Transcriber's Note: Inconsistent punctuation and and spelling in the original havebeen preserved. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. Family trees have wide margins and may not display well oncertain electronic devices. Certain characters will display best in a Unicode character set. [Illustration: PAGE FROM AN ILLUMINATED MANUSCRIPT] AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF WESTERN EUROPE BY JAMES HARVEY ROBINSON PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY _History is no easy science; its subject, human society, is infinitely complex. _ FUSTEL DE COULANGES GINN & COMPANY BOSTON · NEW YORK · CHICAGO · LONDON ENTERED AT STATIONERS' HALL COPYRIGHT, 1902, 1903 BY JAMES HARVEY ROBINSON ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 612. 1 The Athenæum Press GINN & COMPANY · PROPRIETORS · BOSTON · U. S. A. PREFACE In introducing the student to the history of the development of Europeanculture, the problem of proportion has seemed to me, throughout, thefundamental one. Consequently I have endeavored not only to statematters truly and clearly but also to bring the narrative into harmonywith the most recent conceptions of the relative importance of pastevents and institutions. It has seemed best, in an elementary treatiseupon so vast a theme, to omit the names of many personages and conflictsof secondary importance which have ordinarily found their way into ourhistorical text-books. I have ventured also to neglect a considerablenumber of episodes and anecdotes which, while hallowed by assiduousrepetition, appear to owe their place in our manuals rather to accidentor mere tradition than to any profound meaning for the student of thesubject. The space saved by these omissions has been used for three mainpurposes. Institutions under which Europe has lived for centuries, aboveall the Church, have been discussed with a good deal more fullness thanis usual in similar manuals. The life and work of a few men ofindubitably first-rate importance in the various fields of humanendeavor--Gregory the Great, Charlemagne, Abelard, St. Francis, Petrarch, Luther, Erasmus, Voltaire, Napoleon, Bismarck--have beentreated with care proportionate to their significance for the world. Lastly, the scope of the work has been broadened so that not only thepolitical but also the economic, intellectual, and artistic achievementsof the past form an integral part of the narrative. I have relied upon a great variety of sources belonging to the variousorders in the hierarchy of historical literature; it is happilyunnecessary to catalogue these. In some instances I have found othermanuals, dealing with portions of my field, of value. In the earlierchapters, Emerton's admirable _Introduction to the Middle Ages_furnished many suggestions. For later periods, the same may be said ofHenderson's careful _Germany in the Middle Ages_ and Schwill's clear andwell-proportioned _History of Modern Europe_. For the most recentperiod, I have made constant use of Andrews' scholarly _Development ofModern Europe_. For England, the manuals of Green and Gardiner have beenused. The greater part of the work is, however, the outcome of study ofa wide range of standard special treatises dealing with some shortperiod or with a particular phase of European progress. As examples ofthese, I will mention only Lea's monumental contributions to ourknowledge of the jurisprudence of the Church, Rashdall's _History of theUniversities in the Middle Ages_, Richter's incomparable _Annalen derDeutschen Geschichte im Mittelalter_, the _Histoire Générale_, and thewell-known works of Luchaire, Voigt, Hefele, Bezold, Janssen, Levasseur, Creighton, Pastor. In some cases, as in the opening of the Renaissance, the Lutheran Revolt, and the French Revolution, I have been able to formmy opinions to some extent from first-hand material. My friends and colleagues have exhibited a generous interest in myenterprise, of which I have taken constant advantage. Professor E. H. Castle of Teachers College, Miss Ellen S. Davison, Dr. William R. Shepherd, and Dr. James T. Shotwell of the historical department ofColumbia University, have very kindly read part of my manuscript. Theproof has been revised by my colleague, Professor William A. Dunning, Professor Edward P. Cheyney of the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Ernest F. Henderson, and by Professor Dana C. Munro of the University ofWisconsin. To all of these I am much indebted. Both in the arduouspreparation of the manuscript and in the reading of the proof my wifehas been my constant companion, and to her the volume owes innumerablerectifications in arrangement and diction. I would also add a word ofgratitude to my publishers for their hearty coöperation in theirimportant part of the undertaking. The _Readings in European History_, a manual now in preparation, anddesigned to accompany this volume, will contain comprehensivebibliographies for each chapter and a selection of illustrativematerial, which it is hoped will enable the teacher and pupil to broadenand vivify their knowledge. In the present volume I have given only afew titles at the end of some of the chapters, and in the footnotes Imention, for collateral reading, under the heading "Reference, " chaptersin the best available books, to which the student may be sent foradditional detail. Almost all the books referred to might properly finda place in every high-school library. J. H. R. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, January 12, 1903. CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I THE HISTORICAL POINT OF VIEW 1 II WESTERN EUROPE BEFORE THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS 8 III THE GERMAN INVASIONS AND THE BREAK-UP OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 25 IV THE RISE OF THE PAPACY 44 V THE MONKS AND THE CONVERSION OF THE GERMANS 56 VI CHARLES MARTEL AND PIPPIN 67 VII CHARLEMAGNE 77 VIII THE DISRUPTION OF CHARLEMAGNE'S EMPIRE 92 IX FEUDALISM 104 X THE DEVELOPMENT OF FRANCE 120 XI ENGLAND IN THE MIDDLE AGES 133 XII GERMANY AND ITALY IN THE TENTH AND ELEVENTH CENTURIES 148 XIII THE CONFLICT BETWEEN GREGORY VII AND HENRY IV 164 XIV THE HOHENSTAUFEN EMPERORS AND THE POPES 173 XV THE CRUSADES 187 XVI THE MEDIÆVAL CHURCH AT ITS HEIGHT 201 XVII HERESY AND THE FRIARS 216 XVIII THE PEOPLE IN COUNTRY AND TOWN 233 XIX THE CULTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES 250 XX THE HUNDRED YEARS' WAR 277 XXI THE POPES AND THE COUNCILS 303 XXII THE ITALIAN CITIES AND THE RENAISSANCE 321 XXIII EUROPE AT THE OPENING OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 354 XXIV GERMANY BEFORE THE PROTESTANT REVOLT 369 XXV MARTIN LUTHER AND HIS REVOLT AGAINST THE CHURCH 387 XXVI COURSE OF THE PROTESTANT REVOLT IN GERMANY, 1521-1555 405 XXVII THE PROTESTANT REVOLT IN SWITZERLAND AND ENGLAND 421 XXVIII THE CATHOLIC REFORMATION--PHILIP II 437 XXIX THE THIRTY YEARS' WAR 465 XXX STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT 475 XXXI THE ASCENDENCY OF FRANCE UNDER LOUIS XIV 495 XXXII RISE OF RUSSIA AND PRUSSIA 509 XXXIII THE EXPANSION OF ENGLAND 523 XXXIV THE EVE OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 537 XXXV THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 558 XXXVI THE FIRST FRENCH REPUBLIC 574 XXXVII NAPOLEON BONAPARTE 592 XXXVIII EUROPE AND NAPOLEON 606 XXXIX EUROPE AFTER THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 625 XL THE UNIFICATION OF ITALY AND GERMANY 642 XLI EUROPE OF TO-DAY 671 LIST OF BOOKS 689 INDEX 691 LIST OF MAPS PAGE 1 The Roman Empire at its Greatest Extent 8-9 2 The Barbarian Inroads 26-27 3 Europe in the Time of Theodoric 31 4 The Dominions of the Franks under the Merovingians 37 5 Christian Missions 63 6 Arabic Conquests 71 7 The Empire of Charlemagne 82-83 8 Treaty of Verdun 93 9 Treaty of Mersen 95 10 Fiefs and Suzerains of the Counts of Champagne 113 11 France at the Close of the Reign of Philip Augustus 129 12 The Plantagenet Possessions in England and France 141 13 Europe about A. D. 1000 152-153 14 Italian Towns in the Twelfth Century 175 15 Routes of the Crusaders 190-191 16 The Crusaders' States in Syria 193 17 Ecclesiastical Map of France in the Middle Ages 205 18 Lines of Trade and Mediæval Towns 242-243 19 The British Isles 278-279 20 Treaty of Bretigny, 1360 287 21 French Possessions of the English King in 1424 294 22 France under Louis XI 298-299 23 Voyages of Discovery 349 24 Europe in the Sixteenth Century 358-359 25 Germany in the Sixteenth Century 372-373 26 The Swiss Confederation 422 27 Treaty of Utrecht 506-507 28 Northeastern Europe in the Eighteenth Century 513 29 Provinces of France in the Eighteenth Century 539 30 Salt Tax in France 541 31 France in Departments 568-569 32 Partitions of Poland 584 33 Europe at the Height of Napoleon's Power 614-615 34 Europe in 1815 626-627 35 Races of Austro-Hungary 649 36 Europe of To-day 666-667 FULL-PAGE ILLUSTRATIONS I PAGE FROM AN ILLUMINATED MANUSCRIPT _Frontispiece_ II FAÇADE OF RHEIMS CATHEDRAL _Facing page_ 264 III INTERIOR OF EXETER CATHEDRAL _Facing page_ 266 IV BRONZE STATUES OF PHILIP THE GOOD AND CHARLES THE BOLD AT INNSBRUCK _Facing page_ 300 V BRONZE DOORS OF THE CATHEDRAL AT PISA } } 342-343 VI GHIBERTI'S DOORS AT FLORENCE } VII GIOTTO'S MADONNA } } 346-347 VIII HOLY FAMILY BY ANDREA DEL SARTO } INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF WESTERN EUROPE CHAPTER I THE HISTORICAL POINT OF VIEW [Sidenote: The scope of history. ] 1. History, in the broadest sense of the word, is all that we know abouteverything that man has ever done, or thought, or hoped, or felt. It isthe limitless science of past human affairs, a subject immeasurably vastand important but exceedingly vague. The historian may busy himselfdeciphering hieroglyphics on an Egyptian obelisk, describing a mediævalmonastery, enumerating the Mongol emperors of Hindustan or the battlesof Napoleon. He may explain how the Roman Empire was conquered by theGerman barbarians, or why the United States and Spain came to blows in1898, or what Calvin thought of Luther, or what a French peasant had toeat in the eighteenth century. We can know something of each of thesematters if we choose to examine the evidence which still exists; theyall help to make up history. [Sidenote: Object of this volume. ] The present volume deals with a small but very important portion of thehistory of the world. Its object is to give as adequate an account as ispossible in one volume of the chief changes in western Europe since theGerman barbarians overcame the armies of the Roman Empire and set upstates of their own, out of which the present countries of France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Spain, the Netherlands, and England haveslowly grown. There are, however, whole libraries upon the history ofeach of these countries during the last fifteen hundred years, and itrequires a volume or two to give a tolerably complete account of anysingle important person, like St. Francis, Cromwell, Frederick theGreat, or Napoleon. Besides biographies and general histories, there aremany special treatises upon the Church and other great institutions;upon the literature, art, philosophy, and law of the various countries. It is obvious, therefore, that only a very few of the historical factsknown to scholars can possibly find a place in a single volume such asthis. One who undertakes to condense what we know of Europe's past, since the times of Theodosius and Alaric, into the space of six hundredpages assumes a very grave responsibility. The reader has a right to asknot only that what he finds in the book shall be at once true andclearly stated, but that it shall consist, on the whole, of the mostimportant and useful of all the things which might have been selectedfrom the well-nigh infinite mass of true things that are known. We gain practically nothing from the mere enumeration of events anddates. The student of history wishes to know how people lived; what weretheir institutions (which are really only the habits of nations), theiroccupations, interests, and achievements; how business was transacted inthe Middle Ages almost without the aid of money; how, later, commerceincreased and industry grew up; what a great part the Christian churchplayed in society; how the monks lived and what they did for mankind. Inshort, the object of an introduction to mediæval and modern Europeanhistory is the description of the most significant achievements ofwestern civilization during the past fifteen hundred years, --theexplanation of how the Roman Empire of the West and the wild and unknowndistricts inhabited by the German races have become the Europe ofGladstone and Bismarck, of Darwin and Pasteur. In order to present even an outline of the great changes during thislong period, all that was exceptional and abnormal must be left out. Wemust fix our attention upon man's habitual conduct, upon those thingsthat he kept on doing in essentially the same way for a century or so. Particular events are important in so far as they illustrate thesepermanent conditions and explain how the western world passed from onestate to another. [Sidenote: We should study the past sympathetically. ] We must learn, above all, to study sympathetically institutions andbeliefs that we are tempted at first to declare absurd and unreasonable. The aim of the historian is not to prove that a particular way of doinga thing is right or wrong, as, for instance, intrusting the wholegovernment to a king or forbidding clergymen to marry. His object is toshow as well as he can how a certain system came to be introduced, whatwas thought of it, how it worked, and how another plan graduallysupplanted it. It seems to us horrible that a man should be burned alivebecause he holds views of Christianity different from those of hisneighbors. Instead, however, of merely condemning the practice, we must, as historical students, endeavor to see why practically every one in thethirteenth century, even the wisest and most tender-hearted, agreed thatsuch a fearful punishment was the appropriate one for a heretic. Aneffort has, therefore, been made throughout this volume to treat theconvictions and habits of men and nations in the past withconsideration; that is, to make them seem natural and to show theirbeneficent rather than their evil aspects. It is not the weakness of aninstitution, but the good that is in it, that leads men to adopt andretain it. [Sidenote: Impossibility of dividing the past into clearly definedperiods. ] [Sidenote: All general changes take place gradually. ] 2. It is impossible to divide the past into distinct, clearly definedperiods and prove that one age ended and another began in a particularyear, such as 476, or 1453, or 1789. Men do not and cannot change theirhabits and ways of doing things all at once, no matter what happens. Itis true that a single event, such as an important battle which resultsin the loss of a nation's independence, may produce an abrupt change inthe government. This in turn may encourage or discourage commerce andindustry and modify the language and the spirit of a people. Yet thesedeeper changes take place only very gradually. After a battle or arevolution the farmer will sow and reap in his old way, the artisan willtake up his familiar tasks, and the merchant his buying and selling. Thescholar will study and write and the household go on under the newgovernment just as they did under the old. So a change in governmentaffects the habits of a people but slowly in any case, and it may leavethem quite unaltered. The French Revolution, at the end of the eighteenth century, wasprobably the most abrupt and thoroughgoing change in the habits of anation of which we have any record. But we shall find, when we come tostudy it, that it was by no means so sudden in reality as is ordinarilysupposed. Moreover, the innovators did not even succeed in permanentlyaltering the form of government; for when the French, after living undera monarchy for many centuries, set up a republic in 1792, the newgovernment lasted only a few years. The nation was monarchical by habitand soon gladly accepted the rule of Napoleon, which was more despoticthan that of any of its former kings. In reorganizing the state heborrowed much from the discarded monarchy, and the present Frenchrepublic still retains many of these arrangements. [Sidenote: The unity or continuity of history. ] This tendency of mankind to do, in general, this year what it did last, in spite of changes in some one department of life, --such assubstituting a president for a king, traveling by rail instead of onhorseback, or getting the news from a newspaper instead of from aneighbor, --results in what is called the _unity_ or _continuity ofhistory_. The truth that no abrupt change has ever taken place in allthe customs of a people, and that it cannot, in the nature of things, take place, is perhaps the most fundamental lesson that history teaches. Historians sometimes seem to forget this principle, when they claim tobegin and end their books at precise dates. We find histories of Europefrom 476 to 918, from 1270 to 1492, as if the accession of a capableGerman king in 918, or the death of a famous French king in 1270, or thediscovery of America, marked a general change in European affairs. Inreality, however, no general change took place at these dates or in anyother single year. It would doubtless have proved a great convenience tothe readers and writers of history if the world had agreed to carry outa definite programme and alter its habits at precise dates, preferablyat the opening of each century. But no such agreement has ever beenadopted, and the historical student must take things as he finds them. He must recognize that nations retain their old customs while they adoptnew ones, and that a portion of a nation may advance while a great partof it stays behind. [Sidenote: Meaning of the term 'Middle Ages. '] 3. We cannot, therefore, hope to fix any year or event which mayproperly be taken as the beginning of that long period which followedthe downfall of the Roman state in western Europe and which is commonlycalled the Middle Ages. Beyond the northern and western boundaries ofthe Roman Empire, which embraced the whole civilized world from theEuphrates to Britain, mysterious peoples moved about whose historybefore they came into occasional contact with the Romans is practicallyunknown. These Germans, or barbarians, as the Romans called them, weredestined to put an end to the Roman Empire in the West. They had firstbegun to make trouble about a hundred years before Christ, when a greatarmy of them was defeated by the Roman general, Marius. Julius Cæsarnarrates, in polished Latin, familiar to all who have begun the study ofthat language, how fifty years later he drove back other bands. Fivehundred years elapsed, however, between these first encounters and thefounding of German kingdoms within the boundaries of the Empire. Withtheir establishment the Roman government in western Europe may be saidto have come to an end and the Middle Ages to have begun. Yet it would be a great mistake to suppose that this means that theRoman civilization suddenly disappeared at this time. As we shall see, it had gradually changed during the centuries following the golden ageof Augustus, who died A. D. 14. Long before the German conquest, art andliterature had begun to decline toward the level that they reached inthe Middle Ages. Many of the ideas and conditions which prevailed afterthe coming of the barbarians were common enough before, --even theignorance and want of taste which we associate particularly with theMiddle Ages. The term _Middle Ages_ is, then, a vague one. It will be used in thisvolume to mean, roughly speaking, the period of nearly a thousand yearsthat elapsed between the opening of the fifth century, when the disorderof the barbarian invasions was becoming general, and the fourteenthcentury, when Europe was well on its way to retrieve all that had beenlost since the break-up of the Roman Empire. [Sidenote: The 'dark ages. '] It used to be assumed, when there was much less interest in the periodthan there now is, that with the disruption of the Empire and thedisorder that followed, practically all culture perished for centuries, that Europe entered upon the "dark ages. " These were represented asdreary centuries of ignorance and violence in marked contrast to thecivilization of the Greeks and Romans on the one hand, and to theenlightenment of modern times on the other. The more careful studies ofthe last half century have made it clear that the Middle Ages were not"dark" in the sense of being stagnant and unproductive. On the contrary, they were full of movement and growth, and we owe to them a great manythings in our civilization which we should never have derived fromGreece and Rome. It is the purpose of the first nineteen chapters ofthis manual to describe the effects of the barbarian conquests, thegradual recovery of Europe from the disorder of the successiveinvasions, and the peculiar institutions which grew up to meet the needsof the times. The remaining chapters will attempt to show how mediævalinstitutions, habits, and ideas were supplanted, step by step, by thosewhich exist in Europe to-day. [Illustration: THE ROMAN EMPIRE AT ITS GREATEST EXTENT] CHAPTER II WESTERN EUROPE BEFORE THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS [Sidenote: Extent of the Roman Empire. ] 4. No one can hope to understand the Middle Ages who does not firstlearn something of the Roman Empire, within whose bounds the Germans setup their kingdoms and began the long task of creating modern Europe. At the opening of the fifth century there were no separate, independentstates in western Europe such as we find on the map to-day. The wholeterritory now occupied by England, France, Spain, and Italy formed atthat time only a part of the vast realms ruled over by the Roman emperorand his host of officials. As for Germany, it was still a region offorests, familiar only to the barbarous and half-savage tribes whoinhabited them. The Romans tried in vain to conquer this part of Europe, and finally had to content themselves with keeping the German hordes outof the Empire by means of fortifications and guards along the Rhine andDanube rivers. [Sidenote: Great diversity of races included within the Empire. ] The Roman Empire, which embraced southern and western Europe, westernAsia, and even the northern portion of Africa, included the most diversepeoples and races. Egyptians, Arabs, Jews, Greeks, Germans, Gauls, Britons, Iberians, --all alike were under the sovereign rule of Rome. Onegreat state embraced the nomad shepherds who spread their tents on theborders of Sahara, the mountaineers in the fastnesses of Wales, and thecitizens of Athens, Alexandria, and Rome, heirs to all the luxury andlearning of the ages. Whether one lived in York or Jerusalem, Memphisor Vienna, he paid his taxes into the same treasury, he was tried by thesame law, and looked to the same armies for protection. [Illustration: Remains of a Roman Aqueduct, now used as a Bridge, nearNîmes, Southern France] [Sidenote: Bonds which held the Empire together. ] At first it seems incredible that this huge Empire, which includedAfrican and Asiatic peoples as well as the most various races of Europein all stages of civilization, could have held together for fivecenturies instead of falling to pieces, as might have been expected, long before the barbarians came in sufficient strength to establishtheir own kingdoms in its midst. When, however, we consider the bonds ofunion which held the state together it is easy to understand thepermanence of the Empire. These were: (1) the wonderfully organizedgovernment which penetrated to every part of the realm and allowedlittle to escape it; (2) the worship of the emperor as the incarnationof the government; (3) the Roman law in force everywhere; (4) theadmirable roads and the uniform system of coinage which encouragedintercommunication; and, lastly, (5) the Roman colonies and the teachersmaintained by the government, for through them the same ideas andculture were carried to even the most distant parts of the Empire. [Sidenote: The Roman government attempted to regulate everything. ] Let us first glance at the government and the emperor. His decrees weredispatched throughout the length and breadth of the Roman dominions;whatsoever pleased him became law, according to the well-known principleof the Roman constitution. While the cities were permitted some freedomin the regulation of their purely local affairs, the emperor and hisinnumerable and marvelously organized officials kept an eye upon eventhe humblest citizen. The Roman government, besides maintaining order, administering justice, and defending the boundaries, assumed many otherresponsibilities. It watched the grain dealers, butchers, and bakers;saw that they properly supplied the public and never deserted theiroccupation. In some cases it forced the son to follow the profession ofhis father. If it could have had its way, it would have had every onebelong to a definite class of society, and his children after him. Itkept the unruly poorer classes quiet in the towns by furnishing themwith bread, and sometimes with wine, meat, and clothes. It providedamusement for them by expensive entertainments, such as races andgladiatorial combats. In a word, the Roman government was not onlywonderfully organized, so that it penetrated to the utmost confines ofits territory, but it attempted to guard and regulate almost everyinterest in life. [Sidenote: The worship of the emperor. ] Every one was required to join in the worship of the emperor because hestood for the majesty of the Roman dominion. The inhabitants of eachprovince might revere their particular gods, undisturbed by thegovernment, but all were obliged as good citizens to join in theofficial sacrifices to the deified head of the state. The earlyChristians were persecuted, not only because their religion wasdifferent from that of their fellows, but because they refused to offerhomage to the image of the emperor and openly prophesied the downfall ofthe Roman state. Their religion was incompatible with what was thendeemed good citizenship, inasmuch as it forbade them to express therequired veneration for the government. [Sidenote: The Roman law. ] As there was one government, so there was one law for all the civilizedworld. Local differences were not considered; the same principles ofreason, justice, and humanity were believed to hold whether the Romancitizen lived upon the Euphrates or the Thames. The law of the RomanEmpire is its chief legacy to posterity. Its provisions are still inforce in many of the states of Europe to-day, and it is one of thesubjects of study in our American universities. It exhibited a humanityunknown to the earlier legal codes. The wife, mother, and infant wereprotected from the arbitrary power of the head of the house, who, inearlier centuries, had been privileged to treat the members of hisfamily as slaves. It held that it was better that a guilty person shouldescape than that an innocent person should be condemned. It conceivedhumanity, not as a group of nations and tribes, each with its peculiarinstitutions and legal customs, but as one people included in one greatempire and subject to a single system of law based upon reason andequity. [Illustration: A Fortified Roman Gateway at Treves] [Sidenote: Roads and public works. ] Magnificent roads were constructed, which enabled the messengers of thegovernment and its armies to reach every part of the Empire withincredible speed. These highways made commerce easy and encouragedmerchants and travelers to visit the most distant portions of the realm. Everywhere they found the same coins and the same system of weights andmeasures. Colonies were sent out to the confines of the Empire, and theremains of great public buildings, of theaters and bridges, of sumptuousvillas and baths at places like Treves, Cologne, Bath, and Salzburgindicate how thoroughly the influence and civilization of Romepenetrated to the utmost parts of the territory subject to her rule. [Sidenote: The same culture throughout the Roman Empire. ] The government encouraged education by supporting at least threeteachers in every town of any considerable importance. They taughtrhetoric and oratory and explained the works of the great writers. TheRomans, who had no marked literary or artistic ability, had adopted theculture of the Greeks. This was spread abroad by the government teachersso that an educated man was pretty sure to find, even in the outlyingparts of the great Empire, other educated men with much the sameinterests and ideas as his own. Everywhere men felt themselves to be notmere natives of this or that land but citizens of the world. [Sidenote: Loyalty to the Empire and conviction that it was eternal. ] During the four centuries from the first emperor, Augustus, to thebarbarian invasions we hear of no attempt on the part of its subjects tooverthrow the Empire or to secede from it. The Roman state, it wasuniversally believed, was to endure forever. Had a rebellious nationsucceeded in throwing off the rule of the emperor and establishing itsindependence, it would only have found itself outside the civilizedworld. [Sidenote: Reasons why the Empire lost its power to defend itselfagainst the Germans. ] 5. Just why the Roman government, once so powerful and so universallyrespected, finally became unable longer to defend its borders and gaveway before the scattered attacks of the German peoples, who nevercombined in any general alliance against it, is a very difficultquestion to answer satisfactorily. The inhabitants of the Empire appeargradually to have lost their energy and self-reliance and to have becomeless and less prosperous. This may be explained partially at least bythe following considerations: (1) the terrible system of taxation, whichdiscouraged and not infrequently ruined the members of the wealthierclasses; (2) the existence of slavery, which served to discredit honestlabor and demoralized the free workingmen; (3) the steady decrease ofpopulation; (4) the infiltration of barbarians, who prepared the way forthe conquest of the western portion of the Empire by theirfellow-barbarians. [Sidenote: Oppressive taxation. ] It required a great deal of money to support the luxurious court of theemperors and their innumerable officials and servants, and to supply"bread and circuses" for the populace of the towns. All sorts of taxesand exactions were consequently devised by ingenious officials to makeup the necessary revenue. The crushing burden of the great land tax, theemperor's chief source of income, was greatly increased by thepernicious way in which it was collected. The government made a group ofthe richer citizens in each of the towns permanently responsible for thewhole amount due from all the landowners within their district. It wastheir business to collect the taxes and make up any deficiency, itmattered not from what cause. This responsibility and the weight of thetaxes themselves ruined so many landowners that the government wasforced to decree that no one should desert his estates in order toescape the exactions. Only the very rich could stand the drain on theirresources. The middle class sank into poverty and despair, and in thisway the Empire lost just that prosperous class of citizens who shouldhave been the leaders in business enterprises. [Sidenote: Slavery. ] The sad plight of the poorer laboring classes was largely due to theterrible institution of slavery which prevailed everywhere in ancienttimes. So soon as the Romans had begun to conquer distant provinces thenumber of slaves greatly increased. For six or seven centuries beforethe barbarian invasions every kind of labor fell largely into theirhands in both country and town. There were millions of them. A singlerich landholder might own hundreds and even thousands, and it was a poorman that did not have several at least. [Sidenote: The villa. ] Land was the only highly esteemed form of wealth in the Roman Empire, inspite of the heavy taxes imposed upon it. Without large holdings of landno one could hope to enjoy a high social position or an honorable officeunder the government. Consequently the land came gradually into thehands of the rich and ambitious, and the small landed proprietordisappeared. Great estates called _villas_ covered Italy, Gaul, andBritain. These were cultivated and managed by armies of slaves, who notonly tilled the land, but supplied their master, his household, andthemselves with all that was needed on the plantation. The artisansamong them made the tools, garments, and other manufactured articlesnecessary for the whole community, or "family, " as it was called. Slavescooked the food, waited on the proprietor, wrote his letters, and readto him. To a head slave the whole management of the villa was intrusted. A villa might be as extensive as a large village, but all its memberswere under the absolute control of the proprietor of the estate. Awell-organized villa could supply itself with everything that it needed, and found little or no reason for buying from any outsider. [Sidenote: Slavery brings labor into disrepute. ] Quite naturally, freemen came to scorn all manual labor and even trade, for these occupations were associated in their minds with the despisedslave. Seneca, the philosopher, angrily rejects the suggestion that thepractical arts were invented by a philosopher; they were, he declares, "thought out by the meanest bondman. " [Sidenote: Competition of slaves fatal to the freeman. ] Slavery did more than bring manual labor into disrepute; it largelymonopolized the market. Each great household where articles of luxurywere in demand relied upon its own host of dexterous and efficientslaves to produce them. Moreover, the owners of slaves frequently hiredthem out to those who needed workmen, or permitted them to work forwages, and in this way brought them into a competition with the freeworkman which was fatal to him. [Sidenote: Improved condition of the slaves and their emancipation. ] It cannot be denied that a notable improvement in the condition of theslaves took place during the centuries immediately preceding thebarbarian invasions. Their owners abandoned the horrible subterraneanprisons in which the farm hands were once miserably huddled at night. The law, moreover, protected the slave from some of the worst forms ofabuse; first and foremost, it deprived his master of the right to killhim. Slaves began to decrease in numbers before the German invasions. Inthe first place, the supply had been cut off after the Roman armiesceased to conquer new territory. In the second place, masters had forvarious reasons begun to emancipate their slaves on a large scale. [Sidenote: The freedman. ] The freed slave was called a _freedman_, and was by no means in theposition of one who was born free. It is true that he was no longer achattel, a mere thing, but he had still to serve his former master, --whohad now become his patron, --for a certain number of days in the year. Hewas obliged to pay him a part of his earnings and could not marrywithout his patron's consent. [Sidenote: The coloni. ] [Sidenote: Resemblance between the coloni and the later serfs. ] Yet, as the condition of the slaves improved, and many of them becamefreedmen, the state of the poor freeman only became worse. In the towns, if he tried to earn his living, he was forced to mingle with thoseslaves who were permitted to work for wages and with the freedmen, andhe naturally tended to sink to their level. In the country the freeagricultural laborers became _coloni_, a curious intermediate class, neither slave nor really free. They were bound to the particular bit ofland which some great proprietor permitted them to cultivate and weresold with it if it changed hands. Like the mediæval _serf_, they couldnot be deprived of their fields so long as they paid the owner a certainpart of their crop and worked for him during a period fixed by thecustoms of the domain upon which they lived. This system made itimpossible for the farmer to become independent, or for his son to bebetter off than he. The coloni and the more fortunate slaves tended tofuse into a single class; for the law provided that, like the coloni, certain classes of country slaves were not to be taken from the fieldwhich they had been accustomed to cultivate but were to go with it if itwas sold. [1] Moreover, it often happened that the Roman proprietor had a number ofdependents among the less fortunate landowners in his neighborhood. These, in order to escape the taxes and gain his protection as the timesbecame more disorderly, surrendered their land to their powerfulneighbor with the understanding that he should defend them and permitthem to continue during their lifetime to cultivate the fields, thetitle to which had passed to him. On their death their children becamecoloni. This arrangement, as we shall find, serves in a measure toexplain the feudalism of later times. [Sidenote: Depopulation. ] When a country is prosperous the population tends to increase. In theRoman Empire, even as early as Augustus, a falling off in numbers wasapparent, which was bound to sap the vitality of the state. War, plague, the evil results of slavery, and the outrageous taxation all combined tohasten the depopulation; for when it is hard to make a living, men aredeterred from marrying and find it difficult to bring up large families. [Sidenote: Infiltration of Germans into the Empire. ] In order to replenish the population great numbers of the Germans wereencouraged to settle within the Empire, where they became coloni. Constantine is said to have called in three hundred thousand of asingle people. Barbarians were enlisted in the Roman legions to keep outtheir