serve to give true
ideas about medieval history, and to make Catholics more interested in
learning the truth about those real Pontiffs, who did battle for
religion and the rights of man against the Kings and rulers of the day.
We consider it a valuable contribution to our lighter literature, and
we hope to see it followed by many others of the same purpose and
object. The translator has done his work well, and we trust BARBAROSSA in
its English dress will become a universal favorite.
J. K.
PHILADELPHIA,
_Ascension Day_, 1867.