fellow-Germans. Julius Cæsar was the first to give them a placeamong his soldiers. The expedient became more and more common, until, finally, whole armies were German, entire tribes being enlisted undertheir own chiefs. Some of the Germans rose to be distinguished generals;others attained important positions among the officials of thegovernment. In this way it came about that a great many of theinhabitants of the Roman Empire were Germans before the great invasions. The line dividing the Roman and the barbarian was growing indistinct. Itis not unreasonable to suppose that the influx of barbarians smoothedthe way for the break-up of the western part of the Empire. Althoughthey had a great respect for the Roman state, they must have kept someof their German love of individual liberty and could have had littlesympathy for the despotism under which they lived. [Sidenote: Decline of literature and art. ] 6. As the Empire declined in strength and prosperity and was graduallypermeated by the barbarians, its art and literature fell far below thestandard of the great writers and artists of the golden age of Augustus. The sculpture of Constantine's time was far inferior to that ofTrajan's. Cicero's exquisitely finished style lost its charm for thereaders of the fourth and fifth centuries, and a florid, inferiorspecies of oratory took its place. Tacitus, who died about A. D. 120, isperhaps the latest of the Latin authors whose works may be ranked amongthe classics. No more great men of letters arose. Few of those whounderstand and enjoy Latin literature to-day would think of reading anyof the poetry or prose written after the beginning of the secondcentury. [Sidenote: Reliance upon mere compendiums. ] During the three hundred years before the invasions those who read atall did not ordinarily take the trouble to study the classics, butrelied upon mere collections of quotations; and for what they calledscience, upon compendiums and manuals. These the Middle Ages inherited, and it was not until the time of Petrarch, in the fourteenth century, that Europe once more reached a degree of cultivation which enabled themore discriminating scholars to appreciate the best productions of thegreat authors of antiquity, both Greek and Latin. [2] [Sidenote: Preparation for Christianity. ] In spite of the general decline of which we have been speaking, theRoman world appeared to be making progress in one important respect. During the first and second centuries a sort of moral revival took placeand a growing religious enthusiasm showed itself, which prepared the wayfor the astonishingly rapid introduction of the new Christian religion. Some of the pagan philosophers had quite given up the old idea which wefind in Homer and Virgil, that there were many gods, and had reached anelevated conception of the one God and of our duty toward Him. "Ourduty, " writes the philosopher Epictetus at the end of the first century, "is to follow God, ... To be of one mind with Him, to devote ourselvesto the performance of His commands. " The emperor Marcus Aurelius (d. 180) expresses similar sentiments in his _Meditations_, [3] the noteswhich he wrote for his own guidance. There was a growing abhorrence forthe notorious vices of the great cities, and an ever-increasing demandfor pure and upright conduct. The pagan religions taught that the soulsof the dead continued to exist in Hades; but the life to come wasbelieved to be a dreary existence at best. [Sidenote: Promises of Christianity. ] Christianity brought with it a new hope for all those who would escapefrom the bondage of sin, of which the serious-minded were becoming moreand more conscious. It promised, moreover, eternal happiness after deathto all who would consistently strive to do right. It appealed to thedesires and needs of all kinds of men and women. For every one whoaccepted the Gospel might look forward in the next world to such joy ashe could never hope to experience in this. [Sidenote: Christianity and paganism tend to merge into one another. ] [Sidenote: Boethius. ] The new religion, as it spread from Palestine among the Gentiles, wasmuch modified by the religious ideas of those who accepted it. A groupof Christian philosophers, who are known as the early fathers, strove toshow that the Gospel was in accord with the aspirations of the best ofthe pagans. In certain ceremonies the former modes of worship wereaccepted by the new religion. From simple beginnings the churchdeveloped a distinct priesthood and an elaborate service. In this wayChristianity and the higher forms of paganism tended to come nearer andnearer to each other as time went on. In one sense, it is true, they metlike two armies in mortal conflict; but at the same time they tended tomerge into one another like two streams which had been followingconverging courses. At the confluence of the streams stands Boethius (d. About 524), the most gifted of the later Roman writers. His beautifulbook, _The Consolation of Philosophy_, was one of the most popular worksduring the Middle Ages, when every one believed that its author was aChristian. [4] Yet there is nothing in the book to indicate that he wasmore than a religious pagan, and some scholars doubt if he ever fullyaccepted the new religion. [Sidenote: The primitive, or apostolic, church. ] 7. We learn from the letters of St. Paul that the earliest Christiancommunities found it necessary to have some organization. They chosecertain officers, the bishops--that is to say, overseers--and thepresbyters or elders, but St. Paul does not tell us exactly what werethe duties of these officers. There were also the deacons, who appear tohave had the care of the poor of the community. The first Christianslooked for the speedy coming of Christ before their own generationshould pass away. Since all were filled with enthusiasm for the Gospeland eagerly awaited the last day, they did not feel the need of anelaborate constitution. But as time went on the Christian communitiesgreatly increased in size, and many joined them who had little or noneof the original fervor and spirituality. It became necessary to developa regular system of church government in order to control the erring andexpel those who brought disgrace upon their religion by notoriously badconduct. [Sidenote: The 'catholic', or universal, church. ] A famous little book, _The Unity of the Church_, by Bishop Cyprian (d. 258) gives us a pretty good idea of the Church a few decades before theChristian religion was legalized by Constantine. This and other sourcesindicate that the followers of Christ had already come to believe in a"Catholic"--i. E. , a universal--Church which embraced all the communitiesof true believers wherever they might be. To this one universal Churchall must belong who hoped to be saved. [5] [Sidenote: Organization of the church before Constantine. ] A sharp distinction was already made between the officers of the Church, who were called the _clergy_, and the people, or _laity_. To the clergywas committed the government of the Church as well as the instruction ofits members. In each of the Roman cities was a bishop, and at the headof the country communities, a priest (Latin, _presbyter_), who hadsucceeded to the original elders (presbyters) mentioned in the NewTestament. Below the bishop and the priest were the lower orders of theclergy, --the deacon and sub-deacon, --and below these the so called minororders--the acolyte, exorcist, reader, and doorkeeper. The bishopexercised a certain control over the priests within his territory. Itwas not unnatural that the bishops in the chief towns of the Romanprovinces should be especially influential in church affairs. They cameto be called _archbishops_, and might summon the bishops of theprovince to a council to decide important matters. [Sidenote: The first general council, 325. Position of the Bishop ofRome during this period. ] In 311 the emperor Galerius issued a decree placing the Christianreligion upon the same legal footing as paganism. Constantine, the firstChristian emperor, carefully enforced this edict. In 325 the firstgeneral council of Christendom was called together under his auspices atNicæa. It is clear from the decrees of this famous assembly that theCatholic Church had already assumed the form that it was to retain downto the present moment, except that there is no explicit recognition ofthe Bishop of Rome as the head of the whole church. Nevertheless, therewere a number of reasons--to be discussed later--why the Bishop of Romeshould sometime become the acknowledged ruler of western Christendom. The first of the Roman bishops to play a really important part inauthentic history was Leo the Great, who did not take office until440. [6] [Sidenote: The Church in the Theodosian Code. ] Constantine's successors soon forbade pagan practices and began to issuelaws which gave the Christian clergy important privileges. In the lastbook of the Theodosian Code, a great collection of the laws of theEmpire, which was completed in 438, all the imperial decrees are to befound which relate to the Christian Church and the clergy. We find thatthe clergy, in view of their holy duties, were exempted from certainonerous offices and from some of the taxes which the laity had to pay. They were also permitted to receive bequests. The emperors themselvesrichly endowed the Church. Their example was followed by rulers andprivate individuals all through the Middle Ages, so that the Churchbecame incredibly wealthy and enjoyed a far greater income than anystate of Europe. The clergy were permitted to try certain cases at law, and they themselves had the privilege of being tried in their own churchcourts for minor criminal offenses. This last book of the Code beginswith a definition of the Trinity; and much space is given to adescription of the different kinds of unbelievers and the penaltiesattached to a refusal to accept the religion of the government. [7] [Sidenote: The Church survives the Empire. ] In these provisions of the Theodosian Code the later mediæval Church isclearly foreshadowed. The imperial government in the West was soonoverthrown by the barbarian conquerors, but the Catholic Churchconquered and absorbed the conquerors. When the officers of the Empiredeserted their posts the bishops stayed to meet the on-coming invader. They continued to represent the old civilization and ideas of order. Itwas the Church that kept the Latin language alive among those who knewonly a rude German dialect. It was the Church that maintained somelittle education in even the darkest period of confusion, for withoutthe ability to read Latin its services could not have been performed andits officers could not have carried on their correspondence with oneanother. [Sidenote: The Eastern Empire. ] 8. Although the Roman Empire remained one in law, government, andculture until the Germans came in sufficient force to conquer thewestern portions of it, a tendency may nevertheless be noticed some timebefore the conquest for the eastern and western portions to drift apart. Constantine, who established his supremacy only after a long strugglewith his rivals, hoped to strengthen the vast state by establishing asecond capital, which should lie far to the east and dominate a regionvery remote from Rome. Constantinople was accordingly founded in 330 onthe confines of Europe and Asia. [8] This was by no means supposed todestroy the unity of the Empire. Even when Theodosius the Great arranged(395) that both his sons should succeed him, and that one should rulein the West and one in the East, he did not intend to divide the Empire. It is true that there continued to be thereafter two emperors, each inhis own capital, but they were supposed to govern one empire conjointlyand in "unanimity. " New laws were to be accepted by both. The writers ofthe time do not speak of two states but continue to refer to "theEmpire, " as if the administration were still in the hands of one ruler. Indeed the idea of one government for all civilized mankind did not passaway but continued to influence men during the whole of the Middle Ages. Although it was in the eastern part of the Empire that the barbariansfirst got a permanent foothold, the emperors at Constantinople were ableto keep a portion of the old possessions of the Empire under their rulefor centuries after the Germans had completely conquered the West. Whenat last the eastern capital of the Empire fell, it was not into thehands of the Germans, but into those of the Turks, who have held itsince 1453. There will be no room in this volume to follow the history of theEastern Empire, although it cannot be entirely ignored in studyingwestern Europe. Its language and civilization had always been Greek, andowing to this and the influence of the Orient, its culture offers amarked contrast to that of the Latin West, which was adopted by theGermans. Learning never died out in the East as it did in the West, nordid art reach so low an ebb. [Sidenote: Constantinople the most wealthy and populous city of Europeduring the early Middle Ages. ] For some centuries after the disruption of the Roman Empire in the West, the capital of the Eastern Empire enjoyed the distinction of being thelargest and most wealthy city of Europe. Within its walls could be foundthe indications of a refinement and civilization which had almostdisappeared in the Occident. Its beautiful buildings, its parks andpaved streets, filled the traveler from the West with astonishment. When, during the Crusades, the western peoples were brought intocontact with the learning and culture of Constantinople they weregreatly and permanently impressed by them. General Reading. --For an outline of the history of the Roman Empire during the centuries immediately preceding the barbarian invasions, see BOTSFORD, _History of Rome_, WEST, _Ancient History to the Death of Charlemagne_, MYERS, _Rome: Its Rise and Fall_, or MOREY, _Outlines of Roman History_, --all with plenty of references to larger works on the subject. The best work in English on the conditions in the Empire upon the eve of the invasions is DILL, _Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire_ (Macmillan, $2. 00). HATCH, _The Influence of Greek Thought upon the Christian Church_ (Williams & Norgate, $1. 00), and RENAN, _The Influence of Rome on the Development of the Catholic Church_ (Williams & Norgate, $1. 00), are very important for the advanced student. The best of the numerous editions of Gibbon's great work, _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, which covers the whole history of the Middle Ages, is that edited by Bury (The Macmillan Company, 7 vols. , $14. 00). CHAPTER III THE GERMAN INVASIONS AND THE BREAK-UP OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE [Sidenote: The Huns force the Goths into the Empire. Battle ofAdrianople, 378. ] 9. Previous to the year 375 the attempts of the Germans to penetrateinto the Empire appear to have been due to their love of adventure, their hope of enjoying some of the advantages of their civilizedneighbors, or the need of new lands for their increasing numbers. Andthe Romans, by means of their armies, their walls, and their guards, hadup to this time succeeded in preventing the barbarians from violentlyoccupying their territory. But suddenly a new force appeared whichthrust the Germans out upon the weakened Empire. The Huns, a Mongolianfolk from central Asia, swept down upon the Goths, who were a Germantribe settled upon the Danube, and forced a part of them to seek shelteracross the river, within the boundaries of the Empire. Here they soonfell out with the imperial officials, and a great battle was fought atAdrianople in 378 in which the Goths defeated and slew the emperor, Valens. The Germans had now not only broken through the boundaries ofthe Empire, but they had also learned that they could defeat the Romanlegions. The battle of Adrianople may, therefore, be said to mark thebeginning of the conquest of the western part of the Empire by theGermans. For some years, however, after the battle of Adrianople thevarious bands of West Goths--or Visigoths, as they are oftencalled--were induced to accept the terms offered by the emperor'sofficials and some of the Goths agreed to serve as soldiers in the Romanarmies. [Illustration: THE BARBARIAN INROADS] [Sidenote: Alaric takes Rome, 410. ] Before long one of the German chieftains, Alaric, became dissatisfiedwith the treatment that he received. He collected an army, of which thenucleus consisted of West Goths, and set out for Italy. Rome fell intohis hands in 410 and was plundered by his followers. Alaric appears tohave been deeply impressed by the sight of the civilization about him. He did not destroy the city, hardly even did serious damage to it, andhe gave especial orders to his soldiers not to injure the churches ortake their property. [9] [Sidenote: West Goths settle in southern Gaul and Spain. ] Alaric died before he could find a satisfactory spot for his people tosettle upon permanently. After his death the West Goths wandered intoGaul, and then into Spain, which had already been occupied by otherbarbarian tribes, --the Vandals and Suevi. These had crossed the Rhineinto Gaul four years before Alaric took Rome; for three years theydevastated the country and then proceeded across the Pyrenees. When theWest Goths reached Spain they quickly concluded peace with the Romangovernment. They then set to work to fight the Vandals, with suchsuccess that the emperor granted them a considerable district (419) insouthern Gaul, where they established a West Gothic kingdom. Ten yearsafter, the Vandals moved on into Africa, where they founded a kingdomand extended their control over the western Mediterranean. Their placein Spain was taken by the West Goths who, under their king, Euric(466-484), conquered a great part of the peninsula, so that theirkingdom extended from the Loire to the Straits of Gibraltar. [10] [Sidenote: General dismemberment of the Empire in fifth century. ] It is quite unnecessary to follow the confused history of the movementsof the innumerable bands of restless barbarians who wandered aboutEurope during the fifth century. Scarcely any part of western Europe wasleft unmolested; even Britain was conquered by German tribes, the Anglesand Saxons. [Sidenote: Attila and the Huns. ] [Sidenote: Battle of Châlons, 451. ] [Sidenote: Founding of Venice. ] To add to the universal confusion caused by the influx of the Germantribes, the Huns, the Mongolian people who had first pushed the WestGoths into the Empire, now began to fill western Europe with terror. Under their chief, Attila, --"the scourge of God, " as the tremblingRomans called him, --the savage Huns invaded Gaul. But the Romaninhabitants and the Germans joined against the invaders and defeatedthem in the battle of Châlons, in 451. After this rebuff Attila turnedto Italy. But the impending danger was averted. Attila was induced by anembassy, headed by Pope Leo the Great, to give up his plan of marchingupon Rome. Within a year he died and with him perished the power of theHuns, who never troubled Europe again. Their threatened invasion ofItaly produced one permanent result however; for it was then thatfugitives from the cities of northeastern Italy fled to the sandy isletsjust off the Adriatic shore and founded the town which was to grow intothe beautiful and powerful city of Venice. [11] [Sidenote: The 'fall' of the Empire in the West, 476. ] [Sidenote: Odoacer. ] 10. The year 476 has commonly been taken as the date of the "fall" ofthe Western Empire and of the beginning of the Middle Ages. Whathappened in that year was this. Since Theodosius the Great, in 395, hadprovided that his two sons should divide the administration of theEmpire between them, most of the emperors of the West had proved weakand indolent rulers. The barbarians wandered hither and thither prettymuch at their pleasure, and the German troops in the service of theEmpire amused themselves setting up and throwing down puppet emperors. In 476 the German mercenaries in the Roman army demanded that a thirdpart of Italy be given to them. On the refusal of this demand, Odoacer, their leader, banished the last of the western emperors (whose name was, by the irony of fate, Romulus Augustus the Little) to a villa nearNaples. Then Odoacer sent the insignia of empire to the eastern emperorwith the request that he be permitted to rule Italy as the emperor'sdelegate, thus putting an end to the line of the western emperors. [12] [Sidenote: Theodoric conquers Odoacer and establishes the kingdom of theEast Goths in Italy. ] It was not, however, given to Odoacer to establish an enduring Germankingdom on Italian soil, for he was conquered by the great Theodoric, the king of the East Goths (or Ostrogoths). Theodoric had spent tenyears of his early youth in Constantinople and had thus become familiarwith Roman life. Since his return to his people he had been alternatelya dangerous enemy and an embarrassing friend to the eastern emperor. TheEast Goths, under his leadership, had harassed and devastated variousparts of the Eastern Empire, and had once threatened the capital itself. The emperor had repeatedly conciliated him by conferring upon himvarious honors and titles and by making large grants of money and landto his people. It must have been a great relief to the government whenTheodoric determined to lead his people to Italy against Odoacer. "If Ifail, " Theodoric said to the emperor, "you will be relieved of anexpensive and troublesome friend; if, with the divine permission, Isucceed, I shall govern in your name and to your glory, the Roman Senateand that part of the Empire delivered from slavery by my victoriousarms. " The struggle between Theodoric and Odoacer lasted for several years, butOdoacer was finally shut up in Ravenna and surrendered, only to betreacherously slain a few days later by Theodoric's own hand (493). [13] [Sidenote: The East Goths in Italy. ] The attitude of the East Goths toward the people already in possessionof the land and toward the Roman culture is significant. Theodoric putthe name of the eastern emperor on the coins that he issued and dideverything in his power to insure the emperor's approval of the newGerman kingdom. Nevertheless, although he desired that the emperorshould sanction his usurpation, Theodoric had no idea of being reallysubordinate to Constantinople. [Illustration: Interior of a Church at Ravenna, built in Theodoric'sTime] The invaders appropriated one third of the land for themselves, but thiswas done with discretion and no disorder appears to have resulted. Theodoric maintained the Roman laws and institutions, which he greatlyadmired. The old offices and titles were retained, and Goth and Romanlived under the same Roman law. Order was restored and learningencouraged. In Ravenna, which Theodoric chose for his capital, beautifulbuildings that date from his reign still exist. [Sidenote: The East Goths were Arian heretics. ] On his death in 526, Theodoric left behind him an admirably organizedstate, but it had one conspicuous weakness. The Goths, althoughChristians, were unorthodox according to the standard of the ItalianChristians. They had been converted by eastern missionaries, who taughtthem the Arian heresy earlier prevalent at Constantinople. Thisdoctrine, which derived its name from Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria(d. 336), had been condemned by the Council of Nicæa. The followers ofArius did not have the same conception of Christ's nature and of therelations of the three members of the Trinity as that sanctioned atRome. The East Goths were, therefore, not only barbarians, --which mighthave been forgiven them, --but were guilty, in the eyes of the orthodoxItalians, of the unpardonable offense of heresy. Theodoric himself wasexceptionally tolerant for his times. His conviction that "we cannotcommand in matters of religion because no one can be compelled tobelieve against his will, " showed a spirit alien to the traditions ofthe Roman Empire and the Roman Church, which represented the orthodoxbelief. [Sidenote: The German kingdoms of Theodoric's time. ] 11. While Theodoric had been establishing his kingdom in Italy with suchenlightenment and moderation, what is now France was coming under thecontrol of the most powerful of the barbarian peoples, the Franks, whowere to play a more important rôle in the formation of modern Europethan any of the other German races. Besides the kingdoms of the EastGoths and the Franks, the West Goths had their kingdom in Spain, theBurgundians had established themselves on the Rhone, and the Vandals inAfrica. Royal alliances were concluded between the reigning houses ofthese nations, and for the first time in the history of Europe we seesomething like a family of nations, living each within its ownboundaries and dealing with one another as independent powers. Itseemed for a few years as if the process of assimilation between Germansand Romans was going to make rapid progress without involving anyconsiderable period of disorder and retrogression. [Illustration: Map of Europe in the Time of Theodoric] [Sidenote: Extinction of Latin literature. ] [Sidenote: Boethius. ] But no such good fortune was in store for Europe, which was now only atthe beginning of the turmoil from which it was to emerge almostcompletely barbarized. Science, art, and literature could find nofoothold in the shifting political sands of the following centuries. Boethius, [14] whom Theodoric put to death (in 524 or 525) for allegedtreasonable correspondence with the emperor, was the last Latin writerwho can be compared in any way with the classical authors in his styleand mastery of the language. He was a scholar as well as a poet, and histreatises on logic, music, etc. , were highly esteemed by followinggenerations. [Sidenote: Cassiodorus and his manuals. ] Theodoric's distinguished Roman counselor, Cassiodorus (d. 575), towhose letters we owe a great part of our knowledge of the period, busiedhimself in his old age in preparing text-books of the liberal arts andsciences, --grammar, arithmetic, logic, geometry, rhetoric, music, andastronomy. His manuals were intended to give the uninstructed priests asufficient preparation for the study of the Bible and of the doctrinesof the Church. His absurdly inadequate and, to us, silly treatment ofthese seven important subjects, to which he devotes a few pages each, enables us to estimate the low plane to which learning had fallen inItaly in the sixth century. Yet his books were regarded as standardtreatises in these great fields of knowledge all through the MiddleAges. So mediæval Europe owed these, and other text-books upon which shewas dependent for her knowledge, to the period when Latin culture wascoming to an end. [Sidenote: Scarcely any writers in western Europe during the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries. ] A long period of gloom now begins. Between the time of Theodoric andthat of Charlemagne three hundred years elapsed, during which scarcely awriter was to be found who could compose, even in the worst of Latin, achronicle of the events of his day. [15] Everything conspired todiscourage education. The great centers of learning--Carthage, Rome, Alexandria, Milan--were partially destroyed by the barbarians or theArabs. The libraries which had been kept in the temples of the gods wereoften annihilated, along with the pagan shrines, by Christianenthusiasts, who were not sorry to see the heathen literature disappearwith the heathen religion. Shortly after Theodoric's death the easternemperor withdrew the support which the government had hitherto grantedto public teachers and closed the great school at Athens. The onlyimportant historian of the sixth century was the half-illiterateGregory, Bishop of Tours (d. 594), whose whole work is unimpeachableevidence of the sad state of intellectual affairs. He at least heartilyappreciated his own ignorance and exclaims, in incorrect Latin, "Woe toour time, for the study of letters has perished from among us. " [Sidenote: Justinian destroys the kingdoms of the Vandals and the EastGoths. ] 12. The year after Theodoric's death one of the greatest of the emperorsof the East, Justinian (527-565), came to the throne atConstantinople. [16] He undertook to regain for the Empire the provincesin Africa and Italy that had been occupied by the Vandals and EastGoths. His general, Belisarius, overthrew the Vandal kingdom in northernAfrica in 534, but it was a more difficult task to destroy the Gothicrule in Italy. However, in spite of a brave defense, the Goths were socompletely defeated in 553 that they agreed to leave Italy with alltheir movable possessions. What became of the remnants of the race we donot know. They had been too few to maintain their control over the massof the Italians, who were ready, with a religious zeal which cost themdear, to open their gates to the hostile armies of Justinian. [Sidenote: The Lombards occupy Italy. ] The destruction of the Gothic kingdom was a disaster for Italy. Immediately after the death of Justinian the country was overrun anew, by the Lombards, the last of the great German peoples to establishthemselves within the bounds of the former Empire. They were a savagerace, a considerable part of which was still pagan, and the ArianChristians among them appear to have been as hostile to the Roman Churchas their unconverted fellows. The newcomers first occupied the regionnorth of the Po, which has ever since been called Lombardy after them, and then extended their conquests southward. Instead of settlingthemselves with the moderation and wise statesmanship of the East Goths, the Lombards chose to move about the peninsula pillaging and massacring. Such of the inhabitants as could, fled to the islands off the coast. TheLombards were unable, however, to conquer all of Italy. Rome, Ravenna, and southern Italy continued to be held by the Greek empire. As timewent on, the Lombards lost their wildness, accepted the orthodox form ofChristianity, and gradually assimilated the civilization of the peopleamong whom they lived. Their kingdom lasted over two hundred years, until it was overthrown by Charlemagne. [Sidenote: The Franks; their importance and their method of conquest. ] 13. None of the German peoples of whom we have so far spoken, except theFranks, ever succeeded in establishing a permanent kingdom. Their stateswere overthrown in turn by some other German nation, by the EasternEmpire, or, in the case of the West-Gothic kingdom in Spain, by theMohammedans. The Franks, to whom we must now turn, were destined notonly to conquer most of the other German tribes but even to extend theirboundaries into districts inhabited by the Slavs. When the Franks are first heard of in history they were settled alongthe lower Rhine, from Cologne to the North Sea. Their method of gettinga foothold in the Empire was essentially different from that which theGoths, Lombards, and Vandals had adopted. Instead of severing theirconnection with Germany and becoming an island in the sea of the Empire, they conquered by degrees the territory about them. However far theymight extend their control, they remained in constant touch with thebarbarian reserves behind them. In this way they retained the warlikevigor that was lost by the races who were completely surrounded by theenervating influences of Roman civilization. In the early part of the fifth century they had occupied the districtwhich constitutes to-day the kingdom of Belgium, as well as the regionseast of it. In 486, seven years before Theodoric founded his Italiankingdom, they went forth under their great king, Clovis (a name thatlater grew into Louis), and defeated the Roman general who opposed them. They extended their control over Gaul as far south as the Loire, whichat that time formed the northern boundary of the kingdom of the WestGoths. Clovis then enlarged his empire on the east by the conquest ofthe Alemanni, a German people living in the region of the BlackForest. [17] [Illustration: A Frankish Warrior] [Sidenote: Conversion of Clovis, 496, and its consequences. ] The battle in which the Alemanni were defeated (496) is in one respectimportant above all the other battles of Clovis. Although still a paganhimself, his wife was an orthodox Christian convert. In the midst of theconflict, as he saw his line giving way, he called upon Jesus Christ andpledged himself to be baptized in His name if He would help the Franksto victory over their enemies. He kept his word and was baptizedtogether with three thousand of his warriors. His conversion had themost momentous consequences for Europe. All the other German peopleswithin the Empire were Christians, but they were all Arian heretics; andto the orthodox Christians about them they seemed worse than heathen. This religious difference had prevented the Germans and Romans frominter-marrying and had retarded their fusion in other ways. But with theconversion of Clovis, there was at least one barbarian leader with whomthe Bishop of Rome could negotiate as with a faithful son of theChurch. It is from the orthodox Gregory of Tours that most of ourknowledge of Clovis and his successors is derived. In Gregory's famous_History of the Franks_, the cruel and unscrupulous king appears asGod's chosen instrument for the extension of the Catholic faith. [18]Certainly Clovis quickly learned to combine his own interests with thoseof the Church, and the alliance between the pope and the Frankish kingswas destined to have a great influence upon the history of westernEurope. [Sidenote: Conquests of Clovis. ] To the south of Clovis' new acquisitions in Gaul lay the kingdom of theArian West Goths, to the southeast that of another heretical Germanpeople, the Burgundians. Gregory of Tours reports him as saying: "Icannot bear that these Arians should be in possession of a part of Gaul. Let us advance upon them with the aid of God; after we have conqueredthem let us bring their realms into our power. " So zealous was the newlyconverted king that he speedily extended his power to the Pyrenees, andforced the West Goths to confine themselves to the Spanish portion oftheir realm. The Burgundians became a tributary nation and soon fellcompletely under the rule of the Franks. Then Clovis, by a series ofmurders, brought portions of the Frankish nation itself, which hadpreviously been independent of him, under his scepter. [Sidenote: Character of Frankish history. ] 14. When Clovis died in 511 at Paris, which he had made his residence, his four sons divided his possessions among them. Wars between rivalbrothers, interspersed with the most horrible murders, fill the annalsof the Frankish kingdom for over a hundred years after the death ofClovis. Yet the nation continued to develop in spite of the unscrupulousdeeds of its rulers. It had no enemies strong enough to assail it, and acertain unity was preserved in spite of the ever-shifting distributionof territory among the members of the royal house. [19] [Sidenote: Extent of the Frankish kingdoms in the sixth century. ] The Frankish kings succeeded in extending their power over pretty nearlyall the territory that is included to-day in France, Belgium, and theNetherlands, as well as over a goodly portion of western Germany. By555, when Bavaria had become tributary to the Frankish rulers, theirdominions extended from the Bay of Biscay to a point east of Salzburg. Considerable districts that the Romans had never succeeded in conqueringhad been brought into the developing civilization of western Europe. [Illustration: The Dominions of the Franks under the Merovingians] [Sidenote: Division of the Frankish territory into Neustria, Austrasia, and Burgundy. ] As a result of the divisions of the Frankish lands, fifty years afterthe death of Clovis three Frankish kingdoms appear on the map. Neustria, the western kingdom, with its center at Paris or Soissons, was inhabitedmainly by the older Romanized people among whom the Franks had settled. To the east was Austrasia, with Metz and Aix-la-Chapelle as its chiefcities. This region was completely German in its population. In thesetwo there was the prophecy of the future France and Germany. Lastly, there was the old Burgundian realm. Of the Merovingian kings, as theline descended from Clovis was called, the last to rule as well as reignwas Dagobert (d. 638), who united the whole Frankish territory once moreunder his scepter. [Sidenote: The Frankish nobility. ] A new danger, however, threatened the unity of the Frankish kingdom, namely, the aspirations of the powerful nobles. In the earliest accountswhich we have of the Germans there appear to have been certain familieswho enjoyed a recognized preëminence over their companions. In thecourse of the various conquests there was a chance for the skillfulleader to raise himself in the favor of the king. It was only naturalthat those upon whom the king relied to control distant parts of therealm should become dangerously ambitious and independent. [Sidenote: The Mayors of the Palace. ] [Sidenote: Foundation of the power of Charlemagne's family, theso-called Carolingians. ] Among the positions held by the nobility none was reputed more honorablethan those near the king's person. Of these offices the most influentialwas that of the Major Domus, or Mayor of the Palace, who was a speciesof prime minister. After Dagobert's death these mayors practically ruledin the place of the Merovingian monarchs, who became mere "do-nothingkings, "--_rois fainéants_, as the French call them. The Austrasian Mayorof the Palace, Pippin of Heristal, the great-grandfather of Charlemagne, succeeded in getting, in addition to Austrasia, both Neustria andBurgundy under his control. In this way he laid the foundation of hisfamily's renown. Upon his death, in 714, his task of consolidating anddefending the vast territories of the Franks devolved upon his moredistinguished son, Charles Martel, i. E. , the Hammer. [20] [Sidenote: Fusion of the barbarians and the Roman population. ] 15. As one looks back over the German invasions it is natural to askupon what terms the newcomers lived among the old inhabitants of theEmpire, how far they adopted the customs of those among whom theysettled, and how far they clung to their old habits? These questionscannot be answered very satisfactorily; so little is known of theconfused period of which we have been speaking that it is impossible tofollow closely the amalgamation of the two races. [Sidenote: The number of the barbarians. ] Yet a few things are tolerably clear. In the first place, we must be onour guard against exaggerating the numbers in the various bodies ofinvaders. The writers of the time indicate that the West Goths, whenthey were first admitted to the Empire before the battle of Adrianople, amounted to four or five hundred thousand persons, including men, women, and children. This is the largest band reported, and it must have beengreatly reduced before the West Goths, after long wanderings and manybattles, finally settled in Spain and southern Gaul. The Burgundians, when they appear for the first time on the banks of the Rhine, arereported to have had eighty thousand warriors among them. When Clovisand his army were baptized the chronicler speaks of "over threethousand" soldiers who became Christians upon that occasion. This wouldseem to indicate that the Frankish king had no larger force at thistime. Undoubtedly these figures are very meager and unreliable. But thereadiness with which the Germans appear to have adopted the language andcustoms of the Romans would tend to prove that the invaders formed but asmall minority of the population. Since hundreds of thousands ofbarbarians had been assimilated during the previous five centuries, thegreat invasions of the fifth century can hardly have made an abruptchange in the character of the population. [Sidenote: Contrast between spoken and written Latin. ] The barbarians within the old empire were soon speaking the sameconversational Latin which was everywhere used by the Romans aboutthem. [21] This was much simpler than the elaborate and complicatedlanguage used in books, which we find so much difficulty in learningnowadays. The speech of the common people was gradually diverging moreand more, in the various countries of southern Europe, from the writtenLatin, and finally grew into French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese. But the barbarians did not produce this change, for it had begun beforethey came and would have gone on without them. They did no more thancontribute a few convenient words to the new languages. The Germans appear to have had no dislike for the Romans nor the Romansfor them, except as long as the Germans remained Arian Christians. Wherethere was no religious barrier the two races intermarried freely fromthe first. The Frankish kings did not hesitate to appoint Romans toimportant positions in the government and in the army, just as theRomans had long been in the habit of employing the barbarians. In onlyone respect were the two races distinguished for a time, --each had itsparticular law. [Sidenote: The Roman and the German law. ] The West Goths in the time of Euric were probably the first to writedown their ancient laws, using the Latin language. Their example wasfollowed by the Franks, the Burgundians, and later by the Lombards andother peoples. These codes make up the "Laws of the Barbarians, " whichform our most important source of knowledge of the habits and ideas ofthe Germans at the time of the invasions. [22] For several centuriesfollowing the conquest, the members of the various German tribes appearto have been judged by the laws of the particular people to which theybelonged. The older inhabitants of the Empire, on the contrary, continued to have their lawsuits decided according to the Roman law. This survived all through the Middle Ages in southern Europe, where theGermans were few. Elsewhere the Germans' more primitive ideas of lawprevailed until the thirteenth or fourteenth century. A good example ofthese is the picturesque mediæval ordeal by which the guilt or innocenceof a suspected person was determined. [Sidenote: Mediæval trials. ] The German laws did not provide for the trial, either in the Roman orthe modern sense of the word, of a suspected person. There was noattempt to gather and weigh evidence and base the decision upon it. Sucha mode of procedure was far too elaborate for the simple-minded Germans. Instead of a regular trial, one of the parties to the case wasdesignated to prove that his assertions were true by one of thefollowing methods: (1) He might solemnly swear that he was telling thetruth and get as many other persons of his own class as the courtrequired, to swear that they believed that he was telling the truth. This was called _compurgation_. It was believed that the divinevengeance would be visited upon those who swore falsely. (2) On theother hand, the parties to the case, or persons representing them, mightmeet in combat, on the supposition that Heaven would grant victory tothe right. This was the so-called _wager of battle_. (3) Lastly, one orother of the parties might be required to submit to the _ordeal_ in oneof its various forms: He might plunge his arm into hot water, or carry abit of hot iron for some distance, and if at the end of three days heshowed no ill effects, the case was decided in his favor. He might beordered to walk over hot plowshares, and if he was not burned, it wasassumed that God had intervened by a miracle to establish theright. [23] This method of trial is but one example of the rudecivilization which displaced the refined and elaborate organization ofthe Romans. [Sidenote: The task of the Middle Ages. ] 16. The account which has been given of the conditions in the RomanEmpire, and of the manner in which the barbarians occupied its westernpart, makes clear the great problem of the Middle Ages. The Germans, nodoubt, varied a good deal in their habits and spirit. The Goths differedfrom the Lombards, and the Franks from the Vandals; but they all agreedin knowing nothing of the art, literature, and science which had beendeveloped by the Greeks and adopted by the Romans. The invaders wereignorant, simple, vigorous people, with no taste for anything exceptfighting and bodily comfort. Such was the disorder that their comingproduced, that the declining civilization of the Empire was prettynearly submerged. The libraries, buildings, and works of art weredestroyed and there was no one to see that they were restored. So thewestern world fell back into a condition similar to that in which it hadbeen before the Romans conquered and civilized it. [24] The loss was, however, temporary. The barbarians did not utterly destroywhat they found, but utilized the ruins of the Roman Empire in theirgradual construction of a new society. They received suggestions fromthe Roman methods of agriculture. When they reached a point where theyneeded them, they used the models offered by Roman roads and buildings. In short, the great heritage of skill and invention which had beenslowly accumulated in Egypt, Phœnicia, and Greece, and which formed apart of the culture which the Romans diffused, did not wholly perish. [Sidenote: Loss caused by the coming of the barbarians regained duringMiddle Ages. ] It required about a thousand years to educate the new race; but at lastEurope, including districts never embraced in the Roman Empire, caughtup once more with antiquity. When, in the fourteenth and fifteenthcenturies, first Italy, and then the rest of Europe, awoke again to thebeauty and truth of the classical literature and began to emulate theancient art, the process of educating the barbarians may be said to havebeen completed. Yet the Middle Ages had been by no means a sterileperiod. They had added their part to the heritage of the West. From theunion of two great elements, the ancient civilization, which wascompletely revived at the opening of the sixteenth century, and thevigor and the political and social ideals of the Germans, a new thingwas formed, namely, our modern civilization. General Reading. --By far the most exhaustive work in English upon the German invasions is HODGKIN, _Italy and her Invaders_, --very bulky and costly (8 vols. , $36. 50). The author has, however, given some of the results of his work in his excellent _Dynasty of Theodosius_ (Clarendon Press, $1. 50), and his _Theodoric the Goth_ (G. P. Putnam's Sons, $1. 50). SERGEANT, _The Franks_ (G. P. Putnam's Sons, $1. 50), gives more than is to be found on the subject in either Emerton or Oman. CHAPTER IV THE RISE OF THE PAPACY [Sidenote: The greatness of the Church. ] 17. While the Franks were slowly developing the strength whichCharlemagne employed to found the most extensive realm that has existedin Europe since the Roman Empire, another government, whose power wasfar greater, whose organization was far more perfect, and whose vitalitywas infinitely superior to that of the Frankish empire, namely, theChristian Church, was steadily extending its sway and establishing thefoundations of its later supremacy. We have already seen how marvelously the Christian communities foundedby the apostles and their fellow-missionaries multiplied until, by themiddle of the third century, writers like Cyprian came to conceive of a"Catholic, " or all-embracing, Church. We have seen how Constantine firstmade Christianity legal, and how his successors worked in the interestof the new religion; how carefully the Theodosian Code safeguarded theChurch and the Christian clergy, and how harshly those were treated whoventured to hold another view of Christianity from that sanctioned bythe government. [25] We must now follow this most powerful and permanent of all theinstitutions of the later Roman Empire into the Middle Ages. We muststop a moment to consider the sources of its power, and then see how theWestern, or Latin, portion of Christendom fell apart from the Eastern, or Greek, region and came to form a separate institution under thelongest and mightiest line of rulers that the world has ever seen, theRoman bishops. We shall see how a peculiar class of Christians, themonks, developed; how they joined hands with the clergy; how the monksand the clergy met the barbarians, subdued and civilized them, and thenruled them for centuries. [Sidenote: Sources of the Church's power. ] The tremendous power of the Church in the Middle Ages was due, we may besure, to the way in which it adapted itself to the ideas and needs ofthe time; for no institution can flourish unless it meets the wants ofthose who live under it. [Sidenote: Contrast between pagan and Christian ideas. ] One great source of the Church's strength lay in the general fear ofdeath and judgment to come, which Christianity had brought with it. TheGreeks and Romans of the classical period thought of the next life, whenthey thought of it at all, as a very uninteresting existence comparedwith that on this earth. One who committed some signal crime mightsuffer for it after death with pains similar to those of the hell inwhich the Christians believed. But the great part of humanity weresupposed to lead in the next world a shadowy existence, neither sad norglad. Religion, even to the devout pagan, was mainly an affair of thislife; the gods were to be propitiated with a view to present happinessand success. Since no satisfaction could be expected in the next life, it wasnaturally deemed wise to make the most of this one. The possibility ofpleasure ends--so the poet Horace urges--when we join the shades below, as we all must do soon. Let us, therefore, take advantage of everyharmless pleasure and improve our brief opportunity to enjoy the goodthings of earth. We should, however, be reasonable and temperate, avoiding all excess, for that endangers happiness. Above all, we shouldnot worry uselessly about the future, which is in the hands of the godsand beyond our control. Such were the convictions of the majority ofthoughtful pagans. [Sidenote: Other-worldliness of mediæval Christianity. ] Christianity opposed this view of life with an entirely different one. It laid persistent emphasis upon man's existence after death, which itdeclared infinitely more important than his brief sojourn in the body. Under the influence of the Church this conception of life had graduallysupplanted the pagan one in the Roman world, and it was taught to thebarbarians. The other-worldliness became so intense that thousands gaveup their ordinary occupations and pleasures altogether, and devotedtheir entire attention to preparation for the next life. They shutthemselves in lonely cells; and, not satisfied with giving up most oftheir natural pleasures, they inflicted bodily suffering upon themselvesby hunger, cold, and stripes. They trusted that in this way they mightavoid some of the sins into which they were prone to fall, and that, byself-inflicted punishment in this world, they might perchance escapesome of that reserved for them in the next. As most of the writers andteachers of the Middle Ages belonged to this class of what may be calledprofessional Christians, i. E. , the monks, it was natural that their kindof life should have been regarded, even by those who continued to livein the world, as the ideal one for the earnest Christian. [Sidenote: The Church the one agent of salvation. ] The barbarians were taught that their fate in the next world dependedlargely upon the Church. Its ministers never wearied of presenting themomentous alternative which faced every man so soon as this fleetingearthly existence should be over, --the alternative between eternal blissand perpetual, unspeakable physical torment. Only those who had beenduly baptized could hope to reach heaven; but baptism washed away onlypast sins and did not prevent constant relapse into new ones. These, unless their guilt was removed through the instrumentality of theChurch, would surely drag the soul down to perdition. [Sidenote: Miracles a source of the Church's power. ] The divine power of the Church was, furthermore, established in the eyesof the people by the miraculous works which her saints were constantlyperforming. They healed the sick and succored those in distress. Theystruck down with speedy and signal disaster those who opposed the Churchor treated her holy rites with contempt. To the reader of to-day thefrequency of the miracles recorded in mediæval writings seemsastonishing. The chronicles and biographies are filled with accounts ofthem, and no one appears to have doubted their common occurrence. [26] [Sidenote: The Church and the Roman government. ] 18. The chief importance of the Church for the student of mediævalhistory does not lie, however, in its religious functions, vital as theywere, but rather in its remarkable relations to the civil government. Atfirst the Church and the imperial government were on a friendly footingof mutual respect and support. So long as the Roman Empire remainedstrong and active there was no chance for the clergy to free themselvesfrom the control of the emperor, even if they had been disposed to doso. He made such laws for the Church as he saw fit and the clergy didnot complain. The government was, indeed, indispensable to them. Itundertook to root out paganism by destroying the heathen shrines andpreventing heathen sacrifices, and it harshly punished those who refusedto accept the teachings sanctioned by the Church. [Sidenote: The Church begins to seek independence. ] But as the barbarians came in and the great Empire began to fall apart, there was a growing tendency among the churchmen in the West to resentthe interference of rulers whom they no longer respected. They managedgradually to free themselves in large part from the control of the civilgovernment. They then proceeded themselves to assume many of the dutiesof government, which the weak and disorderly states into which the RomanEmpire fell were unable to perform properly. In 502, a church council atRome declared a decree of Odoacer's null and void, on the ground that nolayman had a right to interfere in the affairs of the Church. One of thebishops of Rome (Pope Gelasius I, d. 496) briefly stated the principleupon which the Church rested its claims, as follows: "Two powers governthe world, the priestly and the kingly. The first is indisputably thesuperior, for the priest is responsible to God for the conduct of eventhe emperors themselves. " Since no one denied that the eternal interestsof mankind, which devolved upon the Church, were infinitely moreimportant than those matters of mere worldly expediency which the stateregulated, it was natural for the clergy to hold that, in case ofconflict, the Church and its officers, rather than the king, should havethe last word. [Sidenote: The Church begins to perform the functions of government. ] It was one thing, however, for the Church to claim the right to regulateits own affairs; it was quite another for it to assume the functionswhich the Roman government had previously performed and which ourgovernments perform to-day, such as the maintenance of order, themanagement of public education, the trial of lawsuits, etc. It did not, however, exactly usurp the prerogatives of the civil power, but ratheroffered itself as a substitute for it when no efficient civil governmentany longer existed. For there were no states, in the modern sense of theword, in western Europe for many centuries after the final destructionof the Roman Empire. The authority of the various kings was seldomsufficient to keep their realms in order. There were always manypowerful landholders scattered throughout the kingdom who did prettymuch what they pleased and settled their grudges against their fellowsby neighborhood wars. Fighting was the main business as well as thechief amusement of the noble class. The king was unable to maintainpeace and protect the oppressed, however anxious he may have been to doso. Under these circumstances, it naturally fell to the admirably organizedChurch to keep order, when it could, by threats or persuasion; to seethat sworn contracts were kept, that the wills of the dead wereadministered, and marriage obligations observed. It took the defenselesswidow and orphan under its protection and dispensed charity; it promotededucation at a time when few laymen, however rich and noble, pretendedeven to read. These conditions serve to explain why the Church wasfinally able greatly to extend the powers which it had enjoyed under theRoman Empire, and why it undertook functions which seem to us to belongto the state rather than to a religious organization. [Sidenote: Origin of papal power. ] 19. We must now turn to a consideration of the origin and growth of thesupremacy of the popes, who, by raising themselves to the head of theWestern Church, became in many respects more powerful than any of thekings and princes with whom they frequently found themselves in bitterconflict. [Sidenote: Prestige of the Roman Christian community. ] While we cannot discover, either in the Acts of the Council of Nicæa orin the Theodosian Code, compiled more than a century later, anyrecognition of the supreme headship of the Bishop of Rome, there islittle doubt that he and his flock had almost from the very firstenjoyed a leading place among the Christian communities. The RomanChurch was the only one in the West which could claim the distinction ofhaving been founded by the immediate followers of Christ, --the "two mostglorious apostles. " [Sidenote: Belief that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. ] The New Testament speaks repeatedly of Paul's presence in Rome, andPeter's is implied. There had always been, moreover, a persistenttradition, accepted throughout the Christian Church, that Peter was thefirst Bishop of Rome. While there is no complete documentary proof forthis belief, it appears to have been generally accepted at least asearly as the middle of the second century. There is, certainly, noconflicting tradition, no rival claimant. The _belief itself_, whetheror not it corresponds with actual events, is indubitably a fact, and afact of the greatest historical importance. Peter enjoyed a certainpreëminence among the other apostles and was singled out by Christ uponseveral occasions. In a passage of the New Testament which has affectedpolitical history more profoundly than the edicts of the most powerfulmonarch, Christ says: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shallnot prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of thekingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall bebound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall beloosed in heaven. "[27] [Sidenote: The Roman Church the mother church. ] It was thus natural that the Roman Church should early have been lookedupon as the mother church in the West. Its doctrines were considered thepurest, since they had been handed down from its exalted founders. Whenthere was a difference of opinion in regard to the truth of a particularteaching, it was natural that all should turn to the Bishop of Rome forhis view. Moreover, the majesty of the capital of the world helped toexalt its bishop above his fellows. It was long, however, before all theother bishops, especially those in the large cities, were ready toaccept unconditionally the authority of the Bishop of Rome, althoughthey acknowledged his leading position and that of the Roman community. [Sidenote: Obscurity of early bishops of Rome. ] We know comparatively little of the bishops of Rome during the firstthree centuries of the Church's existence. Even as the undisputed headsof their persecuted sect, they could not have begun to exercise thepolitical influence which they later enjoyed, until Christianity hadgained the ascendancy and the power of the Empire had become greatlyweakened. [Sidenote: Period of the Church fathers. ] We are, however, much better instructed in regard to the Church of thefourth and early fifth centuries, because the century following theCouncil of Nicæa was, in the history of church literature, what theElizabethan era was in that of England. It was the era of the great"fathers" of Christian theology, to whom all theologians since havelooked back as to the foremost interpreters of their religion. Among thechief of these were Athanasius (d. 373), to whom is attributed theformulation of the creed of the Orthodox Church as opposed to theArians, against whom he waged unremitting war; Basil (d. 379), thepromoter of the monastic life; Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (d. 397); Jerome(d. 420), who prepared a new Latin version of the Scriptures, whichbecame the standard (Vulgate) edition; and, above all, Augustine(354-430), whose voluminous writings have exercised an unrivaledinfluence upon the minds of Christian thinkers since his day. Since the church fathers were chiefly interested in matters of doctrine, they say little of the organization of the Church, and it is not clearfrom their writings that the Bishop of Rome was accorded as yet thesupreme and dominating position which the popes later enjoyed. Nevertheless, Augustine calls a contemporaneous Bishop of Rome the "headof the Western Church, " and almost immediately after his death oneascended the episcopal chair at Rome whose ambition, energy, andpersonal bravery were a promise of those qualities which were to renderhis successors the kings of kings. [Sidenote: Leo the Great, 440-461. ] [Sidenote: Decree of Valentinian III. ] With the accession of Leo the Great (440-461) the history of the papacymay, in one sense, be said to have begun. At his instance, ValentinianIII, the emperor of the West, issued a decree in 445 declaring the powerof the Bishop of Rome supreme, by reason of Peter's merits and apostolicheadship, and by reason of the majesty of the city of Rome. He commandedthat the bishops throughout the West should receive as law all that theBishop of Rome sanctioned, and that any bishop refusing to answer asummons to Rome should be forced to obey by the imperial governor. But acouncil at Chalcedon, six years later, raised new Rome on the Bosphorus(Constantinople) to an ecclesiastical equality with old Rome on theTiber. The bishops of both cities were to have a co-superiority over allthe other prelates. This decree was, however, never accepted in theWestern or Latin Church, which was gradually separating from the Easternor Greek Church whose natural head was Constantinople. [28] Although thepowers to which Leo laid claim were not as yet even clearly stated andthere were times of adversity to come when for years they appeared anempty boast, still his emphatic assertion of the supremacy of the Romanbishop was a great step toward bringing the Western Church under asingle head. [Sidenote: Duties that devolved upon the early popes. ] Not long after the death of Leo the Great, Odoacer put an end to thewestern line of emperors. Then Theodoric and his East Goths settled inItaly, only to be followed by still less desirable intruders, theLombards. During this tumultuous period the people of Rome, and even ofall Italy, came to regard the pope as their natural leader. The emperorwas far away, and his officers, who managed to hold a portion of centralItaly around Rome and Ravenna, were glad to accept the aid and counselof the pope. In Rome the pope watched over the elections of the cityofficials and directed in what manner the public money should be spent. He had to manage and defend the great tracts of land in different partsof Italy which from time to time had been given to the bishopric ofRome. He negotiated with the Germans and even directed the generals sentagainst them. [Sidenote: Gregory the Great, 590-604. ] 20. The pontificate of Gregory the Great, one of the half dozen mostdistinguished heads that the Church has ever had, shows how great a partthe papacy could play. Gregory, who was the son of a rich Roman senator, was appointed by the emperor to the honorable office of prefect. Hebegan to fear, however, that his proud position and fine clothes weremaking him vain and worldly. His pious mother and his study of thewritings of Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose led him, upon the death ofhis father, to spend all his handsome fortune in founding sevenmonasteries. One of these he established in his own house and subjectedhimself to such severe discipline and deprivations that his health neverentirely recovered from them. He might, in his enthusiasm formonasticism, have brought himself to an early grave if the pope had notcommanded him to undertake a difficult mission to Constantinople; therehe had his first opportunity to show his great ability in conductingdelicate negotiations. [Sidenote: Ancient Rome becomes mediæval Rome. ] When Gregory was chosen pope (in 590) and most reluctantly left hismonastery, ancient Rome, the capital of the Empire, was alreadytransforming itself into mediæval Rome, the capital of Christendom. Thetemples of the gods had furnished materials for the many Christianchurches. The tombs of the apostles Peter and Paul were soon to becomethe center of religious attraction and the goal of pilgrimages fromevery part of western Europe. Just as Gregory assumed office a greatplague was raging in the city. In true mediæval fashion, he arranged asolemn procession in order to obtain from heaven a cessation of thepest. Then the archangel Michael was seen over the tomb of Hadrian[29]sheathing his fiery sword as a sign that the wrath of the Lord had beenturned away. With Gregory we leave behind us the history of the Rome ofCæsar and Trajan and enter upon that of Innocent III and Leo X. [Sidenote: Gregory's writings. ] Gregory enjoyed an unrivaled reputation during the Middle Ages as awriter. He is reckoned with Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome as one of thefour great Latin "fathers" of the Church. His works show, however, howmuch less cultivated his period was than that of his predecessors. Hismost popular book was his _Dialogues_, a collection of accounts ofmiracles and popular legends. It is hard to believe that it could havebeen composed by the greatest man of the time and that it was designedfor adults. In his commentary on Job, Gregory warns the reader that heneed not be surprised to find mistakes in grammar, since in dealing withso high a theme a writer should not stop to make sure whether his casesand tenses are right. [30] [Illustration: The Castle San Angelo, formerly the Tomb of the EmperorHadrian] [Sidenote: Gregory as a statesman. ] Gregory's letters show clearly what the papacy was coming to mean forEurope when in the hands of a really great man. While he assumed thehumble title of "Servant of the servants of God, " which the popes stilluse, Gregory was a statesman whose influence extended far and wide. Itdevolved upon him to govern the city of Rome, --as it did upon hissuccessors down to the year 1870, --for the eastern emperor's control hadbecome merely nominal. He had also to keep the Lombards out of centralItaly, which they failed to conquer largely on account of the valiantdefense of the popes. These duties were functions of the civil power, and in assuming them Gregory may be said to have founded the temporalpower of the popes. [Sidenote: Gregory's missionary undertakings. ] Beyond the borders of Italy, Gregory was in constant communication withthe emperor, with the rulers of Austrasia, Neustria, and Burgundy. Everywhere he used his influence to have good clergymen chosen asbishops, and everywhere he watched over the interests of themonasteries. But his chief importance in the history of the papacy isattributable to the missionary enterprises which he undertook, throughwhich the great countries which were one day to be called England, France, and Germany were brought under the sway of the Roman Church andits head, the pope. Gregory was, as we have seen, an enthusiastic monk, and he naturallyrelied chiefly upon the monks in his great work of converting theheathen. Consequently, before considering his missionary achievements, we must glance at the origin and character of the monks, who are soconspicuous throughout the Middle Ages. General References. --There is no satisfactory history of the mediæval Church in one volume. Perhaps the best short account in English is FISHER, _History of the Christian Church_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, $3. 50). MOELLER, _History of the Christian Church_, Vols. I-II (Swan Sonnenschein, $4. 00 a vol. ), is a dry but very reliable manual with full references to the literature of the subject. ALZOG, _Manual of Universal Church History_ (Clarke, Cincinnati, 3 vols. , $10. 00), is a careful presentation by a Catholic scholar. MILMAN, _History of Latin Christianity_, although rather old, is both scholarly and readable, and is to be found in most libraries. GIESELER, _Ecclesiastical History_ (5 vols. , now out of print, but not difficult to obtain), is really a great collection of the most interesting extracts from the sources, with very little indeed from the author's hand. This and Moeller are invaluable to the advanced student. HATCH, _Growth of Church Institutions_ (Whittaker, $1. 50), gives an admirably simple account of the most important phases of the organization of the Church. CHAPTER V THE MONKS AND THE CONVERSION OF THE GERMANS [Sidenote: Importance of the monks as a class. ] 21. It would be difficult to overestimate the variety and extent of theinfluence that the monks exercised for centuries in Europe. The proudannals of the Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, and Jesuits containmany a distinguished name. The most eminent philosophers, scientists, historians, artists, poets, and statesmen may be found among theirranks. Among those whose achievements we shall study later are TheVenerable Bede, Boniface, Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, FraAngelico, Savonarola, Luther, Erasmus, --all these, and many others whohave been leaders in various branches of human activity, were monks. [Sidenote: Monasticism appealed to many different classes. ] The strength of monasticism lay in its appeal to many different classesof persons. The world became a less attractive place as the successiveinvasions of the barbarians brought ever-increasing disorder. Themonastery was the natural refuge not only of the spiritually minded, butof those of a studious or contemplative disposition who disliked thelife of a soldier and were disinclined to face the dangers anduncertainties of the times. The monastic life was safe and peaceful, aswell as holy. Even the rude and unscrupulous warriors hesitated todestroy the property or disturb the life of those who were believed toenjoy Heaven's special favor. The monastery furnished, too, a refuge forthe disconsolate, an asylum for the disgraced, and food and shelter forthe indolent who would otherwise have had to earn their living. Therewere, therefore, many motives which helped to fill the monasteries. Kings and nobles, for the good of their souls, readily gave land uponwhich to found colonies of monks, and there were plenty of remote spotsin the mountains and forests to tempt the recluse. [Sidenote: Necessity for the regulation of monastic life. ] Monastic communities first developed on a large scale in Egypt in thefourth century. Just as the Germans were winning their first greatvictory at Adrianople, St. Jerome was engaged in showing the advantagesof the ascetic Christian life, which was a new thing in the West. In thesixth century monasteries multiplied so rapidly in western Europe thatit became necessary to establish definite rules for the numerouscommunities which proposed to desert the ordinary ways of the world andlead a peculiar life apart. The monastic regulations which had beendrawn up in the East did not answer the purpose, for the climate of theWest and the temperament of the Latin peoples differed too much fromthose of the Orient. Accordingly St. Benedict drew up, about the year526, a sort of constitution for the monastery of Monte Cassino, insouthern Italy, of which he was the head. This was so sagacious, and sowell met the needs of the monastic life, that it was rapidly accepted bythe other monasteries and gradually became the "rule" according to whichall the western monks lived. [31] [Sidenote: The Rule of St. Benedict. ] The Rule of St. Benedict is as important as any constitution that wasever drawn up for a state. It is for the most part natural andwholesome. It provides that, since every one is not fitted for theascetic life, the candidate for admission to the monastery shall passthrough a period of probation, called the _novitiate_, before he ispermitted to take the solemn and irrevocable vow. The brethren shallelect their head, the _abbot_, whom they must obey unconditionally inall that is not sinful. Along with prayer and meditation, the monks areto work at manual occupations and cultivate the soil. They shall alsoread and teach. Those who were incapacitated for outdoor work wereassigned lighter tasks, such as copying books. The monk was notpermitted to own anything in his own right; he pledged himself toperpetual and absolute poverty, and everything he used was the propertyof the convent. Along with the vows of obedience and poverty, he alsotook that of chastity, which bound him never to marry. For not only wasthe single life considered more holy than the married, but the monasticorganization would, of course, have been impossible unless the monksremained single. Aside from these restrictions, the monks were commandedto live rational and natural lives and not to abuse their bodies orsacrifice their physical vigor by undue fasting in the supposed interestof their souls. These sensible provisions were directed against theexcesses of asceticism, of which there had been many instances in theEast. [Sidenote: The monks copy, and so preserve, the Latin authors. ] The influence of the Benedictine monks upon Europe is incalculable. Fromtheir numbers no less than twenty-four popes and forty-six hundredbishops and archbishops have been chosen. They boast almost sixteenthousand writers, some of great distinction. Their monasteries furnishedretreats where the scholar might study and write in spite of theprevailing disorder of the times. The copying of books, as has beensaid, was a natural occupation of the monks. Doubtless their work wasoften done carelessly, with little heart and less understanding. But, with the great loss of manuscripts due to the destruction of librariesand the indifference of individual book-owners, it was most essentialthat new copies should be made. Even poor and incorrect ones were betterthan none. It was the monks who prevented the loss of a great part ofLatin literature, which, without them, would probably have reached usonly in scanty remains. [Sidenote: The monks aid in the material development of Europe. ] The monks also helped to rescue honest manual labor, which they believedto be a great aid to salvation, from the disrepute into which slaveryhad brought it in earlier times. They set the example of carefulcultivation on the lands about their monasteries and in this wayintroduced better methods into the regions where they settled. Theyentertained travelers at a time when there were few or no inns and soincreased the intercourse between the various parts of Europe. [32] [Sidenote: The regular and secular clergy. ] The Benedictine monks, as well as later monastic orders, were ardent andfaithful supporters of the papacy. The Roman Church, which owes much tothem, appreciated the aid which they might furnish and extended to themmany of the privileges enjoyed by the clergy. Indeed the monks werereckoned as clergymen and were called the "regular" clergy because theylived according to a _regula_, or rule, to distinguish them from the"secular" clergy, who continued to live in the world (_saeculum_) andtook no monastic vows. [Sidenote: Monks and secular clergy supplement each other. ] The Church, ever anxious to maintain as far-reaching a control over itssubjects as that of the Roman Empire, whose power it inherited, couldhardly expect its busy officers, with their multiform duties andconstant relations with men, to represent the ideal of contemplativeChristianity which was then held in higher esteem than the active life. The secular clergy performed the ceremonies of the Church, administeredits business, and guarded its property, while the regular clergyillustrated the necessity of personal piety and self-denial. Monasticismat its best was a monitor standing beside the Church and constantlywarning it against permitting the Christian life to sink into meremechanical and passive acceptance of its ceremonies as all-sufficientfor salvation. It supplied the element of personal responsibility andspiritual ambition upon which Protestantism has laid so much stress. [Sidenote: The monks as missionaries. ] 22. The first great service of the monks was their missionary labors. Tothese the later strength of the Roman Church is in no small degree due, for the monks made of the unconverted Germans not merely Christians, butalso dutiful subjects of the pope. The first people to engage theirattention were the heathen Germans who had conquered the once ChristianBritain. [Sidenote: Early Britain. ] The islands which are now known as the kingdom of Great Britain andIreland were, at the opening of the Christian era, occupied by severalCeltic peoples of whose customs and religion we know almost nothing. Julius Cæsar commenced the conquest of the islands (55 B. C. ); but theRomans never succeeded in establishing their power beyond the wall whichthey built, from the Clyde to the Firth of Forth, to keep out the wildCeltic tribes of the North. Even south of the wall the country was notcompletely Romanized, and the Celtic tongue has actually survived downto the present day in Wales. [Sidenote: Saxons and Angles conquer Britain. ] At the opening of the fifth century the barbarian invasions forced Rometo withdraw its legions from Britain in order to protect its frontierson the continent. The island was thus left to be gradually conquered bythe Germans, mainly Saxons and Angles, who came across the North Seafrom the region south of Denmark. Almost all record of what went onduring the two centuries following the departure of the Romans hasdisappeared. No one knows the fate of the original Celtic inhabitants ofEngland. It is unlikely that they were, as was formerly supposed, allkilled or driven to the mountain districts of Wales. More probably theywere gradually lost among the dominating Germans with whom they mergedinto one people. The Saxon and Angle chieftains established pettykingdoms, of which there were seven or eight at the time when Gregorythe Great became pope. [Sidenote: Conversion of Britain. ] Gregory, while still a simple monk, had been struck with the beauty ofsome Angles whom he saw one day in the slave market of Rome. When helearned who they were he was grieved that such handsome beings shouldstill belong to the kingdom of the Prince of Darkness, and, had he beenpermitted, he himself would have gone as a missionary to their people. Upon becoming pope he sent forty monks to England from one of themonasteries that he had founded, placing a prior, Augustine, at theirhead and designating him in advance as Bishop of England. The heathenking of Kent, in whose territory the monks landed with fear andtrembling (597), had a Christian wife, the daughter of a Frankish king. Through her influence the monks were kindly received and were assignedan ancient church at Canterbury, dating from the Roman occupation beforethe German invasions. Here they established a monastery, and from thiscenter the conversion, first of Kent and then of the whole island, wasgradually effected. Canterbury has always maintained its earlypreëminence and may still be considered the religious capital ofEngland. [33] [Illustration: Ancient Church of St. Martin's, Canterbury] [Sidenote: The Irish monks. ] Augustine and his monks were not, however, the only Christians in theBritish Isles. Britain had been converted to Christianity when it was aRoman province, and some of the missionaries, led by St. Patrick (d. About 469), had made their way into Ireland and established a center ofChristianity there. When the Germans overran Britain and reheathenizedit, the Irish monks and clergy were too far off to be troubled by thebarbarians. They knew little of the traditions of the Roman Church anddiverged from its customs in some respects. They celebrated Easter upona different date from that observed by the Roman Church and employed adifferent style of tonsure. Missionaries from this Irish church werebusy converting the northern regions of Britain, when the Roman monksunder Augustine began their work in the southern part of the island. [Sidenote: Conflict between the Roman Church and the Irish monks. ] There was sure to be trouble between the two parties. The Irish clergy, while they professed great respect for the pope and did not wish to becut off from the rest of the Christian Church, were unwilling to abandontheir peculiar usages and accept those sanctioned by Rome. Nor wouldthey recognize as their superior the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom thepope had made the head of the British church. The pope, on his part, felt that it was all-important that these isolated Christians shouldbecome a part of the great organization of which he claimed to be thehead. Neither party would make any concessions, and for two generationseach went its own way, cherishing a bitter hostility toward the other. [Sidenote: Victory of Roman Church. ] At last the Roman Church won the victory, as it so often did in laterstruggles. In 664, through the influence of the king of Northumbria whodid not wish to risk being on bad terms with the pope, the RomanCatholic form of faith was solemnly recognized in an assembly at Whitby, and the leader of the Irish missionaries sadly withdrew to Ireland. [Illustration: Map of Christian Missions] The king of Northumbria, upon opening the Council of Whitby, said "thatit was proper that those who served one God should observe one rule ofconduct and not depart from one another in the ways of celebrating theholy mysteries, since they all hoped for the same kingdom of heaven. "That a remote island of Europe should set up its traditions against thecustoms sanctioned by the rest of Christendom appeared to him highlyunreasonable. This faith in the necessary unity of the Church is one ofthe secrets of its strength. England became a part of the ever-growingterritory embraced in the Catholic Church and remained as faithful tothe pope as any other Catholic country, down to the defection of HenryVIII in the early part of the sixteenth century. [Sidenote: Early culture in England. ] [Sidenote: The Venerable Bede. ] The consolidation of the rival churches in Great Britain was followed bya period of general enthusiasm for Rome and its literature and culture. Lindisfarne, Wearmouth, and other English monasteries became centers oflearning unrivaled perhaps in the rest of Europe. A constant intercoursewas maintained with Rome. Masons and glassmakers were brought across theChannel to replace the wooden churches of Britain by stone edifices inthe style of the Romans. The young clergy were taught Latin andsometimes Greek. Copies of the ancient classics were brought from thecontinent and reproduced. The most distinguished man of letters of theseventh and early eighth centuries was the English monk Bæda (oftencalled The Venerable Bede, 673-735), from whose admirable history of theChurch in England most of our information about the period isderived. [34] [Sidenote: Irish missionaries on the continent. ] [Sidenote: St. Columban and St. Gall. ] 23. From England missionaries carried the enthusiasm for the Church backacross the Channel. In spite of the conversion of Clovis and thewholesale baptism of his soldiers, the Franks, especially those farthestnorth, had been very imperfectly Christianized. A few years beforeAugustine landed in Kent, St. Columban, one of the Irish missionariesof whom we have spoken, landed in Gaul. He went from place to placefounding monasteries and gaining the respect of the people by his rigidself-denial and by the miracles that he performed. He even penetratedamong the still wholly pagan Alemanni about the Lake of Constance. Whendriven away by their pagan king, he turned his attention to the Lombardsin northern Italy, where he died in 615. [35] St. Gall, one of hisfollowers, remained near the Lake of Constance and attracted about himso many disciples and companions that a great monastery grew up whichwas named after him and became one of the most celebrated in centralEurope. Other Irish missionaries penetrated into the forests ofThuringia and Bavaria. The German church looks back, however, to anEnglish missionary as its real founder. [Sidenote: St. Boniface, the apostle to the Germans. ] In 718, about a hundred years after the death of St. Columban, St. Boniface, an English monk, was sent by the pope as an apostle to theGermans. After four years spent in reconnoitering the field of hisfuture labors, he returned to Rome and was made a missionary bishop, taking the same oath of obedience to the pope that the bishops in theimmediate vicinity of Rome were accustomed to take. Indeed absolutesubordination to the pope was a part of Boniface's religion, and hebecame a powerful agent in promoting the supremacy of the Roman see. Under the protection of the powerful Frankish mayor of the palace, Charles Martel, Boniface carried on his missionary work with such zealthat he succeeded in bringing all the older Christian communities whichhad been established by the Irish missionaries under the papal control, as well as in converting many of the more remote German tribes whostill clung to their old pagan beliefs. His energetic methods areillustrated by the story of how he cut down the sacred oak of Odin atFritzlar, in Hesse, and used the wood to build a chapel, around which amonastery soon grew up. In 732 Boniface was raised to the dignity ofArchbishop of Mayence and proceeded to establish, in the newly convertedregion, the German bishoprics of Salzburg, Regensburg, Würzburg, Erfurt, and several others; this gives us some idea of the geographical extentof his labors. [Sidenote: Boniface reforms the church in Gaul and brings it intosubjection to the pope. ] After organizing the German church he turned his attention, with thehearty approval of the pope and the support of the Frankish rulers, to ageneral reformation of the church in Gaul. Here the clergy were sadlydemoralized, and the churches and monasteries had been despoiled of muchof their property in the constant turmoil of the time. Bonifacesucceeded, with the help of Charles Martel, in bettering affairs, andthrough his efforts the venerable church of Gaul, almost as old as thatof Rome itself, was brought under the supremacy of the pope. In 748 theassembled bishops of Gaul bound themselves to maintain the Catholicunity of faith and follow strictly the precepts of the vicar of St. Peter, the pope, so that they might be reckoned among Peter's sheep. General Reading. --The best history of the monks to be had in English is MONTALEMBERT, _The Monks of the West from St. Benedict to St. Bernard_ (Longmans, Green & Co. , 6 vols. , $15. 00). The writer's enthusiasm and his excellent style make his work very attractive. The advanced student will gain much from TAYLOR, _Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 75), Chapter VII, on the origin and spirit of monasticism. See also HARNACK, _Monasticism_ (Scribners, 50 cents). The works on church history referred to at the end of the preceding chapter all contain some account of the monks. CHAPTER VI CHARLES MARTEL AND PIPPIN [Sidenote: Charles Martel, Frankish mayor of the palace, 714-741. ] 24. Just as the pope was becoming the acknowledged head of the WesternChurch, the Frankish realms came successively under the rule of twogreat statesmen, Charles Martel and his son Pippin the Short, who laidthe foundation of Charlemagne's vast empire. [Sidenote: Difficulty of holding together a kingdom in the early MiddleAges. ] The difficulties which Charles Martel had to face were much the same asthose which for centuries to follow confronted the sovereigns of westernEurope. The great problem of the mediæval ruler was to make his powerfelt throughout his whole territory in spite of the many rich andambitious officials, bishops, and abbots who eagerly took advantage ofall the king's weaknesses and embarrassments to make themselvespractically supreme in their respective districts. [Sidenote: Origin of counts and dukes. ] The two classes of officers of which we hear most were the counts(Latin, _comites_) and the dukes (Latin, _duces_). A count ordinarilyrepresented the king within the district comprised in an oldmunicipality of the Empire. Over a number of counts the king might placea duke. Both of these titles were borrowed by the Germans from the namesof Roman officials. While the king appointed, and might dismiss, theseofficers when he pleased, there was a growing tendency for them to holdtheir positions for life. We find Charles fighting the dukes of Aquitaine, Bavaria, and Alemannia, each of whom was endeavoring to make the territory which he was deputedto rule in the king's interest a separate and independent country underhis own supremacy. By successive campaigns against these rebelliousmagnates, Charles succeeded in reuniting all those outlying districtsthat tended to forget or ignore their connection with the Frankishempire. [Sidenote: Charles and his bishops. ] The bishops proved almost, if not quite, as troublesome to the mayor ofthe palace as the dukes, and later the counts. It is true that Charleskept the choice of the bishops in his own hands and refused to give tothe clergy and people of the diocese the privilege of electing theirhead, as the rules of the Church prescribed. But when a bishop had oncegot possession of the lands attached to the bishopric and exercised thewide powers and influence which fell to him, he was often tempted, especially if he were a nobleman, to use his privileged position toestablish a practically independent principality. The same was true ofthe heads of powerful monasteries. These dangerous bishops and abbotsCharles deposed in wholesale fashion. He substituted his own friends forthem with little regard to the rules of the Church--for instance, hebestowed on his nephew the three bishoprics of Paris, Rouen, and Bayeux, besides two monasteries. The new incumbents were, however, no betterthan the old; they were, indeed, in spite of their clerical robes, onlylaymen, who continued to fight and hunt in their customary manner. The most famous of Charles' deeds was his decisive defeat of theadvancing Mohammedans who were pressing into Gaul from Spain. Beforespeaking of this a word must be said of the invaders and their religion, for the Saracens, as the followers of Mohammed were commonly called, will come into our story of western Europe now and then, especiallyduring the Crusades. [Sidenote: Mohammed, 571-632. ] 25. Just as Gregory the Great was dying in Rome, leaving to hissuccessors a great heritage of spiritual and temporal influence, a youngArab in far-off Mecca was meditating upon the mysteries of life andlaying the foundation of a religious power rivaling even that of thepopes. Before the time of Mohammed the Arabs had played no importantpart in the world's history. The scattered tribes were at war with oneanother, and each worshiped its own gods, when it worshiped at all. Butwhen the peoples of the desert accepted Mohammed as their prophet andhis religion as theirs, they became an irresistible force for thedissemination of the new teaching and for the subjugation of the world. [Sidenote: The Hejira, 622. ] Mohammed came of a good family, but was reduced by poverty to enter theemploy of a rich widow, named Kadijah, who fell in love with him andbecame his wife. She was his first convert and kept up his courage whenfew among his fellow-townsmen in Mecca would believe in his visions oraccept the teachings which he claimed to receive direct from the angelGabriel. Finally he discovered that his many enemies were planning tokill him, so he fled to the neighboring town of Medina, where he hadfriends. His flight (the Hejira), which took place in the year 622, wastaken by his followers as the beginning of a new era, --the year one, asMohammedans reckon time. A war ensued between the people of Mecca andthose in and about Medina who supported Mohammed. It was eight yearsbefore he reëntered Mecca, the religious center of Arabia, with avictorious army. Before his death in 632 he had received the adhesion ofall the Arab chiefs, and his faith, Islam (which means _submission toGod_), was accepted throughout the Arabian peninsula. [Sidenote: The Koran and the religion of Mohammed. ] Mohammed was accustomed to fall into a trance from time to time, afterwhich he would recite to his eager listeners the messages which hereceived from Heaven. These were collected into a volume shortly afterhis death, and make up the Koran, the Bible of the Mohammedan. [36] Thiscontains all the fundamental beliefs of the new religion, as well as thelaws under which the faithful were to live. It proclaims one God, "theLord of the worlds, the merciful, the compassionate, " and Mohammed ashis prophet. It announces a day of judgment in which each shall receivehis reward for the deeds done in the flesh, and either be admitted toparadise or banished to an eternally burning hell. Those who diefighting for the sacred cause shall find themselves in a high garden, where, "content with their past endeavors, " they shall hear no foolishword and shall recline in rich brocades upon soft cushions and rugs andbe served by surpassingly beautiful maidens. Islam has much in commonwith Judaism and Christianity. Jesus even has a place in it, but only asone of the prophets, like Abraham, Moses, and others, who have broughtreligious truth to mankind. The religion of Mohammed was simpler than that of the mediæval ChristianChurch. It provided for no priesthood, nor for any elaborate rites andceremonies. Five times a day the faithful Mohammedan must pray, alwayswith his face turned toward Mecca. One month in the year he must fastduring the daytime. If he is educated, he will know the Koran by heart. The mosque is a house of prayer and the place for the reading of theKoran; no altars or images are permitted in it. [Sidenote: Mohammedan conquests. ] Mohammed's successor assumed the title of caliph. Under him the Arabswent forth to conquer the great territories to the north of them, belonging to the Persians and the Roman emperor at Constantinople. Theymet with marvelous success. Within ten years after Mohammed's death theArabs had established a great empire with its capital at Damascus, fromwhence the caliph ruled over Arabia, Persia, Syria, and Egypt. In thefollowing decades new conquests were made all along the coast of Africa, and in 708 Tangier was taken and the Arabs could look across the Straitsof Gibraltar to Spain. [37] [Illustration: Map of Arabic Conquests] [Sidenote: The Arabs in Spain. ] The kingdom of the West Goths was in no condition to defend itself whena few Arabs and a much larger number of Berbers, inhabitants of northernAfrica, ventured to cross over. Some of the Spanish towns held out for atime, but the invaders found allies in the numerous Jews who had beenshamefully treated by their Christian countrymen. As for the innumerableserfs who worked on the great estates of the aristocracy, a change oflandlords made very little difference to them. In 711 the Arabs andBerbers gained a great battle, and the peninsula was gradually overrunby new immigrants from Africa. In seven years the Mohammedans weremasters of almost the whole region south of the Pyrenees. They thenbegan to cross into Gaul and took possession of the district aboutNarbonne. For some years the duke of Aquitaine kept them in check, butin 732 they collected a large army, defeated the duke near Bordeaux, advanced to Poitiers, where they burned the church, and then set out forTours. [Sidenote: Battle of Tours, 732. ] Charles Martel at once sent out a summons to all who could bear armsand, in the same year, met and repulsed the Mohammedans near Tours. Weknow very little indeed of the details of the conflict, but it iscertain that the followers of Mohammed retreated and that they nevermade another attempt to conquer western Europe. [Sidenote: Pippin and Carloman. ] [Sidenote: Abdication of Carloman. ] 26. Charles was able, before his death in 741, to secure the successionto his office of mayor of the palace for his two sons, Pippin andCarloman. The brothers left the nominal king on the throne; but he hadnothing to do, as the chronicler tells us, "but to be content with hisname of king, his flowing hair and long beard; to sit on his throne andplay the ruler, listening to the ambassadors who came from alldirections, and giving them the answers that had been taught him, as ifof his own sovereign will. In reality, however, he had nothing but theroyal name and a beggarly income at the will of the mayor of thepalace. " The new mayors had succeeded in putting down all oppositionwhen, to the astonishment of every one, Carloman abdicated and assumedthe gown of a monk. Pippin took control of the whole Frankish dominion, and we find the unusual statement in the Frankish annals that "the wholeland enjoyed peace for two years" (749-750). [Sidenote: Pippin assumes the crown with the approbation of the pope, 752. ] Pippin now felt himself strong enough to get rid of the "do-nothing"king altogether and assume for himself the nominal as well as the realkingship of the Franks. It was, however, a delicate matter to deposeeven a quite useless monarch, so he determined to consult the head ofthe Church. To Pippin's query whether it was fitting that theMerovingian king of the Franks, having no power, should continue toreign, the pope replied: "It seems better that he who has the power inthe state should be king and be called king, rather than he who isfalsely called king. " It will be noticed that the pope in no sense created Pippin king, aslater writers claimed. He sanctioned a usurpation which was practicallyinevitable and which was carried out with the approbation of theFrankish nation. Raised on the shields of the counts and dukes, anointedby St. Boniface, and blessed by the pope, Pippin became in 752 the firstking of the Carolingian family, which had already for severalgenerations ruled the Franks in all but name. [Sidenote: A new theory of kingship. ] This participation of the pope brought about a very fundamental changein the theory of kingship. The kings of the Germans up to this time hadbeen military leaders selected, or holding their office, by the will ofthe people, or at least of the aristocracy. Their rule had had no divinesanction, but only that of general acquiescence backed up by sufficientskill and popularity to frustrate the efforts of rivals. By theanointing of Pippin in accordance with the ancient Jewish custom, firstby St. Boniface and then by the pope himself, "a German chieftain was, "as Gibbon expresses, it "transformed into the Lord's anointed. " The popeuttered a dire anathema of divine vengeance against any one who shouldattempt to supplant the holy and meritorious race of Pippin. It became a_religious_ duty to obey the king. He came to be regarded by the Church, when he had duly received its sanction, as God's representative onearth. Here we have the basis of the later idea of monarchs "by thegrace of God, " against whom, however bad they might be, it was notmerely a political offense, but a sin, to revolt. 27. The sanction of Pippin's usurpation by the pope was but anindication of the good feeling between the two greatest powers in theWest, --the head of the ever-strengthening Frankish state and the head ofthe Church. This good feeling quickly ripened into an alliance, momentous for the history of Europe. In order to understand this we mustglance at the motives which led the popes to throw off their allegianceto their ancient sovereigns, the emperors at Constantinople, and turnfor help to Pippin and his successors. [Sidenote: Controversy over the veneration of images and pictures, --theso-called iconoclastic controversy. ] For more than a century after the death of Gregory the Great hissuccessors continued to remain respectful subjects of the emperor. Theylooked to him for occasional help against the Lombards in northernItaly, who showed a disposition to add Rome to their possessions. In725, however, the emperor Leo III aroused the bitter opposition of thepope by issuing a decree forbidding the usual veneration of the imagesof Christ and the saints. The emperor was a thoughtful Christian andfelt keenly the taunts of the Mohammedans, who held all images inabhorrence and regarded the Christians as idolaters. He thereforeordered all sacred images throughout his empire to be removed from thechurches, and all figures on the church walls to be whitewashed over. This aroused serious opposition even in Constantinople, and the fartherwest one went, the more obstinate became the resistance. The poperefused to obey the edict, for he held that the emperor had no right tointerfere with practices hallowed by the Church. He called a councilwhich declared all persons excommunicated who should "throw down, destroy, profane or blaspheme the holy images. " The opposition of theWest was successful, and the images kept their places. [38] [Sidenote: The popes and the Lombards. ] [Sidenote: The pope turns to the Franks for aid. ] In spite of their abhorrence of the iconoclastic Leo and his successors, the popes did not give up all hope that the emperors might aid them inkeeping the Lombards out of Rome. At last a Lombard ruler arose, Aistulf, a "son of iniquity, " who refused to consider the prayers orthreats of the head of the Church. In 751 Aistulf took Ravenna andthreatened Rome. He proposed to substitute his supremacy for that of theeastern emperor and make of Italy a single state, with Rome as itscapital. This was a critical moment for the peninsula. Was Italy, likeGaul, to be united under a single German people and to develop, asFrance has done, a characteristic civilization? The Lombards hadprogressed so far that they were not unfitted to organize a state thatshould grow into a nation. But the head of the Church could not consentto endanger his independence by becoming the subject of an Italian king. It was therefore the pope who prevented the establishment of an Italiankingdom at this time and who continued for the same reason to stand inthe way of the unification of Italy for more than a thousand years, until he was dispossessed of his realms not many decades ago by VictorEmmanuel. After vainly turning in his distress to his natural protector, the emperor, the pope had no resource but to appeal to Pippin, uponwhose fidelity he had every reason to rely. He crossed the Alps and wasreceived with the greatest cordiality and respect by the Frankishmonarch, who returned to Italy with him and relieved Rome (754). [Sidenote: Pippin subdues the Lombards. ] No sooner had Pippin recrossed the Alps than the Lombard king, everanxious to add Rome to his possessions, again invested the Eternal City. Pope Stephen's letters to the king of the Franks at this juncture arecharacteristic of the time. The pope warmly argues that Pippin owes allhis victories to St. Peter and should now hasten to the relief of hissuccessor. If the king permits the city of the prince of the apostles tobe lacerated and tormented by the Lombards, his own soul will belacerated and tormented in hell by the devil and his pestilentialangels. These arguments proved effective; Pippin immediately undertook asecond expedition to Italy, from which he did not return until thekingdom of the Lombards had become tributary to his own, as Bavaria andAquitaine already were. [Sidenote: Donation of Pippin. ] Pippin, instead of restoring to the eastern emperor the lands which theLombards had recently occupied, handed them over to the pope, --onexactly what terms we do not know, since the deed of cession hasdisappeared. In consequence of these important additions to the formerterritories of St. Peter, the popes were thereafter the nominal rulersof a large district in central Italy, extending across the peninsulafrom Ravenna to a point well south of Rome. If, as many writers havemaintained, Pippin recognized the pope as the sovereign of thisdistrict, we find here the first state that was destined to endure intothe nineteenth century delimited on the map of Europe. A map of Italy aslate as the year 1860 shows the same region still marked "States of theChurch. " [Sidenote: Significance of Pippin's reign. ] The reign of Pippin is remarkable in several ways. It witnessed thestrengthening of the kingly power in the Frankish state, which was soonto embrace most of western Europe and form the starting point for thedevelopment of the modern countries of France, Germany, and Austria. Itfurnishes the first instance of the interference of a northern prince inthe affairs of Italy, which was destined to become the stumbling-blockof many a later French and German king. Lastly, the pope had now a stateof his own, which, in spite of its small size, proved one of the mostimportant and permanent in Europe. Pippin and his son Charlemagne saw only the strength and not thedisadvantage that accrued to their title from the papal sanction. It isnone the less true, as Gibbon says, that "under the sacerdotal monarchyof St. Peter, the nations began to resume the practice of seeking, onthe banks of the Tiber, their kings, their laws, and the oracles oftheir fate. " We shall have ample evidence of this as we proceed. General Reading. --For Mohammed and the Saracens, GILMAN, _The Saracens_ (G. P. Putnam's Sons, $1. 50). Gibbon has a famous chapter on Mohammed and another upon the conquests of the Arabs. These are the fiftieth and fifty-first of his great work. See also MUIR, _Life of Mohammed_ (Smith, Elder & Co. , $4. 50). CHAPTER VII CHARLEMAGNE 28. Charlemagne is the first historical personage among the Germanpeoples of whom we have any satisfactory knowledge. [39] Compared withhim, Theodoric, Charles Martel, Pippin, and the rest are but shadowyfigures. The chronicles tell us something of their deeds, but we canmake only the vaguest inferences in regard to their character andtemperament. [Sidenote: Charlemagne's personal appearance. ] The appearance of Charlemagne, as described by his secretary, so exactlycorresponds with the character of the king as exhibited in his greatreign, that it is worthy of attention. He was tall and stoutly built;his face was round, his eyes were large and keen, his nose somewhatabove the common size, his expression bright and cheerful. Whether hestood or sat, his form was full of dignity; for the good proportion andgrace of his body prevented the observer from noticing that his neck wasrather short and his person somewhat too stout. His step was firm andhis aspect manly; his voice was clear, but rather weak for so large abody. He was active in all bodily exercises, delighted in riding andhunting, and was an expert swimmer. His excellent health and hisphysical alertness and endurance can alone explain the astonishingswiftness with which he moved about his vast realm and conductedinnumerable campaigns in widely distant regions in startlingly rapidsuccession. [Sidenote: His education, his attitude toward learning, and his publicspirit. ] Charles was an educated man and one who knew how to appreciate andencourage scholarship. When at dinner he had some one read to him; hedelighted especially in history and in St. Augustine's _City of God_. Hecould speak Latin well and understood Greek readily. He tried to learnto write, but began too late in life and got no farther than signing hisname. He called scholarly men to his court, took advantage of theirlearning, and did much toward reëstablishing a regular system of publicinstruction. He was also constantly occupied with buildings and otherpublic works calculated to adorn and benefit his kingdom. He himselfplanned the remarkable cathedral at Aix-la-Chapelle and showed thegreatest interest in its furnishings. He commenced two palaces ofbeautiful workmanship, one near Mayence and the other at Nimwegen, inHolland, and had a long bridge constructed across the Rhine at Mayence. [Sidenote: The Charlemagne of romance. ] The impression which his reign made upon men's minds grew even after hisdeath. He became the hero of a whole cycle of romantic but whollyunhistoric adventures and achievements which were as devoutly believedfor centuries as his most authentic deeds. In the fancy of an old monkin the monastery of St. Gall, [40] writing of Charlemagne not long afterhis death, the king of the Franks swept over Europe surrounded bycountless legions of soldiers who formed a very sea of bristling steel. Knights of superhuman valor formed his court and became the models forthe chivalrous spirit of the following centuries. Distorted butimposing, the Charlemagne of poetry meets us all through the MiddleAges. A study of Charlemagne's reign will substantiate our first impressionthat he was a truly remarkable person, one of the greatest figures inthe world's records and deservedly the hero of the Middle Ages. To fewmen has it been given to influence so profoundly the course of Europeanprogress. We shall consider him first as a conqueror, then as anorganizer and creator of governmental institutions, and lastly as apromoter of culture and enlightenment. [Sidenote: Charlemagne's idea of a great Christian empire. ] 29. It was Charlemagne's ideal to bring all the German peoples togetherinto one great Christian empire, and he was wonderfully successful inattaining his end. Only a small portion of what is now called Germanywas included in the kingdom ruled over by Pippin. Frisia and Bavaria hadbeen Christianized, and their native rulers had been induced by theefforts of Charlemagne's predecessors and of the missionaries, especially Boniface, to recognize formally the overlordship of theFranks. Between these two half-independent countries lay the unconqueredSaxons. They were as yet pagans and appear to have still clung to muchthe same institutions as those under which they lived when the Romanhistorian Tacitus described them seven centuries earlier. [Sidenote: The conquest of the Saxons. ] The Saxons occupied the region beginning somewhat east of Cologne andextending to the Elbe, and north to where the great cities of Bremen andHamburg are now situated. The present kingdom of Saxony would hardlyhave come within their boundaries. The Saxons had no towns or roads andwere consequently very difficult to conquer, as they could retreat, withtheir few possessions, into the forests or swamps as soon as they foundthemselves unable to meet an invader in the open field. Yet so long asthey remained unconquered they constantly threatened the Frankishkingdom, and the incorporation of their country was essential to therounding out of its boundaries. Charlemagne never undertook, during hislong military career, any other task half so serious as the subjugationof the Saxons, and it occupied his attention for many years. Ninesuccessive rebellions had to be put down, and it was finally owingrather to the Church than to Charlemagne's military prowess that thegreat task was brought to a successful issue. [Sidenote: Conversion of the Saxons. ] Nowhere do we find a more striking example of the influence of theChurch than in the reliance that Charlemagne placed upon it in hisdealings with the Saxons. He deemed it quite as essential that after arebellion they should promise to honor the Church and be baptized asthat they should pledge themselves to remain true and faithful vassalsof the king. He was in quite as much haste to found bishoprics andabbeys as to build fortresses. The law for the newly conquered Saxonlands, issued sometime between 775 and 790, provides the same deathpenalty for him who "shall have shown himself unfaithful to the lordking, " and him who "shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized andshall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain apagan. " Charlemagne believed the Christianizing of the Saxons soimportant a part of his duty that he decreed that all should sufferdeath who entered a church by violence and carried off anything byforce, or even failed to abstain from meat during Lent. [41] No one, under penalty of heavy fines, was to make vows, in the pagan fashion, attrees or springs, or partake of any heathen feasts in honor of thedemons (as the Christians termed the heathen deities), or fail topresent infants for baptism before they were a year old. For the support of the local churches, those who lived in the parishwere to give toward three hundred acres of land and a house for thepriest. "Likewise, in accordance with the mandate of God, we commandthat all shall give a tithe of their property and labor to the churchesand the priests; let the nobles as well as the freemen, likewise theserfs, according to that which God shall have given to each Christian, return a part to God. " [Sidenote: Coöperation of the civil government and the Church. ] These provisions are characteristic of the theory of the Middle Agesaccording to which the civil government and the Church went hand in handin ordering and governing the life of the people. Defection from theChurch was regarded by the state as quite as serious a crime as treasonagainst itself. While the claims of the two institutions sometimesconflicted, there was no question in the minds either of the king'sofficials or of the clergy that both the civil and ecclesiasticalgovernment were absolutely necessary; neither class ever dreamed thatthey could get along without the other. [Sidenote: Foundation of towns in northern Germany. ] Before the Frankish conquest the Saxons had no towns. Now, around theseat of the bishop, or about a monastery, men began to collect and townsand cities to grow up. Of these the chief was Bremen, which is still oneof the most important ports of Germany. [Sidenote: Charlemagne becomes king of the Lombards. ] 30. Pippin, it will be remembered, had covenanted with the papacy toprotect it from its adversaries. The king of the Lombards had takenadvantage of Charlemagne's seeming preoccupation with his German affairsto attack the city of Rome again. The pope immediately demanded the aidof Charlemagne, who prepared to carry out his father's pledges. Heordered the Lombard ruler to return the cities that he had taken fromthe pope. Upon his refusal to do this, Charlemagne invaded Lombardy in773 with a great army and took Pavia, the capital, after a long siege. The Lombard king was forced to become a monk, and his treasure wasdivided among the Frankish soldiers. Charlemagne then took the extremelyimportant step, in 774, of having himself recognized by all the Lombarddukes and counts as king of the Lombards. [Illustration: THE EMPIRE OF CHARLEMAGNE] [Sidenote: Aquitaine and Bavaria incorporated in Charlemagne's empire. ] The considerable provinces of Aquitaine and Bavaria had never formed anintegral part of the Frankish realms, but had remained semi-independentunder their native dukes up to the time of Charlemagne. Aquitaine, whosedukes had given Pippin much trouble, was incorporated into the Frankishstate in 769. As for the Bavarians, Charlemagne felt that so long asthey remained under their duke he could not rely upon them to defend theFrankish empire against the Slavs, who were constantly threatening thefrontiers. So he compelled the duke of Bavaria to surrender hispossessions, shut him up in a monastery, and proceeded to portion outthe duchy among his counts. He thus added to his realms the districtthat lay between his new Saxon conquest and the Lombard kingdom. [Sidenote: Foreign policy of Charlemagne. ] 31. So far we have spoken only of the relations of Charlemagne with theGermans, for even the Lombard kingdom was established by the Germans. Hehad, however, other peoples to deal with, especially the Slavs on theeast (who were one day to build up the kingdoms of Poland, Bohemia, andthe vast Russian empire) and, on the opposite boundary of his dominion, the Arabs in Spain. Against these it was necessary to protect hisrealms, and the second part of Charlemagne's reign was devoted to whatmay be called his foreign policy. A single campaign in 789 seems to havesufficed to subdue the Slavs, who lay to the north and east of theSaxons, and to force the Bohemians to acknowledge the supremacy of theFrankish king and pay tribute to him. [Sidenote: The marches and margraves. ] The necessity of insuring the Frankish realms against any new uprisingof these non-German nations led to the establishment, on the confines ofthe kingdom, of _marches_, i. E. , districts under the military control ofcounts of the march, or _margraves_. [42] Their business was to preventany hostile incursions into the interior of the kingdom. Much dependedupon the efficiency of these men; in many cases they founded powerfulfamilies and later helped to disintegrate the Empire by establishingthemselves as practically independent rulers. [Sidenote: Charlemagne in Spain. ] At an assembly that Charlemagne held in 777, ambassadors appeared beforehim from certain disaffected Mohammedans. They had fallen out with theemir of Cordova[43] and now offered to become the faithful subjects ofCharlemagne if he would come to their aid. In consequence, he undertookhis first expedition to Spain in the following year. The district northof the Ebro was conquered by the Franks after some years of war, andCharlemagne established the Spanish March. [44] In this way he began thatgradual expulsion of the Mohammedans from the peninsula which was to becarried on by slowly extending conquests until 1492, when Granada, thelast Mohammedan stronghold, fell. [45] [Sidenote: Charlemagne crowned emperor by the pope. ] 32. But the most famous of all the achievements of Charlemagne was hisreëstablishment of the Western Empire in the year 800. It came about inthis wise. Charlemagne went to Rome in that year to settle a controversybetween Pope Leo III and his enemies. To celebrate the satisfactoryadjustment of the dispute, the pope held a solemn service on Christmasday in St. Peter's. As Charlemagne was kneeling before the altar duringthis service, the pope approached him and set a crown upon his head, saluting him, amid the acclamation of those present, as "Emperor of theRomans. " [Sidenote: Charlemagne merited the title of emperor. ] The reasons for this extraordinary act, which Charlemagne afterwardpersistently asserted took him completely by surprise, are given in oneof the Frankish histories, the _Chronicles of Lorsch_, as follows: "Thename of Emperor had ceased among the Greeks, for they were enduring thereign of a woman [Irene], wherefore it seemed good both to Leo, theapostolic pope, and to the holy fathers [the bishops] who were incouncil with him, and to all Christian men, that they should nameCharles, king of the Franks, as Emperor. For he held Rome itself, wherethe ancient Cæsars had always dwelt, in addition to all his otherpossessions in Italy, Gaul and Germany. Wherefore, as God had grantedhim all these dominions, it seemed just to all that he should take thetitle of Emperor, too, when it was offered to him at the wish of allChristendom. " Charlemagne appears to have accepted gracefully the honor thus thrustupon him. Even if he had no right to the imperial title, there was anobvious propriety and expediency in granting it to him under thecircumstances. Before his coronation by the pope he was only king of theFranks and the Lombards; but his conquests seemed to entitle him to amore comprehensive designation which should include his outlyingdependencies. Then the imperial power at Constantinople had been in thehands of heretics, from the standpoint of the Western Church, ever sinceEmperor Leo issued his edict against the veneration of images. What wasstill worse, the throne had been usurped, shortly before the coronationof Charlemagne, by the wicked Irene, who had deposed and blinded herson, Constantine VI. The coronation of Charlemagne was, therefore, onlya recognition of the real political conditions in the West. [46] [Sidenote: Continuity of the Roman Empire. ] The empire now reëstablished in the West was considered to be acontinuation of the Roman Empire founded by Augustus. Charlemagne wasreckoned the immediate successor of Constantine VI, whom Irene haddeposed. Yet, in spite of this fancied continuity, it is hardlynecessary to say that the position of the new emperor had little incommon with that of Marcus Aurelius or Constantine. In the first place, the eastern emperors continued to reign in Constantinople for centuries, quite regardless of Charlemagne and his successors. In the second place, the German kings who wore the imperial crown after Charlemagne weregenerally too weak really to rule over Germany and northern Italy, tosay nothing of the rest of western Europe. Nevertheless, the WesternEmpire, which in the twelfth century came to be called the Holy RomanEmpire, endured for over a thousand years. It came to an end only in1806, when the last of the emperors, wearied of his empty if venerabletitle, laid down the crown. [Sidenote: The title of emperor a source of trouble to the Germanrulers. ] The assumption of the title of emperor was destined to make the Germanrulers a great deal of trouble. It constantly led them into futileefforts to maintain a supremacy over Italy, which lay without theirnatural boundaries. Then the circumstances under which Charlemagne wascrowned made it possible for the popes to claim, later, that it was theywho had transferred the imperial power from the old eastern line ofemperors to the Carolingian house, and that this was a proof of theirright to dispose of the crown as they pleased. The difficulties whicharose necessitated many a weary journey to Rome for the emperors, andmany unworthy conflicts between the temporal and spiritual heads ofChristendom. [Sidenote: Charlemagne's system of government. ] 33. The task of governing his vast and heterogeneous dominions taxedeven the highly gifted and untiring Charlemagne; it quite exceeded thecapacity of his successors. The same difficulties continued to existthat had confronted Charles Martel and Pippin, --above all a scanty royalrevenue and over-powerful officials who were prone to neglect theinterests and commands of their sovereign. Charlemagne's distinguishedstatesmanship is nowhere so clearly seen as in his measures forextending his control to the very confines of his realms. [Sidenote: Charlemagne's farms. ] His income, like that of all mediæval rulers, came chiefly from hisroyal estates, as there was no system of general taxation such as hadexisted under the Roman Empire. He consequently took the greatest carethat his numerous plantations should be well cultivated and that noteven a turnip or an egg which was due him should be withheld. Anelaborate set of regulations for his farms is preserved, which shedsmuch light upon the times. [47] [Sidenote: Origin of titles of nobility. ] The officials upon whom the Frankish kings were forced to rely chieflywere the counts, the "hand and voice of the king" wherever he could notbe in person. They were to maintain order, see that justice was done intheir district, and raise troops when the king needed them. On thefrontier were the counts of the march, or margraves (marquises), alreadymentioned. These titles, together with that of duke, still exist astitles of nobility in Europe, although they are no longer associatedwith governmental duties except where their holders have the right tosit in the upper house of parliament. [Sidenote: The _missi dominici_. ] To keep the counts in order, Charlemagne appointed royal commissioners(the _missi dominici_), whom he dispatched to all parts of his realm toinvestigate and report to him how things were going in the districtsassigned to them. They were sent in pairs, a bishop and a layman, sothat they might act as a check on one another. Their circuits werechanged each year so that they should have no chance to enter intoconspiracy with the counts whom it was their special business towatch. [48] The revival of the Roman Empire in the West made no difference inCharlemagne's system of government, except that he required all hissubjects above twelve years of age to take a new oath of fidelity to himas emperor. He held important assemblies of the nobles and prelateseach spring or summer, where the interests of the Empire wereconsidered. With the sanction of his advisers, he issued anextraordinary series of laws, called _capitularies_, a number of whichhave been preserved. With the bishops and abbots he discussed the needsof the Church, and above all the necessity of better schools for boththe clergy and laity. The reforms which he sought to introduce give usan opportunity of learning the condition in which Europe found itselfafter four hundred years of disorder. [Sidenote: The dark century before Charlemagne. ] 34. Charlemagne was the first important king since Theodoric to pay anyattention to book learning, which had fared badly enough since the deathof Boethius, three centuries before. About 650 the supply of papyrus hadbeen cut off, owing to the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs, and as paperhad not yet been invented there was only the very expensive parchment towrite upon. While this had the advantage of being more durable thanpapyrus, its cost discouraged the multiplication of copies of books. Theeighth century, that immediately preceding Charlemagne's coronation, isdeclared by the learned Benedictine monks, in their great history ofFrench literature, to have been the most ignorant, the darkest, and themost barbarous period ever seen, at least in France. The documents ofthe Merovingian period often indicate great ignorance and carelessnesson the part of those who wrote them out. [Sidenote: The elements of learning preserved by the Church. ] Yet, in spite of this dark picture, there was promise for the future. Itwas evident, even before Charlemagne's time, that the world was not tocontinue indefinitely in the path of ignorance. Latin could not beforgotten, for that was the language of the Church and all its officialcommunications were in that tongue. The teachings of the Christianreligion had to be gathered from the Bible and other books, and thechurch services formed a small literature by themselves. Consequently itwas absolutely necessary that the Church should maintain some sort ofeducation in order to perform its complicated services and conduct theextensive duties which devolved upon it. All the really efficient churchofficers, whatever their nationality, must have been able to read theLatin classics, if they were so inclined. Then there were thecompilations of ancient knowledge already mentioned, [49] which, incredibly crude and scanty as they were, kept up the memory of thepast. They at least perpetuated the names of the various branches ofknowledge and contained, for example, enough about arithmetic andastronomy to help the isolated churchman to calculate each year the dateof Easter. [Sidenote: Two letters of Charlemagne's respecting the neglect ofeducation among the clergy. ] Charlemagne was the first temporal ruler to realize the serious neglectof education, even among the clergy, and we have two interesting lettersfrom him, written before he was made emperor, relating to this subject. In one to an important bishop, he says: "Letters have been written to usfrequently in recent years from various monasteries, stating that thebrethren who dwelt therein were offering up holy and pious supplicationsin our behalf. We observed that the sentiments in these letters wereexemplary but that the form of expression was uncouth, because what truedevotion faithfully dictated to the mind, the tongue, untrained byreason of neglect of study, was not able to express in a letter withoutmistakes. So it came about that we began to fear lest, perchance, as theskill in writing was less than it should be, the wisdom necessary to theunderstanding of the Holy Scriptures was also much less than wasneedful. We all know well that, although errors of speech are dangerous, errors of understanding are far more dangerous. Therefore, we exhort younot merely not to _neglect_ the study of letters, but with a most humblemind, pleasing to God, earnestly to devote yourself to study, in orderthat you may be able the more easily and correctly to penetrate themysteries of the Holy Scriptures. " In the other letter he says: "We have striven with watchful zeal toadvance the cause of learning which has been almost forgotten throughthe negligence of our ancestors; and by our own example, we invite allthose who can, to master the studies of the liberal arts. In thisspirit, God aiding us, we have already carefully corrected all the booksof the Old and New Testaments, corrupted by the ignorance of thecopyists. " [Illustration: An Example of the Style of Writing used in the Books ofCharlemagne's Time[50]] It seemed to Charlemagne that it was the duty of the Church not only tolook after the education of its own officers but to provide theopportunity of at least an elementary education for the people at large. In accordance with this conviction, he issued (789) an admonition to theclergy to gather together the children both of freemen and serfs intheir neighborhood and establish schools "in which the boys may learn toread. "[51] [Sidenote: Establishment of monastery schools and the 'school of thepalace. '] It would be impossible to say how many of the innumerable abbots andbishops established schools in accordance with Charlemagne'srecommendations. It is certain that famous centers of learning existedat Tours, Fulda, Corbie, Orleans, and other places during his reign. Charlemagne further promoted the cause of education by the establishmentof the famous "school of the palace" for the instruction of the sons ofhis nobles and of his own children. He placed the Englishman, Alcuin, atthe head of the school, and called distinguished men from Italy andelsewhere as teachers. The best known of these was the historian, PaulusDiaconus, who wrote a history of the Lombards, to which we owe most ofwhat we know about them. Charlemagne appears to have been particularly impressed with theconstant danger of mistakes in copying books, a task frequently turnedover to ignorant and careless persons. After recommending the foundingof schools, he continues: "Correct carefully the Psalms, the signs usedin music, the [Latin] grammar, and the religious books used in everymonastery or bishopric; since those who desire to pray to God properlyoften pray badly because of the incorrect books. And do not let yourboys misread or miswrite them. If there is any need to copy the Gospel, Psalter or Missal, let men of maturity do the writing with greatdiligence. " These precautions were amply justified, for a carefultransmission of the literature of the past was as important as theattention to education. It will be noted that Charlemagne made noattempt to revive the learning of Greece and Rome. He deemed it quitesufficient if the churchmen would learn their Latin well enough to readthe missal and the Bible intelligently. The hopeful beginning that was made under Charlemagne in the revival ofeducation and intellectual interest was destined to prove disappointingin its immediate results. It is true that the ninth century produced afew noteworthy men who have left works which indicate acuteness andmental training. But the break-up of Charlemagne's empire, the strugglesbetween his descendants, the coming of new barbarians, and the disordercaused by the unruly feudal lords, who were not inclined to recognizeany master, all conspired to keep the world back for at least twocenturies more. Indeed, the tenth and the first half of the eleventhcenturies seem, at first sight, little better than the seventh andeighth. Yet ignorance and disorder never were quite so prevalent after, as they were before, Charlemagne. General Reading. --The best life of Charlemagne in English is MOMBERT, _A History of Charles the Great_ (D. C. Appleton & Co. , $5. 00). See also HODGKIN, _Charles the Great_ (The Macmillan Company, 75 cents), and WEST, _Alcuin_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, $1. 00). CHAPTER VIII THE DISRUPTION OF CHARLEMAGNE'S EMPIRE [Sidenote: Louis the Pious succeeds Charlemagne. ] 35. It was a matter of great importance to the world whetherCharlemagne's extensive empire was, after his death, to remain one or tofall apart. He himself appears to have had no expectation that it wouldhold together, for in 806 he divided it up in a very arbitrary manneramong his three sons. We do not know whether he was led thus to undo hislife's work simply because the older tradition of a division among theking's sons was as yet too strong to permit him to hand down all hispossessions to his eldest son, or because he believed it would beimpossible to keep together so vast and heterogeneous a realm. Howeverthis may have been, the death of his two eldest sons left only Louis, who succeeded his father both as king and emperor. [Sidenote: Partition of Charlemagne's empire among the sons of Louis thePious. ] Louis the Pious had been on the throne but a few years before he took upthe all-important problem of determining what share each of his sonsshould have in the empire after his death. As they were far tooambitious to submit to the will of their father, we find no less thansix different partitions between the years 817 and 840. We cannot stopto trace these complicated and transient arrangements, or the rebellionsof the undutiful sons, who set the worst possible example to theambitious and disorderly nobles. On the death of Louis the Pious, in840, his second son, Louis the German, was in possession of Bavaria andhad at various times been recognized as ruler of most of those parts ofthe empire now included in Germany. The youngest son, Charles the Bald, had all the western portion of the Frankish possessions, whileLothaire, the eldest, had been designated as emperor and ruled overItaly and the district lying between the possessions of the youngerbrothers. Charles and Louis promptly combined to resist the attempts ofLothaire to assert his superiority as emperor, and defeated him atFontenay (841). The treaty of Verdun, which followed, is one of the mostmemorable in the history of western Europe. [52] [Illustration: Map of Treaty of Verdun] [Sidenote: Treaty of Verdun, 843. ] In the negotiations which led up to the treaty of Verdun there appearsto have been entire agreement among the three parties that Italy shouldgo to Lothaire, Aquitaine to Charles the Bald, and Bavaria to Louis theGerman. The real difficulty lay in the disposal of the rest of theempire. It seemed appropriate that the older brother, as emperor, shouldhave, in addition to Italy, the center of the Frankish dominions, including the capital, Aix-la-Chapelle. A state of the most artificialkind, extending from Rome to northern Holland, was thus created, whichhad no natural unity of language or custom. Louis the German wasassigned, in addition to Bavaria, the country north of Lombardy andwestward to the Rhine. As for Charles the Bald, his realm included agreat part of what is France to-day, as well as the Spanish March andFlanders. 36. The great interest of the treaty of Verdun lies in the tolerablydefinite appearance of a western and an eastern Frankish kingdom, one ofwhich was to become France and the other Germany. In the kingdom ofCharles the Bald the dialects spoken by the majority of the people werederived directly from the spoken Latin, and in time developed intoProvençal and French. In the kingdom of Louis the German, on the otherhand, both people and language were German. The narrow strip of countrybetween these regions, which fell to Lothaire, came to be called_Lotharii regnum_, or kingdom of Lothaire. [53] This name was pervertedin time into Lotharingia and, later, into Lorraine. It is interesting tonote that this territory has formed a part of the debatable middleground over which the French and Germans have struggled so obstinatelydown to our own day. [Sidenote: The Strasburg oaths. ] We have a curious and important evidence of the difference of languagejust referred to, in the so-called Strasburg oaths (842). Just beforethe settlement at Verdun, the younger brothers had found it advisable topledge themselves, in an especially solemn and public manner, to supportone another against the pretensions of Lothaire. First, each of the twobrothers addressed his soldiers in their own language, absolving themfrom their allegiance to him should he desert his brother. Louis thentook the oath in what the chronicle calls the _lingua romana_, so thathis brother's soldiers might understand him, and Charles repeated hisoath in the _lingua teudisca_ for the benefit of Louis' soldiers. [54]Fortunately the texts of both of these oaths have been preserved. Theyare exceedingly interesting and important as furnishing our earliestexamples, except some lists of words, of the language spoken by thecommon people, which was only just beginning to be written. ProbablyGerman was very rarely written before this time, as all who could writeat all wrote in Latin. The same is true of the old Romance tongue (fromwhich modern French developed), which had already drifted far from theLatin. [Illustration: Map of Treaty of Mersen] [Sidenote: New divisions of the empire corresponding to France, Germany, and Italy. ] 37. When Lothaire died (855) he left Italy and the middle kingdom to histhree sons. By 870 two of these had died, and their uncles, Charles theBald and Louis the German, did not hesitate to appropriate the middlekingdom and divide it between them by the treaty of Mersen. Italy wasleft to Lothaire's only surviving son, together with the imperial crown, which was to mean nothing, however, for a hundred years to come. Theresult was that, as early as 870, western Europe was divided into threegreat districts which corresponded with startling exactness to threeimportant states of modern Europe, i. E. , France, Germany, and Italy. [Sidenote: The empire temporarily reunited under Charles the Fat. ] Louis the German was succeeded in the East-Frankish kingdom by his son, Charles the Fat. In 884, owing to the death of the sons and thegrandsons of Charles the Bald, there was no one to represent his lineexcept a child of five years. So the aristocracy of the West-Frankishkingdom invited Charles the Fat to become their king. In this way itcame about that the whole empire of Charlemagne was reunited for two orthree years under a single ruler. [55] [Sidenote: Charles the Fat and the Northmen. ] Charles the Fat was ill and proved an incompetent emperor, entirelyunequal to the serious task of governing and protecting his vastterritories. His weakness was especially shown in his pusillanimoustreaties with the Northmen. When Paris was making an heroic defenseagainst them under its count, Odo, Charles, instead of marching at thehead of an army to relieve it, agreed to pay the invaders seven hundredpounds of silver if they would raise the siege. They were then permittedto take up their winter quarters far inland, in Burgundy, where theyproceeded to burn and pillage at will. [Sidenote: Charles the Fat deposed and succeeded by Arnulf. ] This degrading agreement so disgusted the West-Frankish nobility thatthey were glad to join a conspiracy set on foot by Charles' nephew, thebrave Arnulf of Carinthia, who had resolved to supplant his inefficientuncle. Charles was deposed and deserted by all his former supporters in887. No one, except Napoleon, has ever again succeeded in bringing theeastern, western, and southern parts of Charlemagne's empire under hiscontrol, even for a brief period. Arnulf, although enjoying the title ofemperor, could scarcely hope to be recognized as king in all parts ofthe Frankish empire. Even nominal unity was no longer possible. As oneof the chronicles of the time puts it, "While Arnulf was frittering awayhis time, many little kingdoms grew up. " [Sidenote: Origin of the kingdom of Burgundy, or Arles. ] In the West-Frankish territory the nobility of the northern part choseOdo, the hero of the siege of Paris, as their king; but in the southanother enterprising nobleman, Count Boso of Vienne, succeeded ininducing the pope to crown him king of a certain district on the Rhonewhich included Provence. Immediately after Boso's death a largeterritory about the Lake of Geneva, which he had hoped to win forhimself, became a separate kingdom under its own ruler. This region andthat which Boso ruled to the south were later united into the kingdom ofBurgundy, or, as it is often called, Arles. Even before the deposition of Charles the Fat, many of the counts andother important landowners began to take advantage of the weakness oftheir king to establish themselves as the rulers of the districts aboutthem, although they did not assume the title of king. In theEast-Frankish kingdom the various German peoples whom Charlemagne hadmanaged to control, especially the Bavarians and Saxons, began to revivetheir old national independence. In Italy the disruption was even moremarked than in the north. [57] [Sidenote: Causes of disruption. ] [Sidenote: Poor roads. ] 38. It is clear, from what has been said, that none of the rulers intowhose hands the fragments of Charlemagne's empire fell, showed himselfpowerful and skillful enough to govern properly a great territory likethat embraced in France or Germany to-day. The difficulties in the wayof establishing a well-regulated state, in the modern sense of the word, were almost insurmountable. In the first place, it was well-nighimpossible to keep in touch with all parts of a wide realm. Thewonderful roads which the Romans had built had generally fallen intodecay, for there was no longer a corps of engineers maintained by thegovernment to keep them up and repair the bridges. In those parts ofCharlemagne's possessions that lay beyond the confines of the old RomanEmpire, the impediments to travel must have been still worse than inGaul and on the Rhine; there not even the vestiges of Roman roadsexisted. [Sidenote: Scarcity of money for paying government officers andmaintaining armies. ] In addition to the difficulty of getting about, the king had to contendwith the scarcity of money in the Middle Ages. This prevented him fromsecuring the services of a great corps of paid officials, such as everygovernment finds necessary to-day. Moreover, it made it impossible forhim to support the standing army which would have been necessary tosuppress the constant insubordination of his officials and of thepowerful and restless nobility, whose chief interest in life wasfighting. [Sidenote: New invasions, --the Northmen, Slavs, Hungarians, andSaracens. ] The disintegration of the Frankish empire was hastened by the continuedinvasions from all sides. From the north--Denmark, Norway, andSweden--came the Scandinavian pirates, the Northmen. [58] They wereskillful and daring seamen, who not only harassed the coast of the NorthSea, but made their way up the rivers, plundering and burning townsinland as far as Paris. On the eastern boundary of the empire theGermans were forced to engage in constant warfare with the Slavs. Beforelong the Hungarians, a savage race, began their terrible incursions intocentral Germany and northern Italy. From the south came the Saracens, who had got possession of Sicily (in 827), and terrorized southern Italyand France, even attacking Rome itself. [Sidenote: Growing power and independence of the great landedproprietor. ] 39. In the absence of a powerful king with a well-organized army at hisback, each district was left to look out for itself. Doubtless manycounts, margraves, bishops, and other great landed proprietors who weregradually becoming independent princes, earned the loyalty of the peopleabout them by taking the lead in defending the country against itsinvaders and by establishing fortresses as places of refuge when thecommunity was hard pressed. These conditions serve to explain why suchgovernment as continued to exist during the centuries following thedeposition of Charles the Fat was necessarily carried on mainly, not bythe king and his officers, but by the great landholders. The grimfortresses of the mediæval lords, which appeared upon almost every pointof vantage throughout western Europe during the Middle Ages, would nothave been tolerated by the king, had he been powerful enough to destroythem. They plainly indicate that their owners were practicallyindependent rulers. When the traveler in France or Germany comes upon the picturesque ruinsof a mediæval castle, perched upon some rocky cliff, accessible from oneside only, and commanding the surrounding country, he cannot but seethat those massive walls, with their towers and battlements, their moatand drawbridge, were never intended as a dwelling place for the peacefulhousehold of a private citizen, but rather as the fortified palace of aruler. We can picture the great hall crowded with armed retainers, whowere ready to fight for the proprietor when he was disposed to attack aneighboring lord, and who knew that below were the dungeons to which thelord might send them if they ventured to rebel against his authority. [Illustration: Mediæval Fortress, showing Moat and Drawbridges] [Sidenote: The landed proprietor and the manor. ] In order to understand the position of the mediæval noble and the originof feudalism we must consider the situation of the great landowners. Alarge part of western Europe in the time of Charlemagne appears to havebeen divided up into great estates, resembling the Roman villas. Justhow these originated we do not know. These estates, or _manors_, as theywere called, were cultivated mainly by serfs, who were bound to the landand were under the control of its proprietor. They tilled such part ofthe estate as the owner reserved for his own particular use, andprovided for his needs and their own without the necessity of buyingmuch from the outside. When we speak of a mediæval landowner we mean onewho held one or more of these manors, which served to support him andleft him free to busy himself fighting with other proprietors in thesame position as himself. [59] [Sidenote: Immunities. ] It had been common even before Charlemagne's time to grant tomonasteries and churches, and even to individuals, an extraordinaryprivilege which exempted their lands from the presence or visits ofgovernment officials. No public officer with the power to hear cases, exact fines, obtain lodging or entertainment for the king and hisfollowers when traveling about, or make requisitions of any kind, was toenter the lands or villages belonging to the monastery or personenjoying the _immunity_. These exemptions were evidently sought with aview to getting rid of the exactions of the king's officials andappropriating the various fines and fees, rather than with the purposeof usurping governmental prerogatives. But the result was that themonasteries or individuals who were thus freed from the requisitions ofthe government were left to perform its functions, --not, however, as yetin their own right, but as representatives of the king. [60] It is nothard to see how those who enjoyed this privilege might, as the centralpower weakened, become altogether independent. It is certain that agreat many landowners who had been granted no exemption from thejurisdiction of the king's officers, and a great many of the officersthemselves, especially the counts and margraves, gradually broke awayaltogether from the control of those above them and became the rulers ofthe regions in which they lived. [Sidenote: Tendency to hereditary offices. ] The counts were in a particularly favorable position to usurp for theirown benefit the powers which they were supposed to exercise for theking. Charlemagne had chosen his counts and margraves in most cases fromthe wealthy and distinguished families of his realms. As he had littlemoney, he generally rewarded their services by grants of estates, whichonly served to increase their independence. They gradually came to lookupon their office and their land as private property, and they werenaturally disposed to hand it on to their sons after them. Charlemagnehad been able to keep control of his agents by means of the _missi_. After his death his system fell into disuse and it became increasinglydifficult to get rid of inefficient or rebellious officers. [Sidenote: Forces opposed to disruption, viz. , partial survival of royalauthority and feudalism. ] Yet we must not infer that the state ceased to exist altogether duringthe centuries of confusion that followed the break-up of Charlemagne'sempire, or that it fell entirely apart into little local governmentsindependent of each other. In the first place, a king always retainedsome of his ancient majesty. He might be weak and without the means toenforce his rights and to compel his more powerful subjects to meettheir obligations toward him. Yet he was, after all, the _king_, solemnly anointed by the Church as God's representative on earth. He wasalways something more than a feudal lord. The kings were destined to getthe upper hand before many centuries in England, France, and Spain, andfinally in Italy and Germany, and to destroy the castles behind whosewalls their haughty nobles had long defied the royal power. [Sidenote: Feudalism. ] In the second place, the innumerable independent landowners were heldtogether by _feudalism_. One who had land to spare granted a portion ofit to another person on condition that the one receiving the land shouldswear to be true to him and perform certain services, --such as fightingfor him, giving him counsel, and lending aid when he was in particulardifficulties. In this way the relation of lord and vassal originated. All lords were vassals either of the king or of other lords, andconsequently all were bound together by solemn engagements to be loyalto one another and care for one another's interests. Feudalism servedthus as a sort of substitute for the state. Private arrangements betweenone landowner and another took the place of the weakened bond betweenthe subject and his king. The feudal form of government and the feudal system of holding land areso different from anything with which we are now familiar that it isdifficult for us to understand them. Yet unless we do understand them, agreat part of the history of Europe during the past thousand years willbe well-nigh meaningless. [61] CHAPTER IX FEUDALISM [Sidenote: Feudalism the outgrowth of prevailing conditions and earliercustoms. ] 40. Feudalism was the natural outcome of the peculiar conditions whichprevailed in western Europe during the ninth and tenth centuries. Itschief elements were not, however, newly invented or discovered at thatperiod but were only combined in order to meet the demands of the times. It will be well, therefore, to consider briefly those customs in thelater Roman Empire and among the invading Germans which suggest (1) thehabit of the mediæval landowner of granting his land to others in such away that, while he retained the title, they became, to most intents andpurposes, the real owners; and (2) the relation of lord and vassal. [Sidenote: Conditions of landholding in the later Roman Empire. ] [Sidenote: The _beneficium_. ] We have seen how, before the barbarian inroads, the small landowners inthe Roman Empire had often found it to their advantage to give up thetitle to their land to more powerful neighboring proprietors. [62] Thescarcity of labor was such that the new owner, while extending theprotection of his name over the land, was glad to permit the formerowner to continue to till it, rent free, much as if it still belonged tohim. With the invasions of the barbarians the lot of the defenselesssmall landholder became worse. He had a new resource, however, in themonasteries. The monks were delighted to accept any real estate whichthe owner--for the good of his soul and to gain the protection of thesaint to whom the monastery church was dedicated--felt moved to turnover to them on the understanding that the abbot should permit theformer owner to continue to cultivate his fields. Though he no longerowned the land, he still enjoyed its products and had only to pay atrifling sum each year in recognition of the monastery's ownership. [63]The use, or _usufruct_, of the land which was thus granted by themonastery to its former owner was called a _beneficium_. The same termwas applied to the numerous grants which churches made from their vastpossessions for limited periods and upon various conditions. We alsofind the Frankish kings and other great landowners disposing of theirlands in a similar fashion. The _beneficium_ forms the first stage inthe development of mediæval landowning. [Sidenote: The origin of the relationship of lord and vassal. ] Side by side with the _beneficium_ grew up another institution whichhelps to explain the relation of lord and vassal in later times. Underthe later Roman Empire the freeman who owned no land and found himselfunable to gain a living might become the dependent of some rich andpowerful neighbor, who agreed to feed, clothe, and protect him oncondition that he should engage to be faithful to his patron, "love allthat he loved and shun all that he shunned. "[64] [Sidenote: The _comitatus_. ] The invading Germans had a custom that so closely resembled this Romanone that scholars have found it impossible to decide whether we shouldattribute more influence to the Roman or to the German institution inthe development of feudalism. We learn from Tacitus that the youngGerman warriors were in the habit of pledging their fidelity to apopular chieftain, who agreed to support his faithful followers if theywould fight at his side. The _comitatus_, as Tacitus named thisarrangement, was not regarded by the Germans as a mere businesstransaction, but was looked upon as honorable alike to lord and man. Like the later relation of vassal and lord, it was entered upon with asolemn ceremony and the bond of fidelity was sanctioned by an oath. Theobligations of mutual aid and support established between the leader andhis followers were considered most sacred. [Sidenote: Combination of the _comitatus_ and the _beneficium_ producesfeudal land tenure. ] While there was a great difference between the homeless and destitutefellow who became the humble client of a rich Roman landowner, and thenoble young German warrior who sat at the board of a distinguishedmilitary leader, both of these help to account for the later feudalarrangement by which one person became the "man, " or faithful andhonorable dependent, of another. When, after the death of Charlemagne, men began to combine the idea of the _comitatus_ with the idea of the_beneficium_, and to grant the usufruct of parcels of their land oncondition that the grantee should be true, loyal, and helpful to them, that is, become their _vassal_, we may consider that the feudal systemof landowning was coming into existence. [65] [Sidenote: Gradual development of feudalism. ] [Sidenote: The fief. ] [Sidenote: Infeudation and subinfeudation. ] [Sidenote: Vassal and subvassal. ] 41. Feudalism was not established by any decree of a king or in virtueof any general agreement between all the landowners. It grew upgradually and irregularly without any conscious plan on any one's part, simply because it seemed convenient and natural under the circumstances. The owner of vast estates found it to his advantage to parcel them outamong vassals who agreed to accompany him to war, attend his court, guard his castle upon occasion, and assist him when he was put to anyunusually great expense. Land granted upon the terms mentioned was saidto be "infeudated" and was called a _fief_. One who held a fief mighthimself become a lord by granting a portion of his fief to a vassal uponterms similar to those upon which he held of his lord or suzerain. [66]This was called _subinfeudation_, and the vassal of a vassal was calleda _subvassal_ or _subtenant_. There was still another way in which thenumber of vassals was increased. The owners of small estates wereusually in a defenseless condition, unable to protect themselves againstthe insolence of the great nobles. They consequently found it to theiradvantage to put their land into the hands of a neighboring lord andreceive it back from him as a fief. They thus became his vassals andcould call upon him for protection. It is apparent, from what has been said, that, all through the MiddleAges, feudalism continued to grow, as it were, "from the top and bottomand in the middle all at once. " (1) Great landowners carved out newfiefs from their domains and granted them to new vassals. (2) Those whoheld small tracts brought them into the feudal relation by turning themover to a lord or monastery, whose vassals they became. (3) Finally anylord might subinfeudate portions of his estate by granting them as fiefsto those whose fidelity or services he wished to secure. By thethirteenth century it had become the rule in France that there should be"no land without its lord. " This corresponded pretty closely to theconditions which existed at that period throughout the whole of westernEurope. [Sidenote: The hereditary character of fiefs and its consequences. ] It is essential to observe that the fief, unlike the _beneficium_, wasnot granted for a certain number of years, or for the life of thegrantee, to revert at his death to the owner. On the contrary, it becamehereditary in the family of the vassal and passed down to the eldest sonfrom one generation to another. So long as the vassal remained faithfulto his lord and performed the stipulated services, and his successorsdid homage and continued to meet the conditions upon which the fief hadoriginally been granted, neither the lord nor his heirs could rightfullyregain possession of the land. No precise date can be fixed at which itbecame customary to make fiefs hereditary; it is safe, however, to saythat it was the rule in the tenth century. [67] The kings and great nobles perceived clearly enough the disadvantage oflosing control of their lands by permitting them to become hereditaryproperty in the families of their vassals. But the feeling that what thefather had enjoyed should pass to his children, who, otherwise, wouldordinarily have been reduced to poverty, was so strong that allopposition on the part of the lord proved vain. The result was thatlittle was left to the original and still nominal owner of the fiefexcept the services and dues to which the practical owner, the vassal, had agreed in receiving it. In short, the fief came really to belong tothe vassal, and only a shadow of his former proprietorship remained inthe hands of the lord. Nowadays the owner of land either makes some useof it himself or leases it for a definite period at a fixed money rent. But in the Middle Ages most of the land was held by those who neitherreally owned it nor paid a regular rent for it and yet who could not bedeprived of it by the original owner or his successors. [Sidenote: Subvassals of the king not under his control. ] Obviously the great vassals who held directly of the king became almostindependent of him as soon as their fiefs were granted to them inperpetuity. Their vassals, since they stood in no feudal relation to theking, escaped the royal control altogether. From the ninth to thethirteenth century the king of France or the king of Germany did notrule over a great realm occupied by subjects who owed him obedience astheir lawful sovereign, paid him taxes, and were bound to fight underhis banner as the head of the state. As a feudal landlord himself, hehad a right to demand fidelity and certain services from those who werehis vassals. But the great mass of the people over whom he nominallyruled, whether they belonged to the nobility or not, owed little to theking directly, because they lived upon the lands of other feudal lordsmore or less independent of him. Enough has been said of the gradual and irregular growth of feudalism tomake it clear that complete uniformity in feudal customs could hardlyexist within the bounds of even a small kingdom, much less throughoutthe countries of western Europe. Yet there was a remarkable resemblancebetween the institutions of France, England, and Germany, so that adescription of the chief features of feudalism in France, where it washighly developed, will serve as a key to the general situation in allthe countries we are studying. [Sidenote: The fief the central institution of feudalism. ] [Sidenote: Homage. ] 42. The fief (Latin, _feudum_) was the central institution of feudalismand the one from which it derives its name. In the commonest acceptanceof the word, the fief was land, the perpetual use of which was grantedby its owner, or holder, to another person, on condition that the onereceiving it should become his vassal. The one proposing to become avassal knelt before the lord and rendered him _homage_[68] by placinghis hands between those of the lord and declaring himself the lord's"man" for such and such a fief. Thereupon the lord gave his vassal thekiss of peace and raised him from his kneeling posture. Then the vassaltook the oath of fidelity upon the Bible, or some holy relic, solemnlybinding himself to fulfill all his duties toward his lord. This act ofrendering homage by placing the hands in those of the lord and takingthe oath of fidelity was the first and most essential obligation of thevassal and constituted the _feudal bond_. For a vassal to refuse to dohomage for his fief when it changed hands, was equivalent to adeclaration of revolt and independence. [Sidenote: Obligations of the vassal. Military service. ] [Sidenote: Money fiefs. ] The obligations of the vassal varied greatly. [69] Sometimes homage meantno more than that the vassal bound himself not to attack or injure hislord in honor or estate, or oppose his interests in any other manner. The vassal was expected to join his lord when there was a militaryexpedition on foot, although it was generally the case that the vassalneed not serve at his own expense for more than forty days. The rules, too, in regard to the length of time during which a vassal might becalled upon to guard the castle of his lord varied almost infinitely. The shorter periods of military service proved very inconvenient to thelord. Consequently it became common in the thirteenth century for theking and the more important nobles to secure a body of soldiers uponwhom they could rely at any time, and for any length of time, bycreating money fiefs. A certain income was granted to a knight uponcondition that the grantee should not only become a vassal of the lordbut should also agree to fight for him whenever it was necessary. [Sidenote: Other feudal obligations. ] [Sidenote: Money payments. ] Besides the military service due from the vassal to his lord, he wasexpected to attend the lord's court when summoned. There he sat withother vassals to hear and pronounce upon those cases in which hispeers--i. E. , his fellow-vassals--were involved. [70] Moreover, he had togive the lord the benefit of his counsel when required, and attend himupon solemn occasions. Under certain circumstances vassals had to makemoney payments to their lord, as well as serve him in person; as, forinstance, when the fief changed hands through the death of the lord orof the vassal, when the fief was alienated, when the lord was put toextra expense by the necessity of knighting his eldest son or providinga dowry for his daughter, or when he was in captivity and was held for aransom. Lastly, the vassal might have to entertain his lord should thelord come his way. There are amusingly detailed accounts, in some of thefeudal contracts, of exactly how often the lord might come, how manyfollowers he might bring, and what he should have to eat. [Illustration: A Mediæval Castle near Klagenfurt, Austria] [Sidenote: Different classes of fiefs. ] There were fiefs of all kinds and of all grades of importance, from thatof a duke or count, who held directly of the king and exercised thepowers of a practically independent prince, down to the holding of thesimple knight, whose bit of land, cultivated by peasants or serfs, wasbarely sufficient to enable him to support himself and provide the horseupon which he rode to perform his military service for his lord. [Sidenote: The nobility. ] [Sidenote: Their privileges. ] In order to rank as a noble in mediæval society it was, in general, necessary to be the holder of land for which only such services were dueas were considered honorable, and none of those which it was customaryfor the peasant or serf to perform. The noble must, moreover, be a freeman and have at least sufficient income to maintain himself and hishorse without any sort of labor. The nobles enjoyed certain privilegeswhich set them off from the non-noble classes. Many of these privilegeswere perpetuated in France, and elsewhere on the continent, down to thetime of the French Revolution, and in Italy and Germany, into thenineteenth century. The most conspicuous privilege was a partialexemption from taxation. [Sidenote: Difficulty of classifying the nobles. ] It is natural to wish to classify the nobility and to ask just what wasthe difference, for example, between a duke, a count, and a marquis. Unfortunately there was no fixed classification, at least before thethirteenth century. A count, for instance, might be a very inconspicuousperson, having a fief no larger than the county of Charlemagne's time, or he might possess a great many of the older counties and rank in powerwith a duke. In general, however, it may be said that the dukes, counts, bishops, and abbots who held directly from the king were of the highestrank. Next to them came an intermediate class of nobles of the secondorder, generally subvassals of the king, and below these the simpleknights. [Sidenote: Feudal registers. ] 43. The great complexity of the feudal system of land tenure made itnecessary for the feudal lords to keep careful registers of theirpossessions. Very few of these registers have been preserved, but we areso fortunate as to have one of the count of Champagne, dating from theearly thirteenth century. This gives us an idea of what feudalism reallywas in practice, and shows how impossible it is to make a satisfactorymap of any country during the feudal period. [Illustration: Fiefs and Suzerains of the Counts of Champagne] [Sidenote: Growth of the possessions of the counts of Champagne typicalof the period. ] At the opening of the tenth century we find in the chronicles of thetime an account of a certain ambitious count of Troyes, Robert by name, who died in 923 while trying to wrest the crown of France from Charlesthe Simple. His county passed to his son-in-law, who already held, amongother possessions, the counties of Château-Thierry and Meaux. His son, in turn, inherited all three counties and increased his dominions byjudicious usurpations. This process of gradual aggrandizement went onfor generation after generation, until there came to be a compactdistrict under the control of the counts of Champagne, as they began tocall themselves at the opening of the twelfth century. It was in thisway that the feudal states in France and Germany grew up. Certain linesof feudal lords showed themselves able, partly by craft and violence, and partly, doubtless, by good fortune, to piece together a considerabledistrict, in much the same way as we shall find that the king of Francelater pieced together France itself. [Sidenote: The register of the counts of Champagne illustrates thecomplexity of feudal relations. ] The register referred to above shows that the feudal possessions of thecounts of Champagne were divided into twenty-six districts, each ofwhich centered about a strong castle. We may infer that these divisionsbore some close relation to the original counties which the counts ofChampagne had succeeded in bringing together. All these districts wereheld as fiefs of other lords. For the greater number of his fiefs thecount rendered homage to the king of France, but he was the vassal of noless than nine other lords beside the king. A portion of his lands, including probably his chief town of Troyes, he held of the duke ofBurgundy. Châtillon, Épernay, and some other towns, he held as the "man"of the Archbishop of Rheims. He was also the vassal of the Archbishop ofSens, of four other neighboring bishops, and of the abbot of the greatmonastery of St. Denis. To all of these persons he had pledged himselfto be faithful and true, and when his various lords fell out with oneanother it must have been difficult to see where his duty lay. Yet hissituation was similar to that of all important feudal lords. The chief object, however, of the register was to show not what thecount owed to others but what his own numerous vassals owed to him. Itappears that he subinfeudated his lands and his various sources ofincome to no less than two thousand vassal knights. The purpose of theregister is to record the terms upon which each of these knights heldhis fief. Some simply rendered the count homage, some agreed to servehim in war for a certain length of time each year, others to guard hiscastle for specified periods. A considerable number of the vassals ofthe count held lands of other lords, there being nothing to prevent asubvassal from accepting a fief directly from the king, or from anyother neighboring noble landholder. So it happened that several of thevassals of the counts of Champagne held of the same persons of whom thecount himself held. [Sidenote: The infeudation of other things than land. ] It is evident that the counts of Champagne were not contented with thenumber of vassals that they secured by subinfeudating their land. Thesame homage might be rendered for a fixed income, or for a certainnumber of bushels of oats to be delivered each year by the lord, as forthe use of land. So money, houses, wheat, oats, wine, chickens, wereinfeudated, and even half the bees which might be found in a particularforest. It would seem to us the simpler way to have hired soldiersoutright, but in the thirteenth century the traditions of feudalism wereso strong that it seemed natural to make vassals of those whose aid wasdesired. The mere promise of a money payment would not have beenconsidered sufficiently binding. The feudal bond of homage served tomake the contract firmer than it would otherwise have been. [Illustration: The arrow indicates a lord of whom the vassal held one ormore fiefs. ] It is clear, then, that no such regular hierarchy existed as somehistorians have imagined, beginning with the king and ending with thehumblest knight included in the feudal aristocracy. The fact thatvassals often held of a number of different lords made the feudalrelations infinitely complex. The diagram on page 115, while it may notexactly correspond to the situation at any given moment, will serve toillustrate this complexity. [Sidenote: The feudal system maintained only by force. ] 44. Should one confine one's studies of feudalism to the rules laid downby the feudal lawyers and the careful descriptions of the exact dutiesof the vassal which are to be found in the contracts of the period, onemight conclude that everything had been so minutely and rigorously fixedas to render the feudal bond sufficient to maintain order and liberty. But one has only to read a chronicle of the time to discover that, inreality, brute force governed almost everything outside of the Church. The feudal obligations were not fulfilled except when the lord wassufficiently powerful to enforce them. The bond of vassalage andfidelity, which was the sole principle of order, was constantly brokenand faith was violated by both vassal and lord. [71] [Sidenote: The breaking of the feudal bond. ] It often happened that a vassal was discontented with his lord andtransferred his allegiance to another. This he had a right to do undercertain circumstances, as, for instance, when his lord refused to seethat justice was done him in his court. But such changes were generallymade merely for the sake of the advantages which the faithless vassalhoped to gain. The records of the time are full of accounts of refusalto do homage, which was the commonest way in which the feudal bond wasbroken. So soon as a vassal felt himself strong enough to face hislord's displeasure, or realized that the lord was a helpless minor, hewas apt to declare his independence by refusing to recognize the feudalsuperiority of the one from whom he had received his land. [Sidenote: War the law of the feudal world. ] We may say that war, in all its forms, was the law of the feudal world. War formed the chief occupation of the restless aristocracy who held theland and exercised the governmental control. The inveterate habits of amilitary race, the discord provoked by ill-defined rights or byself-interest and covetousness, all led to constant bloody struggles inwhich each lord had for his enemies all those about him. An enterprisingvassal was likely to make war at least once, first, upon each of hisseveral lords; secondly, upon the bishops and abbots with whom he wasbrought into contact, and whose control he particularly disliked;thirdly, upon his fellow-vassals; and lastly, upon his own vassals. Thefeudal bonds, instead of offering a guarantee of peace and concord, appear to have been a constant cause of violent conflict. Every one wasbent upon profiting by the permanent or temporary weakness of hisneighbor. This chronic dissension extended even to members of the samefamily; the son, anxious to enjoy a part of his heritage immediately, warred against his father, younger brothers against older, and nephewsagainst uncles who might seek to deprive them of their rights. In theory, the lord could force his vassals to settle their disputes inan orderly and righteous manner before his court. But often he wasneither able nor inclined to bring about a peaceful adjustment, and hewould frequently have found it embarrassing to enforce the decisions ofhis own court. So the vassals were left to fight out their quarrelsamong themselves and found their chief interest in life in so doing. Warwas practically sanctioned by law. The great French code of laws of thethirteenth century and the Golden Bull, a most important body of lawdrawn up for Germany in 1356, did not prohibit neighborhood war, butmerely provided that it should be conducted in a decent and gentlemanlyway. [Sidenote: Tourneys and jousts. ] The jousts, or tourneys, were military exercises--play wars--to fill outthe tiresome periods which occasionally intervened between realwars. [72] They were, in fact, diminutive battles in which whole troopsof hostile nobles sometimes took part. These rough plays called down thecondemnation of the popes and councils, and even of the kings. Thelatter, however, were too fond of the sport themselves not to forgetpromptly their own prohibitions. [73] [Sidenote: Disastrous effects of feudal warfare generally recognized. ] [Sidenote: The 'Truce of God. '] 45. The disastrous nature of the perpetual feudal warfare and thenecessity of some degree of peace and order, had already become apparenteven as early as the eleventh century. In spite of all the turmoil, mankind was making progress. Commerce and enlightenment were increasingin the older towns and preparing the way for the development of newones. Those engaged in peaceful pursuits could not but find theprevailing disorder intolerable. The Church was untiring, as it wasfitting that it should be, in its efforts to secure peace; and nothingredounds more to the honor of the bishops than the "Truce of God. " Thisprohibited all hostilities from Thursday night until Monday morning, aswell as upon all of the numerous fast days. [74] The church councils andthe bishops required the feudal lords to take an oath to observe theweekly truce, and, by means of the dreaded penalty of excommunication, met with some success. With the opening of the Crusades in 1096, thepopes undertook to effect a general pacification by diverting theprevailing warlike spirit against the Turks. At the same time the king, in France and England at least, was becominga power that made for order in the modern sense of the word. Heendeavored to prevent the customary resort to arms to settle every sortof difficulty between rival vassals. By increasing the military forcethat he had at his command he compelled the submission of cases ofdispute to his tribunals. But even St. Louis (d. 1270), who made thegreatest efforts to secure peace, did not succeed in accomplishing hisend. The gradual bettering of conditions was due chiefly to generalprogress and to the development of commerce and industry, which made thebellicose aristocracy more and more intolerable. General Reading. --The older accounts of feudalism, such as that given by Guizot or Hallam, should be avoided as the reader is likely to be misled by them. The earlier writers appear, from the standpoint of recent investigations, to have been seriously mistaken upon many important points. In French, LUCHAIRE, _Manuel des Institutions Françaises_ (Hachette & Co. , Paris, $3. 00), and ESMEIN, _Cours Élémentaire d'Histoire du Droit Français_ ($2. 00), are excellent. In English there is EMERTON'S Chapter XIV on "Feudal Institutions" in his _Mediæval Europe_, and ADAMS, _Civilization_, Chapter IX, devoted especially to the origin of feudalism. CHEYNEY gives a selection of documents relating to the subject in _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. IV, No. 3. CHAPTER X THE DEVELOPMENT OF FRANCE [Sidenote: Importance of studying the beginnings of the modern Europeanstates. ] 46. There is no more interesting or important phase of mediæval historythan the gradual emergence of the modern national state from the feudalanarchy into which the great empire of Charlemagne fell during thecentury after his death. No one should flatter himself that he hasgrasped the elements of the history of western Europe unless he cantrace in a clear, if general, way the various stages by which the stateswhich appear now upon the map of Europe--the French republic, the GermanEmpire, Austria-Hungary, and the kingdoms of Italy, Great Britain, andSpain--have grown out of the disorganized Europe of the ninth century. It might be inferred from what has been said in the preceding chaptersthat the political history of western Europe during the two or threecenturies following the deposition of Charles the Fat was really onlythe history of innumerable feudal lords. Yet even if the kings ofmediæval Europe were sometimes less powerful than some of their mightysubjects, still their history is more important than that of theirvassals. It was the kings, and not their rivals, the dukes and counts, who were to win in the long run and to establish national governments inthe modern sense of the term. It was about them that the great Europeanstates, especially France, Spain, and England, grew up. [Sidenote: Struggle between the Carolingians and the house of Odo. ] As we have seen, the aristocracy of the northern part of theWest-Frankish kingdom chose (in 888) as their king, in place of theincompetent Charles the Fat, the valiant Odo, Count of Paris, Blois, and Orleans. He was a powerful lord and held extensive domains besidesthe regions he ruled as count. But, in spite of his advantageousposition, he found it impossible to exert any real power in the southernpart of his kingdom. Even in the north he met with constant opposition, for the nobles who elected him had no idea of permitting him tointerfere much with their independence. Charles the Simple, the onlysurviving grandson of Charles the Bald, [75] was eventually elected kingby a faction opposed to Odo. [Sidenote: Election of Hugh Capet, the first of the Capetians, 987-996. ] For a hundred years the crown passed back and forth between the familyof Odo and that of Charlemagne. The counts of Paris were rich andcapable, while the later Carolingians were poor and unfortunate. Thelatter finally succumbed to their powerful rivals, who definitely tookpossession of the throne in 987, when Hugh Capet was elected king of theGauls, Bretons, Normans, Aquitanians, Goths, Spaniards, and Gascons, --inshort, of all those peoples who were to be welded, under Hugh'ssuccessors, into the great French nation. [Sidenote: The West-Frankish kingdom comes to be called France. ] Hugh inherited from his ancestors the title of Duke of France, whichthey had enjoyed as the military representatives of the laterCarolingian kings in "France, " which was originally a district north ofthe Seine. Gradually the name France came to be applied to all thedominions which the dukes of France ruled as kings. We shall hereafterspeak of the West-Frankish kingdom as France. [Sidenote: Difficulty of establishing the royal power. ] It must not be forgotten, however, that it required more than twocenturies after Hugh's accession for the French kings to create a realkingdom which should include even half the territory embraced in theFrance of to-day. For almost two hundred years the Capetians made littleor no progress toward real kingly power. In fact, matters went from badto worse. Even the region which they were supposed to control ascounts--their so-called _domain_--melted away in their hands. Everywhere hereditary lines of usurping rulers sprang up whom it wasimpossible to exterminate after they had once taken root. The Capetianterritory bristled with hostile castles, permanent obstacles to commercebetween the larger towns and intolerable plagues to the country people. In short, the king of France, in spite of the dignity of his title, nolonger dared to move about his own narrow domain. He to whom the mostpowerful lords owed homage could not venture out of Paris withoutencountering fortresses constructed by noble brigands, who were theterror alike of priest, merchant, and laborer. Without money orsoldiers, royalty vegetated within its diminished patrimony. It retaineda certain prestige in distant fiefs situated on the confines of therealm and in foreign lands, but at home it was neither obeyed norrespected. The enemy's lands began just outside the capital. [76] [Sidenote: Formation of small independent states in France. ] 47. The tenth century was the period when the great fiefs of Normandy, Brittany, Flanders, and Burgundy took form. These, and the fiefs intowhich the older duchy of Aquitaine fell, developed into little nations, each under its line of able rulers. Each had its own particular customsand culture, some traces of which may still be noted by the traveler inFrance. These little feudal states were created by certain families ofnobles who possessed exceptional energy or statesmanship. By conquest, purchase, or marriage, they increased the number of their fiefs. Bypromptly destroying the castles of those who refused to meet theirobligations, they secured their control over their vassals. By grantingfiefs of land or money to subvassals, they gained new dependents. [Sidenote: Normandy. ] Of these subnations none was more important or interesting thanNormandy. The Northmen had been the scourge of those who lived near theNorth Sea for many years before one of their leaders, Rollo (or Hrolf), agreed to accept from Charles the Simple (in 911) a district on thecoast, north of Brittany, where he and his followers might peacefullysettle. Rollo assumed the title of Duke of the Normans and introducedthe Christian religion among his people. For a considerable time thenewcomers kept up their Scandinavian traditions and language. Gradually, however, they appropriated such culture as their neighbors possessed, and by the twelfth century their capital, Rouen, was one of the mostenlightened cities of Europe. Normandy became a source of infiniteperplexity to the French kings when, in 1066, Duke William the Conqueroradded England to his possessions; for he thereby became so powerful thathis suzerain could hardly hope to control the Norman dukes any longer. [Sidenote: Brittany. ] The isolated peninsula of Brittany, inhabited by a Celtic people of thesame race as the early inhabitants of Britain, had been particularlysubject to the attacks of the Scandinavian pirates. It seemed at onetime as if the district would become an appendage of Normandy. But in938 a certain valiant Alain of the Twisted Beard arose to deliver itfrom the oppression of the strangers. The Normans were driven out, andfeudalism replaced the older tribal organization in what was hereafterto be called the duchy of Brittany. It was not until the opening of thesixteenth century that this became a part of the French monarchy. [Sidenote: Origin of the Flemish towns. ] The pressure of the Northmen had an important result in the lowcountries between the Somme and the Scheldt. The inhabitants were drivento repair and seek shelter in the old Roman fortifications. They thusbecame accustomed to living in close community, and it was in this waythat the Flemish towns--Ghent, Bruges, etc. --originated, which became intime famous centers of industry and trade. The founders of the greatfamilies of the district first gained their influence in defending thecountry against the Scandinavian pirates. The counts of Flanders aspiredto rule the region, but the lesser counts within their territory werepretty independent of them; so private wars were frequent and bloody. [Sidenote: Burgundy. ] Burgundy is a puzzling name because it is applied to several differentparts of the territory once included in the kingdom founded by theBurgundians, which Clovis made tributary to his expanding Frankishkingdom. Toward the end of the ninth century we first hear of a _duke_of Burgundy as being appointed military representative of the king (asall dukes originally were) in a large district west of the Saône. Thedukes of Burgundy never succeeded in establishing sufficient controlover their vassals to render themselves independent, and consequentlythey always freely recognized the sovereignty of the French kings. Weshall meet the name Burgundy later. [Sidenote: Possessions of the duke of Aquitaine and of the counts ofToulouse and Champagne. ] The ancient duchy of Aquitaine (later Guienne), including a large partof what is now central and southern France, was abolished in 877, butthe title of Duke of Aquitaine was conferred by the king upon a certainfamily of feudal lords, who gradually extended their power over Gasconyand northward. To the southeast, the counts of Toulouse had begun toconsolidate a little state which was to be the seat of the extraordinaryliterature of the troubadours. The county of Champagne has already beenconsidered in the discussion of feudalism. This completes the survey of the countries over which Hugh Capet and hisimmediate successors strove to rule. All those districts to the east ofthe Saône and the Rhone which now form a part of France were amalgamated(in 933) into the kingdom of Arles, or Burgundy, [77] which in 1032 fellinto the hands of the German king. [Sidenote: Complicated position of the Capetian kings. ] 48. The position of the Capetian rulers was a complicated one. As countsof Paris, Orleans, etc. , they enjoyed the ordinary rights of a feudallord; as dukes of France, they might exercise a vague control over thedistrict north of the Seine; as suzerains of the great feudalprinces, --the duke of Normandy, the counts of Flanders, Champagne, andthe rest, --they might require homage and certain feudal services fromthese great personages. But besides all these rights as feudal lordsthey had other rights as kings. They were crowned and consecrated by theChurch, as Pippin and Charlemagne had been. They thus became, by God'sappointment, the protectors of the Church and the true fountain ofjustice for all who were oppressed or in distress throughout theirrealms. Therefore they were on a higher plane in the eyes of the peoplethan any of the great vassals. Besides the homage of their vassals, theyexacted an oath of fidelity from all whom they could reach. The great vassals, on the other hand, acted on the theory that the kingwas simply their feudal lord. As for the king himself, he accepted bothviews of his position and made use both of the older theory of kingshipand of his feudal suzerainty to secure more and more control over hisrealms. For over three hundred years the direct male line of theCapetians never once failed. It rarely happened, moreover, that thecrown was left in the weak hands of a child. By the opening of thefourteenth century there was no doubt that the king, and not the feudallords, was destined to prevail. [Sidenote: Louis the Fat, 1108-1137. ] [Sidenote: Philip Augustus, 1180-1223. ] The first of the kings of France to undertake with success the serioustask of conquering his own duchy was Louis the Fat (1108-1137). He wasan active soldier and strove to keep free the means of communicationbetween the different centers of his somewhat scattered feudal domainsand to destroy the power of the usurping castellans in his fortresses. But he made only a beginning; it was reserved for his famous grandson, Philip Augustus (1180-1223), to make the duchy of France into a realkingdom. [Sidenote: The Plantagenets in France. ] [Sidenote: Henry II. ] 49. Philip had a far more difficult problem to face than any of thepreceding kings of his house. Before his accession a series of thoseroyal marriages which until recently exercised so great an influenceupon political history, had brought most of the great fiefs of central, western, and southern France into the hands of the king of England, Henry II, who now ruled over the most extensive realm in western Europe. Henry II was the son of William the Conqueror's granddaughterMatilda, [78] who had married one of the great vassals of the Frenchkings, the count of Anjou and Maine. [79] Henry, therefore, inheritedthrough his mother all the possessions of the Norman kings ofEngland, --namely, England, the duchy of Normandy, and the suzeraintyover Brittany, --and through his father the counties of Maine and Anjou. Lastly, through his own marriage with Eleanor, the heiress of the dukesof Guienne (as Aquitaine was now called), he possessed himself of prettymuch all of southern France, including Poitou and Gascony. Henry II, inspite of his great importance in English history, was as much French asEnglish, both by birth and sympathies, and gave more than half his timeand attention to his French possessions. [Sidenote: Philip and the Plantagenets. ] It thus came about that the king of France suddenly found a new andhostile state, under an able and energetic ruler, erected upon hiswestern borders. It included more than half the territory in which hewas recognized as king. The chief business of Philip's life was anincessant war upon the Plantagenets, in which he was constantly aided bythe strife among his enemies themselves. Henry II divided his Frenchpossessions among his three sons, Geoffrey, Richard, and John, delegating to them such government as existed. Philip took advantage ofthe constant quarrels of the brothers among themselves and with theirfather. He espoused, in turn, the cause of Richard the Lion-Heartedagainst his father, of John Lackland, the youngest brother, againstRichard, and so on. Without these family discords the powerful monarchyof the Plantagenets might have annihilated the royal house of France, whose narrow dominions it closed in and threatened on all sides. [Sidenote: Richard the Lion-Hearted. ] So long as Henry II lived there was little chance of expelling thePlantagenets or of greatly curtailing their power, but with theaccession of his reckless son, Richard I, called the Lion-Hearted, [80]the prospects of the French king brightened wonderfully. Richard lefthis kingdom to take care of itself, while he went upon a crusade to theHoly Land. He persuaded Philip to join him, but Richard was toooverbearing and masterful, and Philip too ambitious, to make it possiblefor them to agree for long. The king of France, who was physicallydelicate, was taken ill and was glad of the excuse to return home andbrew trouble for his powerful vassal. When Richard himself returned, after several years of romantic but fruitless adventure, he foundhimself involved in a war with Philip, in the midst of which he died. [Sidenote: John loses the French possessions of his house. ] Richard's younger brother, John, who enjoys the reputation of being themost despicable of English kings, speedily gave Philip a good excuse forseizing a great part of the Plantagenet lands. John was suspected ofconniving at the brutal murder of his nephew Arthur (the son ofGeoffrey), to whom the nobles of Maine, Anjou, and Touraine had donehomage. He was also guilty of the less serious offense of carrying offand marrying a lady betrothed to one of his own vassals. Philip, asJohn's suzerain, summoned him to appear at the French court to answerthe latter charge. Upon John's refusal to appear or to do homage for hiscontinental possessions, Philip caused his court to issue a decreeconfiscating almost all of the Plantagenet lands, leaving to the Englishking only the southwest corner of France. Philip found little difficulty in possessing himself, not only of thevalley of the Loire, but of Normandy itself, which showed nodisinclination to accept him in place of the Plantagenets, whom theNormans associated with continual exactions. Six years after Richard'sdeath the English kings had lost all their continental fiefs exceptGuienne. The Capetian domain was, for the first time, the chief amongthe great feudal states of France, both in wealth and extent. It shouldbe observed that Philip, unlike his ancestors, was no longer merely_suzerain_ of the new conquests, but was himself duke of Normandy, andcount of Anjou, of Maine, etc. The boundaries of his domain, that is, the lands which he himself controlled directly as feudal lord, nowextended to the sea. [Sidenote: Philip strengthens the royal power as well as increases theroyal domain. ] 50. Philip not only greatly increased the extent of the royal domain, but strengthened his control over all classes of his subjects as well. He appears, also, to have fully realized the importance of the townswhich had begun to develop a century earlier. There were severalimportant ones in the districts he annexed, and these he took especialpains to treat with consideration. He extended his protection, and atthe same time his authority, over them and in this way lessened theinfluence and resources of the feudal lords within whose territories thetowns lay. [Sidenote: Appanages. ] The chief innovation of Philip's son, Louis VIII, was the creation of_appanages_. These were fiefs assigned to his younger sons, one of whomwas made count of Artois; another, count of Anjou and Maine; a third, count of Auvergne. This has generally been regarded by historians as amost unfortunate reënforcement of the feudal idea. It not only retardedthe consolidation of the kingdom but opened the way to new strifebetween the members of the royal family itself. [Sidenote: Louis IX, 1226-1270. ] [Sidenote: Settlement of question of the English king's possessions inFrance, 1258. ] The long reign of Philip's grandson, Louis IX, or St. Louis (1226-1270), is extremely interesting from many standpoints. St. Louis himself isperhaps the most heroic and popular figure in the whole procession ofFrench monarchs, and his virtues and exploits have been far more amplyrecorded than those of any of his predecessors. But it is only his partin the consolidation of the French monarchy that immediately concernsus. After a revolt of the barons of central France in alliance with theking of England, which Louis easily put down, he proceeded, in a mostfair-minded and Christian spirit, to arrange a definite settlement withthe Plantagenets. The king of England was to do him homage for the duchyof Guienne, Gascony, and Poitou and surrender every claim upon the restof the former possessions of the Plantagenets on the continent. [Illustration: Map of France at the Close of the Reign of PhilipAugustus] [Sidenote: The _baillis_ serve to increase the king's power. ] Besides these important territorial adjustments, Louis IX did much tobetter the system of government and strengthen the king's power. PhilipAugustus had established a new kind of officer, the _baillis_, whoresembled the _missi_ of Charlemagne. They were supported by a salaryand frequently shifted from place to place so that there should be nodanger of their taking root and establishing powerful feudal families, as had happened in the case of the counts, who were originally royalofficers. Louis adopted and extended the institution of the _baillis_. In this way he kept his domains under his control and saw that justicewas done and his revenue properly collected. [Sidenote: Government of Louis IX. ] Before the thirteenth century there was little government in France inthe modern sense of the word. The king relied for advice and aid, in theperformance of his simple duties as ruler, upon a council of the greatvassals, prelates, and others about his person. This council wasscarcely organized into a regular assembly, and it transacted all thevarious kinds of governmental business without clearly distinguishingone kind from another. In the reign of Louis IX this assembly began tobe divided into three bodies with different functions. There was: first, the king's council to aid him in conducting the general affairs of thekingdom; secondly, a chamber of accounts, a financial body whichattended to the revenue; and lastly, the _parlement_, a supreme courtmade up of those trained in the law, which was becoming ever morecomplicated as time went on. Instead, as hitherto, of wandering aboutwith the king, the parlement took up its quarters upon the little islandin the Seine at Paris, where the great court-house (_Palais de Justice_)still stands. A regular system of appeals from the feudal courts to theroyal courts was established. This served greatly to increase the king'spower in distant parts of his realms. It was decreed further that theroyal coins should alone be used in the domains of the king, and thathis money should be accepted everywhere else within the kingdomconcurrently with that of those of his vassals who had the privilege ofcoinage. [Sidenote: Philip the Fair (1285-1314) the first absolute ruler ofFrance. ] The grandson of St. Louis, Philip the Fair, is the first example of aFrench king who had both the will and the means to play the rôle of anabsolute monarch. He had inherited a remarkably well organizedgovernment compared with anything that had existed since the time ofCharlemagne. He was surrounded by a body of lawyers who had derivedtheir ideas of the powers and rights of a prince from the Roman law. They naturally looked with suspicion upon everything that interferedwith the supreme power of the monarch, and encouraged the king to bringthe whole government into his own hands regardless of the privileges ofhis vassals and of the clergy. [Sidenote: The commons, or third estate, summoned to the EstatesGeneral, 1302. ] Philip's attempt to force the clergy to contribute from their wealth tothe support of the government led to a remarkable struggle with thepope, of which an account will be given in a later chapter. With thehope of gaining the support of the whole nation in his conflict with thehead of the Church, the king summoned a great council of his realm in1302. He included for the first time the representatives of the towns inaddition to the nobles and prelates, whom the king had long beenaccustomed to consult. At the same period that the French EstatesGeneral, [81] or national assembly, was taking form through the additionof representatives of the commons, England was creating its Parliament. The two bodies were, however, to have a very different history, as willbecome clear later. By the sagacious measures that have been mentioned, the French monarchsrescued their realms from feudal disruption and laid the foundation forthe most powerful monarchy of western Europe. However, the question ofhow far the neighboring king across the Channel should extend his poweron the continent remained unanswered. The boundary between France andEngland was not yet definitely determined and became, during thefourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the cause of long and disastrouswars, from which France finally emerged victorious. We must now turnback to trace the development of her English rival. [82] CHAPTER XI ENGLAND IN THE MIDDLE AGES [Sidenote: Importance of England in the history of western Europe. ] 51. The country of western Europe whose history is of greatest interestto English-speaking peoples is, of course, England. From England theUnited States and the vast English colonies have inherited theirlanguage and habits of thought, much of their literature, and manypeculiarities of their laws and institutions. In this volume it willnot, however, be possible to study England except in so far as it hasplayed a part in the general development of Europe. This it has greatlyinfluenced by its commerce, industry, and colonies, as well as by theexample it has set of permitting the people to participate with the kingin the government. [Sidenote: Overlordship of Wessex. ] [Sidenote: Invasions of the Danes. Their defeat by Alfred the Great, 871-901. ] The conquest of the island of Britain by the German Angles and Saxonshas already been spoken of, as well as the conversion of these pagans toChristianity by the representatives of the Roman Church. The severalkingdoms founded by the invaders were brought under the overlordship ofthe southern kingdom of Wessex[83] by Egbert, a contemporary ofCharlemagne. But no sooner had the long-continued invasions of theGermans come to an end and the country been partially unified, than theNorthmen (or Danes, as the English called them), who were ravagingFrance, began to make incursions into England. Before long they had madepermanent settlements and conquered a large district north of theThames. They were defeated, however, in a great battle by Alfred theGreat, the first English king of whom we have any satisfactoryknowledge. He forced the Danes to accept Christianity and established, as the boundary between them and his own kingdom of Wessex, a linerunning from London across the island to Chester. [Sidenote: Alfred fosters the development of the English language. ] Alfred was as much interested in education as Charlemagne had been. Hecalled in learned monks from the continent and from Wales as teachers ofthe young men. He desired that all those born free, who had the means, should be forced to learn English thoroughly, and that those whoproposed to enter the priesthood should learn Latin as well. He himselftranslated Boethius' _Consolation of Philosophy_ and other works fromthe Latin into English, and doubtless encouraged the composition of thefamous _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, the first history written in a modernlanguage. [84] [Sidenote: England from the death of Alfred the Great to the NormanConquest, 901-1066. ] The formation of the kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway at the endof the ninth century caused many discontented Scandinavian chieftains togo in search of adventure, so that the Danish invasions continued formore than a century after Alfred's death (901), and we hear much of theDanegeld, a tax levied to buy off the invaders when necessary. Finally aDanish king (Cnut) succeeded in making himself king of England in 1017. The Danish dynasty maintained itself only for a few years. Then a lastweak Saxon king, Edward the Confessor, held nominal sway for a score ofyears. Upon his death in 1066, William, Duke of Normandy, claimed thecrown and became king of England. The Norman Conquest closes what iscalled the Saxon period of English history, during which the Englishnation may be said to have taken form. Before considering theachievements of William the Conqueror we must glance at the condition ofEngland as he found it. [Sidenote: Great Britain at the accession of William the Conqueror. ] The map of Great Britain at the accession of William the Conqueror hasthe same three great divisions which exist to-day. The little kingdomshad disappeared and England extended north to the Tweed, which separatedit, as it now does, from the kingdom of Scotland. On the west was Wales, inhabited then, as it is still, by descendants of the native Britons, ofwhom only a small remnant had survived the German invasions. The Daneshad been absorbed into the mass of the population and all Englandrecognized a single king. The king's power had increased as time wenton, although he was bound to act in important matters only with theconsent of a council (Witenagemot) made up of high royal officials, bishops, and nobles. The kingdom was divided into shires, [85] as itstill is, and each of these had a local assembly, a sort of parliamentfor the dispatch of local matters. After the victory of the papal party at the Council of Whitby, [86] theChurch had been thoroughly organized and the intercourse of the clergywith the continent served, as we have seen, to keep England frombecoming completely isolated. Although the island was much behind someother portions of Europe in civilization, the English had succeeded inlaying the foundations for the development of a great nation and anadmirable form of government. [Sidenote: Feudalism in England. ] England was not, however, to escape feudalism. The Normans naturallybrought with them their own feudal institutions, but even before theircoming many suggestions of feudalism might have been discovered. Groupsof shires had been placed under the government of earls who becamedangerous rivals of the kings; and the habit of giving churchmen theright to govern, to a large extent, those who lived upon their vastestates recalls the conditions in the Frankish empire during the sameperiod. The great landed proprietor in England exercised much the samepowers over those about him that the feudal lords enjoyed upon the otherside of the Channel. [Sidenote: The struggle for the English crown between Earl Harold andDuke William of Normandy. ] 52. As has been said, William of Normandy claimed that he was entitledto the English crown; he even assumed that all who refused toacknowledge him in England were traitors. We are, however, somewhat inthe dark as to the basis of his claim. There is a story that he hadvisited the court of Edward the Confessor and had become his vassal oncondition that, should Edward die childless, he was to designate Williamas his successor. But Harold, Earl of Wessex, who had consolidated hispower before the death of Edward by securing the appointment of hisbrothers to three of the other great earldoms, assumed the crown andpaid no attention to William's demand that he should surrender it. [Sidenote: The pope favors William's claim. ] [Sidenote: Battle of Senlac, 1066. William I crowned at London. ] William thereupon appealed to the pope, promising that if he came intopossession of England, he would see that the English clergy submitted tothe authority of the Roman bishop. Consequently the pope, Alexander II, condemned Harold and blessed in advance any expedition that Williammight undertake to assert his rights. The conquest of England thereforetook on the character of a sort of holy war, and as the expedition hadbeen well advertised, many adventurers flocked to William's standard. The Norman cavalry and archers proved superior to the English forces, who were on foot and were so armed that they could not fight toadvantage except at close range. Harold was killed in the memorablebattle of Senlac[87] and his army defeated. In a few weeks a number ofinfluential nobles and several bishops agreed to accept William as theirking, and London opened its gates to him. He was crowned on Christmasday, 1066, at Westminster. We cannot trace the history of the opposition and the revolts of thegreat nobles which William had to meet within the next few years. Hisposition was rendered doubly difficult by troubles which he encounteredon the continent as duke of Normandy. Suffice it to say that hesucceeded in maintaining himself against all his enemies. [88] [Sidenote: William's wise policy in England. ] William's policy in regard to England exhibited profound statesmanship. He introduced the Norman feudalism to which he was accustomed, but tookgood care that it should not weaken his power. The English who hadrefused to join him before the battle of Senlac were declared traitors, but were permitted to keep their lands upon condition of receiving themfrom the king as his vassals. The lands of those who actually bore armsagainst him at Senlac, or in later rebellions, including the greatestates of Harold's family, were confiscated and distributed among hisfaithful followers, both Norman and English, though naturally theNormans among them far outnumbered the English. [Sidenote: He insures the supremacy of the crown without interferingwith English customs. ] [Sidenote: William requires oath of fidelity from his subvassals. ] William declared that he did not propose to change the English customsbut to govern as Edward the Confessor, the last Saxon king whom heacknowledged, had done. He tried to learn English, maintained theWitenagemot, and observed English practices. But he was a man of toomuch force to submit to the control of his people. While he appointedcounts or earls in some of the shires (now come to be called_counties_), he controlled them by means of other royal officers called_sheriffs_. He avoided giving to any one person a great many estates ina single region, so that no one should become inconveniently powerful. Finally, in order to secure the support of the smaller landholders andto prevent combinations against him among the greater ones, he requiredevery landholder in England to take an oath of fidelity directly to him. We read in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (1086): "After that he went aboutso that he came, on the first day of August, to Salisbury, and therecame to him his wise men [i. E. , counselors], and all the landowning menof property there were over all England, whosesoever men they were; andall bowed down to him and became his men, and swore oaths of fealty tohim that they would be faithful to him against all other men. " [Sidenote: Domesday Book. ] William's anxiety to have a complete knowledge of his whole kingdom isindicated by a remarkable historical document, the so-called _DomesdayBook_. This is a register of the lands throughout England, indicatingthe value of each parcel, the serfs and stock upon it, the name of itsholder and of the person who held it before the Conquest. Thisgovernment report contained a vast amount of information which waslikely to prove useful to William's taxgatherers. It is still valuableto the historian, although unfortunately he is not able in every case tointerpret its terms satisfactorily. [Sidenote: William the Conqueror and the Church. ] William's policy in regard to the Church indicates a desire to advanceits interests in conjunction with his own. He called Lanfranc, anItalian who had been at the head of the famous monastery of Bec inNormandy, to the archbishopric of Canterbury. The king permitted theclergy to manage their own affairs and established bishops' courts totry a variety of cases. But homage was exacted from a bishop as from alay vassal, and William refused to permit the pope to interfere inEnglish affairs without his permission in each particular case. No papallegate was to enter the land without the king's sanction. No papaldecree should be received in the English Church without his consent, norhis servants be excommunicated against his will. When Gregory VIIdemanded that he should become his vassal for the land that he hadconquered under the papal auspices, William promptly refused. [Sidenote: General results of the Norman Conquest. ] It is clear that the Norman Conquest was not a simple change of dynasty. A new element was added to the English people. We cannot tell how manyNormans actually emigrated across the Channel, but they evidently camein considerable numbers, and their influence upon the English court andgovernment was very great. A century after William's arrival the wholebody of the nobility, the bishops, abbots, and government officials, hadbecome practically all Norman. "Besides these, the architects andartisans who built the castles and fortresses, and the cathedrals, abbeys, and parish churches, whose erection throughout the land was sucha marked characteristic of the period, were immigrants from Normandy. Merchants from the Norman cities of Rouen and Caen came to settle inLondon and other English cities, and weavers from Flanders were settledin various towns and even rural districts. For a short time thesenewcomers remained a separate people, but before the twelfth century wasover they had become for the most part indistinguishable from the greatmass of English people amongst whom they had come. They had neverthelessmade that people stronger, more vigorous, more active-minded, and morevaried in their occupations and interests" (Cheyney). [89] [Illustration: Norman Gateway at Bristol, England] [Sidenote: William Rufus, 1087-1100, and Henry I, 1100-1135. ] [Sidenote: Civil war ending in the accession of Henry II, 1154-1189. ] 53. The Conqueror was followed by his sons, William Rufus and Henry I. Upon the death of the latter the country went through a terrible periodof civil war, for some of the nobility supported the Conqueror'sgrandson Stephen, and some his granddaughter Matilda. After the death ofStephen, when Henry II, Matilda's son, [90] was finally recognized in1154 by all as king, he found the kingdom in a melancholy state. Thenobles had taken advantage of the prevalent disorder to erect castleswithout royal permission and establish themselves as independent rulers. Mercenaries had been called in from the continent by the rivals for thethrone, and had become a national plague. [Sidenote: Henry's difficulties and his success in meeting them. ] Henry at once adopted vigorous measures. He destroyed the illegallyerected fortresses, sent off the mercenaries, and deprived many earlswho had been created by Stephen and Matilda of their titles. Henry II'stask was a difficult one. He had need of all his indefatigable energyand quickness of mind to restore order in England and at the same timerule the wide realms on the continent which he had either inherited orgained through his marriage with the heiress of the dukes ofGuienne. [91] Although he spent the greater part of his reign across theChannel, he still found time to be one of the greatest of all England'srulers. [Sidenote: His reforms in the judicial system. ] [Sidenote: The grand jury. ] In order that he might maintain his prerogatives as judge of disputesamong his subjects and avoid all excuse for the private warfare, whichwas such a persistent evil on the continent, he undertook to improve andreform the system of royal courts. He arranged that his judges shouldmake regular circuits throughout the country, so that they might trycases on the spot at least once a year. He established the famous Courtof King's Bench to try all other cases which came under the king'sjurisdiction. This was composed of five judges from his council, twoclergymen, and three laymen. We find, too, the beginning of our grandjury in a body of men in each neighborhood who were to be duly sworn in, from time to time, and should then bring accusations against suchmalefactors as had come to their knowledge. [Illustration: The Plantagenet Possessions in England and France] [Sidenote: Trial by jury. ] [Sidenote: The common law. ] As for the petty or smaller jury, which actually tried the accused, itsorigin and history are obscure. It did not originate with Henry II, buthe systematized trial by jury and made it a settled law of the landinstead of an exceptional favor. The plan of delegating the duty ofdetermining the guilt or innocence of a suspected person to a dozenmembers of the community who were sworn to form their opinion withoutpartiality was very different from the earlier systems. It resembledneither the Roman trial, where the judges made the decision, nor themediæval compurgation and ordeals, where God was supposed to pronouncethe verdict. In all legal matters the decisions of Henry's judges wereso sagacious and consistent that they became the basis of the common lawwhich is still used in all English-speaking countries. [Sidenote: Henry II and Thomas à Becket. ] [Sidenote: Becket as chancellor. ] Henry's reign was embittered by the famous struggle with Thomas àBecket, which illustrates admirably the peculiar dependence of themonarchs of his day upon the churchmen. Becket was born in London. Heearly entered one of the lower orders of the Church, but grew up in theservice of the crown, and was able to aid Henry in gaining the throne. Thereupon the new king made him his chancellor. Becket proved anexcellent minister and defended the king's interest even against theChurch, of which he was also an officer. He was fond of hunting and ofwarlike enterprises and maintained a brilliant court from the revenuesof the numerous church benefices which he held. It appeared to Henrythat there could be no better head for the English clergy than hissagacious and worldly chancellor. He therefore determined to make himArchbishop of Canterbury. The kings of that time often chose their mostefficient officers from among the prelates. Lanfranc, for example, hadbeen the Conqueror's chief minister. There were several good reasons forthis practice. The clergy were not only far better educated than laymenbut they were also not ordinarily dangerous as military leaders, norcould their offices become hereditary. [Sidenote: Made Archbishop of Canterbury, Becket defends the cause ofthe Church against the king. ] In appointing Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry intended to insurehis own complete control of the Church. He proposed to bring clericalcriminals before the royal courts and punish them like other offenders, to make the bishops meet all the feudal obligations, and to preventappeals to the pope. Becket, however, immediately resigned hischancellorship, gave up his gay life, and opposed every effort of theking to reduce the independence of the Church. After a haughty assertionof the supremacy of the spiritual power over the secular government, Thomas fled from the wrathful and disappointed monarch to France and theprotection of the pope. [Sidenote: Murder of Becket and Henry's remorse. ] In spite of a patched-up reconciliation with the king, Becket proceededto excommunicate or suspend some of the great English prelates and, asHenry believed, was conspiring to rob his son of the crown. In a fit ofanger, Henry exclaimed among his followers, "Is there no one to avengeme of this miserable clerk?" Unfortunately certain knights took the rashexpression literally, and Becket was murdered in Canterbury cathedral, whither he had returned. The king had really had no wish to resort toviolence, and his sorrow and remorse when he heard of the dreadful deed, and his terror at the consequences, were most genuine. The pope proposedto excommunicate the king. Henry, however, made peace with the papallegates by the solemn assertion that he had never wished the death ofThomas and by promising to return to Canterbury all the property whichhe had confiscated, to send money to aid in the capture of the HolySepulcher at Jerusalem, and to undertake a crusade himself. [92] [Sidenote: Richard the Lion-Hearted, 1189-1199. ] [Sidenote: John, 1199-1216. ] 54. Henry's later years were troubled by the machinations of PhilipAugustus of France and by the quarrels and treason of his own sons, ofwhich some account has already been given. [93] He was followed by hisson, the picturesque Richard the Lion-Hearted, one of the most romanticfigures of the Middle Ages. He was, however, a poor ruler, who spent buta few months of his ten years' reign in England. He died in 1199 and wassucceeded by his brother John, from all accounts one of the mostdetestable persons who has ever worn a crown. His reign was, nevertheless, a notable one in the annals of England. In the firstplace, he lost a great part of the possessions of his house upon thecontinent (Normandy, Brittany, Anjou, etc. ); secondly, he was forced bya revolt of his people, who refused to endure his despotism any longer, to grant the Great Charter. The loss of his lands across the Channel hasalready been described; it remains only to speak of the winning of theGreat Charter of English liberties. [94] [Sidenote: The granting of the Great Charter, 1215. ] When, in 1213, John proposed to lead his English vassals across thewater in order to attempt to reconquer his lost possessions, theyrefused to accompany him on the ground that their feudal obligations didnot bind them to fight outside of their country. Moreover, they showed alively discontent with John's despotism and his neglect of those limitsof the kingly power which several of the earlier Norman kings hadsolemnly recognized. In 1214 a number of the barons met and took asolemn oath to compel the king, by arms if necessary, to confirm acharter containing the things which, according to English traditions, aking might not do. It proved necessary to march against John, whom theinsurgent nobles met at Runnymede, not far from London. Here on the 15thof June, 1215, they forced him to swear to observe the rights of thenation, as they conceived them, which they had carefully written out. [Sidenote: The provisions of the Charter and its importance. ] The Great Charter is perhaps the most famous document in the history ofgovernment;[95] its provisions furnish a brief and comprehensivestatement of the burning governmental questions of the age. It wasreally the whole nation, not merely the nobles, who concluded this greattreaty with a tyrannous ruler. The rights of the commoner are guarded aswell as those of the noble. As the king promises to observe theliberties and customs of his vassals and not to abuse his feudalprerogatives, so the vassals agree to observe the rights of their men. The merchant is not to be deprived of his goods for small offenses, northe farmer of his wagon and implements. The king is to impose no tax, beside the three stated feudal aids, [96] except by the consent of thegreat council of the nation. This is to include the prelates and greaterbarons and all who hold directly of the king. There is no more notable clause in the Charter than that which providesthat no one is to be arrested or imprisoned or deprived of his propertyunless he be immediately sent before a court of his peers for trial. Torealize the importance of this, we must recollect that in France, downto 1789, the king exercised such unlimited powers that he could orderthe arrest of any one he pleased, and could imprison him for any lengthof time without bringing him to trial, or even informing him of thenature of his offense. The Great Charter provided further that the kingshould permit merchants to move about freely and should observe theprivileges of the various towns; nor were his officers longer toexercise despotic powers over those under them. "The Great Charter is the first great public act of the nation after ithas realized its own identity, the consummation of the work for whichunconsciously kings, prelates, and lawyers have been laboring for acentury. There is not a word in it that recalls the distinctions of raceand blood, or that maintains the differences of English and Norman law. It is in one view the summing up of a period of national life, inanother the starting-point of a new period, not less eventful than thatwhich it closes" (Stubbs). In spite of his solemn confirmation of the Charter, John, with hisaccustomed treachery, made a futile attempt to abrogate his engagements;but neither he nor his successors ever succeeded in getting rid of thedocument. Later there were times when the English kings evaded itsprovisions and tried to rule as absolute monarchs. But the people alwayssooner or later bethought them of the Charter, which thus continued toform an effective barrier against permanent despotism in England. [Sidenote: Henry III, 1216-1272. ] 55. During the long reign of John's son, Henry III, England began toconstruct her Parliament, an institution which has not only played amost important rôle in English history, but has also served as the modelfor similar bodies in almost every civilized state in the world. Henry'sfondness for appointing foreigners to office, his anxiety to enjoypowers which he had not the intelligence or energy to justify by the usehe made of them, and his willingness to permit the pope to levy taxes inEngland, led the nobles to continue their hostility to the crown. Thenobles and the people of the towns, who were anxious to check thearbitrary powers of the king, joined forces in what is known as the Warof the Barons. They found a leader in the patriotic Simon de Montfort, who proved himself a valiant and unselfish defender of the rights of thenation. [Sidenote: The English Parliament. ] The older Witenagemot of Saxon times, as well as the Great Council ofthe Norman kings, was a meeting of nobles, bishops, and abbots, whichthe king summoned from time to time to give him advice and aid, and tosanction important governmental undertakings. During Henry's reign itsmeetings became more frequent and its discussions more vigorous thanbefore, and the name _Parliament_ began to be applied to it. [Sidenote: Simon de Montfort summons the commons to Parliament. ] In 1265 a famous Parliament was held, where, through the influence ofSimon de Montfort, a most important new class of members--the_commons_--was present, which was destined to give it its futuregreatness. In addition to the nobles and prelates, the sheriffs wereordered to summon two simple knights from each county and two citizensfrom each of the more flourishing towns to attend and take part in thediscussions. [Sidenote: The Model Parliament of Edward I, 1295. ] Edward I, the next king, definitely adopted this innovation. Hedoubtless called in the representatives of the towns because thetownspeople were becoming rich and he wished to have an opportunity toask them to make grants to meet the expenses of the government. He alsowished to obtain the approval of all classes when he determined uponimportant measures affecting the whole realm. Since the Model Parliamentof 1295, the commons, or representatives of the people, have always beenincluded along with the clergy and nobility when the national assemblyof England has been summoned. We shall see later how the present housesof Lords and Commons came into existence under Edward's son. [Sidenote: England in the fourteenth century. ] From the reign of Edward I we are, as a distinguished English historianhas well said, "face to face with modern England. Kings, Lords, Commons, the courts of justice, ... The relations of Church and State, in a greatmeasure the framework of society itself, have all taken the shape whichthey still essentially retain" (Green). The English language was, moreover, about to become the speech we use to-day. CHAPTER XII 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 ofCharlemagne's empire is very different from that in France, which wasreviewed in a previous chapter. After a struggle of four hundred years, it had become clear by the thirteenth century that the successors ofLouis the German (Charlemagne's grandson) could not make of Germany akingdom such as St. Louis left to his descendants. From the thirteenthcentury down to Napoleon's time there was no Germany in a politicalsense, but only a great number of practically independent states, greatand small. It was but a generation ago that, under the leadership ofPrussia, --a kingdom unknown until many centuries after Charlemagne'stime, --the previously independent kingdoms, principalities, and freetowns 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 hisdeath indicates that the whole region had fallen into certain largedivisions ruled over by dukes, who, in Saxony and Bavaria at least, werekings in all but name. [97] Just how these duchies originated issomething of a mystery, but two things at least are clear which help toexplain their appearance. In the first place, under the weak successorsof Louis the German, the old independent spirit of the various peoples, or _stems_, that Charlemagne had been able to hold together, once moreasserted itself and they gladly returned to the leadership of their ownchiefs. In the second place, they were driven to do this by the constantattacks from without, first of the Northmen and the Moravians, a Slavicpeople, then of the terrible Hungarian horsemen who penetrated more thanonce as far west as France. As there was no competent central power todefend the people, it was natural that they should look to their localleaders for help and guidance. [Sidenote: Henry I, 919-936. ] These _stem duchies_, as the Germans call them, prevented the Germankings from getting a firm hold on their realms. The best that they coulddo was to bring about a sort of confederation. Consequently, when theGerman aristocracy chose the strong Henry I, of the ducal house ofSaxony, [98] as their king in 919, he wisely made no attempt to deprivethe several dukes of their power. He needed their assistance in the taskof dealing with the invaders who were pressing in on all sides. Heprepared the way for the later subjugation of the Slavs and the finalrepulse of the Hungarians, but he left to his famous son, Otto I, thetask of finally disposing of the invaders and attempting to found a realkingdom. [Sidenote: Otto the Great, 936-973. ] The reign of Otto I (936-973), called the Great, is one of the mostextraordinary in the history of Germany. He made no attempt to abolishthe duchies, but he succeeded in getting all of them into the hands ofhis sons, brothers, or near relatives, as well as in reducing the powerof the dukes. For example, he made his brother Henry duke of Bavaria, after forgiving him for two revolts. His scholarly brother, ArchbishopBruno of Cologne, [99] he made duke of Lorraine in the place of hisfaithless son-in-law, Conrad, who had rebelled against him. Many of theold ducal families either died out or lost their heritage byunsuccessful revolt. None of them offered a long succession of ablerulers. The duchies consequently fell repeatedly into the hands of theking, who then claimed the right to assign them to whom he wished. In the middle of the tenth century the northern and eastern boundariesof Germany were as yet very ill defined. The Slavic peoples across theElbe, many of whom were still pagans, were engaged in continual attacksupon the borders of Saxony. Otto I did more than fight these tribes; heestablished dioceses, such as Brandenburg, Havelberg, etc. , in adistrict which is now the political center of the German empire, andgreatly forwarded the Christianizing and colonization of the tractbetween 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. Hedefeated them in a great battle near Augsburg (955) and pursued them tothe confines of Germany. The Hungarians, or Magyars as they are commonlycalled, then settled down in their own territory and began to lay thefoundations of that national development which makes them one of themost important factors in the eastern portion of Europe to-day. A regionwhich had belonged to the Bavarian duchy was organized as a separatedistrict, the Austrian _Mark_ (i. E. , March), and became the nucleus ofthe Austrian empire. [Sidenote: Otto interferes in Italian affairs. ] 57. The most noteworthy, however, of Otto's acts was his interference inItalian affairs, which led to his assuming the imperial crown whichCharlemagne had worn. There is no more gloomy chapter in Europeanhistory than the experiences of Italy and the papacy after thedeposition 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, andBurgundian princes from across the Alps, assuming the Italian crown atdifferent times. The Mohammedan invasions added to the confusion, sothat Germany and France, in spite of their incessant wars, appearalmost tranquil compared with the anarchy in Italy. [100] Three Italiankings were crowned emperor by the popes during the generation followingthe deposition of Charles the Fat. Then for a generation the title ofemperor disappeared altogether in the West, until it was again assumedby the German Otto. [Sidenote: Otto is crowned emperor, 962. ] Italy was a tempting field of operations for an ambitious ruler. Ottofirst crossed the Alps in 951, married the widow of one of the ephemeralItalian kings, and, without being formally crowned, was generallyacknowledged as king of Italy. The revolt of his son compelled him toreturn to Germany, but a decade later the pope called him to hisassistance. Otto answered the summons promptly, freed the pope from hisenemies, and was crowned emperor at Rome in 962. [Sidenote: Important results for Germany of the coronation of Otto theGreat. ] The coronation of Otto the Great, like that of Charlemagne, was amomentous event in mediæval history. By assuming the imperial crown heimposed so great a burden on his successors, the German kings, that theyfinally succumbed beneath it. For three centuries they strove to keepGermany 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 strongmonarchy, fell apart into weak little states. [Sidenote: Example of emperor's trouble in controlling popes and Italianaffairs. ] Otto's own experiences furnish an example of the melancholy results ofhis relations with the pope, to whom he owed his crown. Hardly had heturned his back before the pope began to violate his engagements. Itbecame necessary for the new emperor to hasten back to Rome and summon acouncil for the deposition of the pontiff, whose conduct certainlyfurnished ample justification. But the Romans refused to accept a popechosen under Otto's auspices, and he had to return again to Rome andbesiege the city before his pope was acknowledged. A few years later, still a third expedition was necessary in order to restore another ofthe emperor's popes who had been driven out of Rome by the localfactions. [Illustration: EUROPE ABOUT A. D. 1000] The succeeding emperors had usually to make a similar series of costlyand troublesome journeys to Rome, --a first one to be crowned, and thenothers either to depose a hostile pope or to protect a loyal one fromthe oppression of neighboring lords. These excursions were verydistracting, especially to a ruler who left behind him in Germany arebellious 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 assoon as they had been duly crowned by the pope at Rome, and assumed themagnificent and all-embracing designation, "Emperor Ever August of theRomans. "[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 wasCharlemagne's. As _kings_ of Germany and Italy they had practically allthe powers that they enjoyed as _emperors_, except the fatal right thatthey claimed of taking part in the election of the pope. We shall findthat, instead of making themselves feared at home and building up agreat state, the German emperors wasted their strength in a longstruggle with the popes, who proved themselves in the end incomparablythe stronger, and eventually reduced the Empire to a mere shadow. 58. We have no space to speak of the immediate successors of Otto theGreat. [102] Like him they had to meet opposition at home as well as theattacks of their restless neighbors, especially the Slavs. The Empire isusually considered to have reached its height under Conrad II(1024-1039) and Henry III (1039-1056), the first two representatives ofthe new Franconian line which succeeded the Saxon house upon itsextinction in 1024. [Sidenote: Conrad II, 1024-1039. ] [Sidenote: Poland. ] By an amicable arrangement the kingdom of Burgundy came into the handsof Conrad II in 1032. This large and important territory long remained apart of the Empire, serving to render intercourse between Germany andItaly easier, and forming a barrier between Germany and France. On theeastern borders of the Empire the Slavs had organized the kingdom ofPoland in the latter half of the tenth century, and its kings, althoughoften at war with the emperor, generally acknowledged his suzerainty. Conrad, following the policy of Otto the Great, endeavored to bring asmany of the stem duchies as possible into the hands of his son andsuccessor, Henry III, who was made duke of Franconia, Swabia, andBavaria. 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, thefact that the Empire stands forth as the great power of western Europeduring the first half of the eleventh century is largely due to theabsence of any strong rivals. The French kings had not yet overcome thefeudal disruption, and although Italy objected to the control of theemperor, 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 agreat 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 overthe papacy but also over the German bishops and abbots, whom they hadstrengthened by grants of land and authority with the special purpose ofmaking them the chief support of the monarchy. The reform was notdirected particularly against the emperor, but he was, as will becomeapparent, more seriously affected by the changes proposed by thereforming party than any other of the European rulers. [Sidenote: Wealth of the Church. ] In order to understand the reform and the long struggle between theemperors and the popes which grew out of it, we must stop a moment toconsider the condition of the Church in the time of Henry III. It seemedto be losing all its strength and dignity and to be falling apart, justas Charlemagne's empire had dissolved into feudal bits. This was chieflydue to the vast landed possessions of the clergy. Kings, princes, andrich landowners had long considered it meritorious to make donations tobishoprics and monasteries, so that a very considerable portion of theland 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 ofthe Church was naturally drawn into the feudal relations. A king, orother proprietor, might grant fiefs to churchmen as well as to laymen. The bishops became the vassals of the king or of other feudal lords bydoing homage for a fief and swearing fidelity, just as any other vassalwould do. An abbot sometimes placed his monastery under the protectionof a neighboring lord by giving up his land and receiving it back againas a fief. [Sidenote: Fiefs held by churchmen not hereditary. ] One great difference, however, existed between the church lands and theordinary fiefs. According to the law of the Church, the bishops andabbots could not marry and so could have no children to whom they mighttransmit their property. Consequently, when a landholding churchmandied, some one had to be chosen in his place who should enjoy hisproperty and perform his duties. The rule of the Church had been, fromtime immemorial, that the clergy of the diocese should choose thebishop, their choice being ratified by the people. As the church lawexpresses it, "A bishop is therefore rightly appointed in the church ofGod when the people acclaim him who has been elected by the common voteof the clergy. " As for the abbots, they were, according to the rule ofSt. 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 tenthand eleventh centuries, to be selected, to all intents and purposes, bythe various kings and feudal lords. It is true that the outward forms ofa regular ("canonical") election were usually permitted; but the feudallord made it clear whom he wished chosen, and if the wrong person waselected, he simply refused to hand over to him the lands attached to thebishopric or abbey. The lord could in this way control the choice of theprelates, for in order to become a real bishop or abbot one had not onlyto be elected, he had also to be solemnly "invested" with theappropriate powers of a bishop or abbot and with his lands. [Sidenote: Investiture. ] Since, to the worldly minded, the spiritual powers attached to churchoffices possessed little attraction if no property went along with them, the feudal lord was really master of the situation. When his appointeewas duly chosen he proceeded to the _investiture_. The new bishop orabbot first became the "man" of the feudal lord by doing him homage, andthen the lord transferred to him the lands and rights attached to theoffice. No careful distinction appears to have been made between theproperty and the spiritual prerogatives. The lord often conferred bothby bestowing upon a bishop the ring and the crosier, the emblems ofreligious authority. It seemed shocking enough that the lord, who wasoften a rough soldier, should dictate the selection of the bishops, butit was still more shocking that he should audaciously assume to conferspiritual powers with spiritual emblems. Yet even worse things mighthappen, since sometimes the lord, for his greater convenience, hadhimself 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 abenefice as a mere incident and considered the spiritual prerogativesthe main thing. And since the clergy alone could rightly confer these, it was natural that they should claim the right to bestow ecclesiasticaloffices, including the lands ("temporalities") attached to them, uponwhomsoever they pleased without consulting any layman whatever. Againstthis claim the king might urge that a simple minister of the Gospel, ora holy monk, was by no means necessarily fitted to manage the interestsof a feudal state, such as the great archbishoprics and bishoprics, andeven the abbeys, had become in Germany and elsewhere in the eleventhcentury. [Sidenote: Complicated position of the bishops in Germany andelsewhere. ] In short, the situation in which the bishops found themselves was a verycomplicated one. (1) As an officer of the Church, the bishop had certainecclesiastical and religious duties within the limits of his diocese. Hesaw that parish priests were properly selected and ordained, he triedcertain cases in his court, and performed the church ceremonies. (2) Hemanaged the lands which belonged to the bishopric, which might, or mightnot, be fiefs. (3) As a vassal of those who had granted lands to thebishopric upon feudal terms, he owed the usual feudal dues, notexcluding the duty of furnishing troops to his lord. (4) Lastly, inGermany, the king had found it convenient, from about the beginning ofthe eleventh century, to confer upon the bishops in many cases theauthority of a count in the districts about them. In this way they mighthave the right to collect tolls, coin money, and perform other importantgovernmental duties. [103] When a prelate was inducted into office hewas invested with all these various functions at once, both spiritualand governmental. To forbid the king to take part in the investiture was, consequently, torob him not only of his feudal rights but also of his authority overmany of his government officials, since bishops, and sometimes evenabbots, were often counts in all but name. Moreover, the monarch reliedupon the clergy, both in Germany and France, to counterbalance theinfluence of his lay vassals, who were always trying to exalt theirpower at his expense. He therefore found it necessary to take care whogot possession of the important church offices. [Sidenote: The marriage of the clergy threatens the wealth of theChurch. ] 60. Still another danger threatened the wealth and resources of theChurch. During the tenth and eleventh centuries the rule of the Churchprohibiting the clergy from marrying[104] appears to have been widelyand publicly neglected in Italy, Germany, France, and England. To thestricter critics of the time this appeared a terrible degradation of theclergy, who, they felt, should be unencumbered by family cares andwholly devoted to the service of God. The question, too, had anotherside. It was obvious that the property of the Church would soon bedispersed if the clergy were allowed to marry, since they would wish toprovide for their children. Just as the feudal tenures had becomehereditary, so the church lands would become hereditary unless theclergy 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 corruptionin the Church, namely, the temptation to buy and sell church offices. Had the duties and responsibilities of the bishops, abbots, and priestsalways been arduous and exacting, and their recompense barely enough tomaintain them, there would have been little tendency to bribe those whocould bestow the appointments. But the incomes of bishoprics and abbeyswere usually considerable, sometimes very great, while the dutiesattached to the office of bishop or abbot, however serious in the eyesof the right-minded, might easily be neglected by the unscrupulous. Therevenue from a great landed estate, the distinction of highecclesiastical rank, and the governmental prerogatives that went withthe office, were enough to induce the members of the noblest families tovie with each other in securing church positions. The king or prince whopossessed the right of investiture was sure of finding some one willingto pay something for important benefices. [Sidenote: Origin of the term simony. ] The sin of buying or selling church offices was recognized as a mostheinous one. It was called _simony_, [105] a name derived from Simon theMagician, who, according to the account in the Acts of the Apostles, offered Peter money if he would give him the power of conferring theHoly Spirit upon those upon whom he should lay his hands. As the apostledenounced this first simonist, so the Church has continued ever since todenounce those who propose to purchase its sacred powers, --"Thy silverperish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of Godwith money" (Acts viii. 20). [Sidenote: Simony not really the sale of church offices. ] Doubtless very few bought positions in the Church with the view ofobtaining the "gift of God, " that is to say, the religious office. Itwas the revenue and the honor that were chiefly coveted. Moreover, whena 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 itsadvantages. No transaction took place in the Middle Ages withoutaccompanying gifts and fees of various kinds. The church lands were wellmanaged and remunerative. The clergyman who was appointed to a richbishopric or abbey seemed to have far more revenue than he needed and sowas expected to contribute to the king's treasury, which was generallyempty. [Sidenote: Simony corrupts the lower clergy. ] The evil of simony was, therefore, explicable enough, and perhapsineradicable under the circumstances. It was, nevertheless, verydemoralizing, for it spread downward and infected the whole body of theclergy. A bishop who had made a large outlay in obtaining his officenaturally expected something from the priests, whom it was his duty toappoint. The priest in turn was tempted to reimburse himself by improperexactions for the performance of his regular religious duties, forbaptizing and marrying his parishioners, and for burying the dead. So it seemed, at the opening of the eleventh century, as if the Churchwas to be dragged down by its property into the anarchy of feudalismdescribed in a preceding chapter. There were many indications that itsgreat officers were to become merely the vassals of kings and princesand no longer to represent a great international institution under theheadship of the popes. The Bishop of Rome had not only ceased, in thetenth century, to exercise any considerable influence over the churchesbeyond the Alps, but was himself controlled by the restless nobles ofcentral Italy. He appears much less important, in the chronicles of thetime, than the Archbishop of Rheims or Mayence. There is no moreextraordinary revolution recorded in history than that which raised theweak and demoralized papacy of the tenth century to a supreme place inEuropean affairs. [Sidenote: Three rival popes. ] 61. One of the noble families of Rome had got the selection of the popesinto its own hands, and was using the papal authority to secure itscontrol over the city. In the same year (1024) in which Conrad II becameemperor, 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, inaddition to his youth, proved to be thoroughly evil-minded. His powerfulfamily maintained him, however, on the papal throne for a decade, untilhe proposed to marry. This so scandalized even the not over-sensitiveRomans that they drove him out of the city. A rich neighboring bishopthen secured his own election. Presently a third claimant appeared inthe person of a pious and learned priest who bought out the claims ofBenedict IX for a large sum of money and assumed the title of GregoryVI. [Sidenote: The interference of Henry III in papal affairs and itsmomentous consequences. ] This state of affairs seemed to the emperor, Henry III, to call for hisinterference. He accordingly went to Italy and summoned a council atSutri, north of Rome, in 1046, where two of the claimants were deposed. Gregory VI, more conscientious than his rivals, not only resigned hisoffice but tore his pontifical robes in pieces and admitted hismonstrous crime in buying the papal dignity, though his motives had beenof the purest. The emperor then secured the election of a worthy Germanbishop as pope, whose first act was to crown Henry and Agnes hiswife. [106] The appearance of Henry III in Italy at this juncture, and thesettlement of the question of the three rival popes, are among the mostimportant events of all mediæval history in their results. In liftingthe papacy out of the realm of petty Italian politics, Henry unwittinglyhelped to raise up a rival to the imperial authority which was destined, before the end of the next century, to overshadow it and to becomewithout question the greatest power in western Europe. [Sidenote: Difficulties to be overcome in establishing the supremacy ofthe popes in western Europe. ] For nearly two hundred years the popes had assumed very littleresponsibility for the welfare of Europe at large. It was a gigantictask to make of the Church a great international monarchy, with its headat the old world-center, Rome; the difficulties in the way seemed, indeed, well-nigh insurmountable. The great archbishops, who were asjealous of the power of the pope as the great vassals were of the kinglypower, must be brought into subjection. National tendencies which madeagainst the unity of the Church must be overcome. The control enjoyed bykings, princes, and other feudal lords in the selection of churchofficials must be done away with. Simony with its degrading influencemust be abolished. The marriage of the clergy must be checked, so thatthe property of the Church should not be dissipated. The whole body ofchurchmen, from the priest to the archbishop, must be redeemed from theimmorality and worldliness which degraded them in the eyes of thepeople. [Sidenote: Pope Leo IX, 1049-1054. ] It is true that during the remainder of his life Henry III himselfcontrolled the election of the popes; but he was sincerely and deeplyinterested in the betterment of the Church and took care to select ableand independent German prelates to fill the papal office. Of these themost important was Leo IX (1049-1054). He was the first to show clearlyhow the pope might not only become in time the real head and monarch ofthe Church but might also aspire to rule kings and emperors as well asbishops and abbots. Leo refused to regard himself as pope simply becausethe emperor had appointed him. He held that the emperor should aid andprotect, but might not create, popes. So he entered Rome as an humblebarefoot pilgrim and was duly elected by the Roman people according tothe 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 ofthe clergy. But this personal oversight on the part of the popes wasnot feasible in the long run, if for no other reason, because they weregenerally old men who would have found traveling arduous and oftendangerous. Leo's successors relied upon legates, to whom they delegatedextensive powers and whom they dispatched to all parts of western Europein something the same way that Charlemagne employed his _missi_. It issupposed that Leo IX was greatly influenced in his energetic policy by acertain sub-deacon, Hildebrand by name. Hildebrand was himself destinedto become one of the greatest popes, under the title of Gregory VII, andto play a part in the formation of the mediæval Church which justifiesus in ranking him, as a statesman, with Cæsar, Charlemagne, Richelieu, and Bismarck. [Sidenote: Pope Nicholas II places the election of the popes in thehands of the cardinals, 1059. ] 62. The first great step toward the emancipation of the Church from thecontrol of the laity was taken by Nicholas II. In 1059 he issued aremarkable decree which took the election of the head of the Church oncefor all out of the hands of both the emperor and the people of Rome, andplaced it definitely and forever in the hands of the _cardinals_, whorepresented the Roman clergy. [107] Obviously the object of this decreewas to preclude all lay interference, whether of the distant emperor, ofthe local nobility, or of the Roman mob. The college of cardinals stillexists 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 puttinghis election in the hands of the Roman clergy. It now proposed toemancipate the Church as a whole from the base entanglements of earth:first, by strictly forbidding the married clergy to perform religiousfunctions and by exhorting their flocks to refuse to attend theirministrations; and secondly, by depriving the kings and feudal lords oftheir influence over the choice of the bishops and abbots, since thisinfluence was deemed the chief cause of worldliness among the prelates. Naturally these last measures met with far more general opposition thanthe new way of electing the pope. An attempt to expel the married clergyfrom Milan led to a popular revolt, in which the pope's legate actuallyfound his life in danger. The decrees forbidding clergymen to receivetheir lands and offices from laymen received little attention fromeither the clergy or the feudal lords. The magnitude of the task whichthe popes had undertaken first became fully apparent when Hildebrandhimself ascended the papal throne, in 1073, as Gregory VII. CHAPTER XIII THE CONFLICT BETWEEN GREGORY VII AND HENRY IV [Sidenote: The _Dictatus_ of Gregory VII. ] 63. Among the writings of Gregory VII there is a very brief statement, called the _Dictatus_, of the powers which he believed the popes topossess. Its chief claims are the following: The pope enjoys a uniquetitle; he is the only universal bishop and may depose and reinstateother bishops or transfer them from place to place. No council of theChurch may be regarded as speaking for Christendom without his consent. The Roman Church has never erred, nor will it err to all eternity. Noone may be considered a Catholic Christian who does not agree with theRoman Church. No book is authoritative unless it has received the papalsanction. Gregory does not stop with asserting the pope's complete supremacy overthe Church; he goes still further and claims for him the right torestrain the civil government when it seems necessary in the cause ofrighteousness. He says that "the Pope is the only person whose feet arekissed by all princes"; that he may depose emperors and "absolvesubjects from allegiance to an unjust ruler. " No one shall dare tocondemn one who appeals to the pope. No one may annul a decree of thepope, though the pope may declare null and void the decrees of all otherearthly powers; and no one may pass judgment upon his acts. [109] [Sidenote: Inadequacy of civil government in the Middle Ages. ] [Sidenote: The Church claims the right to interfere only whennecessary. ] These are not the insolent claims of a reckless tyrant, but theexpression of a theory of government which has had advocates among someof the most conscientious and learned men of all succeeding ages. Beforeventuring to criticise Gregory's view of his position we shouldrecollect two important facts. In the first place, what most writerscall the _state_, when dealing with the Middle Ages, was no orderlygovernment in our sense of the word; it was represented only by restlessfeudal lords, to whom disorder was the very breath of life. When, on oneoccasion, Gregory declared the civil power to be the invention of evilmen instigated by the devil, he was making a natural inference from whathe observed of the conduct of the princes of his time. In the secondplace, it should be remembered that Gregory does not claim that theChurch should manage the civil government, but that the papacy, which isanswerable for the eternal welfare of every Christian, should have theright to restrain a sinful and perverse prince and to refuse torecognize unrighteous laws. Should all else fail, he claimed the rightto free a nation which was being led to disaster in this world and toperdition in the next from its allegiance to a wicked monarch. [Sidenote: Gregory VII puts his theories of the papal power intopractice. ] Immediately upon his election as pope, Gregory began to put intopractice his high conception of the rôle that the spiritual head of theworld should play. He dispatched legates throughout Europe, and fromthis time on these legates became a powerful instrument of government. He warned the kings of France and England and the youthful German ruler, Henry IV, to forsake their evil ways, to be upright and just, and obeyhis admonitions. He explains, kindly but firmly, to William theConqueror that the papal and kingly powers are both established by Godas the greatest among the authorities of the world, just as the sun andmoon are the greatest of the heavenly bodies. [110] But the papal poweris obviously superior to the kingly, for it is responsible for it; atthe Last Day Gregory must render an account of the king as one of theflock intrusted to his care. The king of France was warned to give uphis practice of simony, lest he be excommunicated and his subjects freedfrom their oath of allegiance. All these acts of Gregory appear to havebeen dictated not by worldly ambition but by a fervent conviction oftheir righteousness and of his duty toward all men. [Sidenote: Death of Henry III, 1056. ] 64. Obviously Gregory's plan of reform included all the states ofwestern Europe, but conditions were such that the most striking conflicttook place between him and the emperor. The trouble came about in thisway. Henry III had died in 1056, leaving only his good wife Agnes andtheir little son of six years to maintain the hard-fought prerogativesof the German king in the midst of ambitious vassals such as even Ottothe Great had found it difficulty to control. [Sidenote: Accession of Henry IV, 1065. ] In 1065 the fifteen-year-old lad was declared of age, and his lifelongdifficulties began with a great rebellion of the Saxons. They accusedthe young king of having built castles in their land and of filling themwith rough soldiers who preyed upon the people. Gregory felt it his dutyto interfere. To him the Saxons appeared a people oppressed by aheedless youth under the inspiration of evil counselors. As one reads of Henry's difficulties and misfortunes it seems miraculousthat he was able to maintain himself as king at all. Sick at heart, unable to trust any one, and forced to flee from his own subjects, hewrites contritely to the pope: "We have sinned against heaven and beforethee and are no longer worthy to be called thy son. " But when cheeredfor a moment by a victory over the rebellious Saxons, he easily forgothis promise of obedience to the pope. He continued to associate withcounselors whom the pope had excommunicated and went on fillingimportant bishoprics in Germany and Italy regardless of the pope'sprohibitions. [Sidenote: New prohibition of lay investiture. ] The popes who immediately preceded Gregory had more than once forbiddenthe churchmen to receive investiture from laymen. Gregory reissued thisprohibition in 1075, [111] just as the trouble with Henry had begun. Investiture was, as we have seen, the legal transfer by the king, orother lord, to a newly chosen church official, of the lands and rightsattached to the office. In forbidding lay investiture Gregory attemptednothing less than a revolution. The bishops and abbots were oftenofficers of government, exercising in Germany and Italy powers similarin all respects to those of the counts. The king not only relied uponthem for advice and assistance in carrying on his government, but theywere among his chief allies in his constant struggles with his vassals. [Sidenote: Henry IV angered by the language of the papal legates. ] Gregory dispatched three envoys to Henry (end of 1075) with a fatherlyletter[112] in which he reproached the king for his wicked conduct. Buthe evidently had little expectation that mere expostulation would haveany effect upon Henry, for he gave his legates instructions to usethreats, if necessary, which were bound to produce either completesubjection or out-and-out revolt. The legates were to tell the king thathis crimes were so numerous, so horrible, and so notorious, that hemerited not only excommunication but the permanent loss of all his royalhonors. [Sidenote: Gregory VII deposed by a council of German bishops at Worms, 1076] The violence of the legates' language not only kindled the wrath of theking but also gained for him friends among the bishops. A council whichHenry summoned at Worms (in 1076) was attended by more than two thirdsof the German bishops. Here Gregory was declared deposed owing to thealleged irregularity of his election and the many terrible charges ofimmorality and ambition brought against him. The bishops renounced theirobedience to him and publicly declared that he had ceased to be theirpope. It appears very surprising, at first sight, that the king shouldhave received the prompt support of the German churchmen against thehead of the Church. But it must be remembered that the prelates owedtheir offices to the king and not to the pope. In a remarkable letter[113] to Gregory, Henry asserts that he has shownhimself long-suffering and eager to guard the honor of the papacy, butthat the pope has mistaken his humility for fear. "Thou hast nothesitated, " the letter concludes, "to rise up against the royal powerconferred upon us by God, daring to threaten to deprive us of it, as ifwe had received our kingdom from thee. As if the kingdom and the Empirewere in thine and not in God's hands.... I, Henry, King by the grace ofGod, together with all our bishops, say unto thee, come down, come downfrom thy throne and be accursed of all generations. " [Sidenote: Henry IV deposed and excommunicated by the pope. ] Gregory's reply to Henry and the German bishops who had deposed him wasspeedy and decisive. "Incline thine ear to us, O Peter, chief of theApostles. As thy representative and by thy favor has the power beengranted especially to me by God of binding and loosing in heaven andearth. On the strength of this, for the honor and glory of thy Church, in the name of Almighty God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I withdraw, through thy power and authority, from Henry the King, son of Henry theEmperor, who has risen against thy Church with unheard-of insolence, therule over the whole kingdom of the Germans and over Italy. I absolve allChristians from the bonds of the oath which they have sworn, or mayswear, to him; and I forbid anyone to serve him as king. " For hisintercourse with the excommunicated and his manifold iniquities, theking is furthermore declared accursed and excommunicate. [114] [Sidenote: Attitude of the German princes. ] For a time after the pope had deposed him everything went against Henry. Even the churchmen now held off. Instead of resenting the pope'sinterference, the discontented Saxons, and many other of Henry'svassals, believed that there was now an excellent opportunity to get ridof Henry and choose a more agreeable ruler. But after a long conferencethe great German vassals decided to give Henry another chance. He was torefrain from exercising the functions of government until he had madepeace with the pope. If at the end of a year he had failed to do this, he was to be regarded as having forfeited the throne. The pope was, moreover, invited to come to Augsburg to consult with the princes as towhether Henry should be reinstated or another chosen in his stead. Itlooked as if the pope was, in truth, to control the civil government. [Sidenote: Henry submits to the pope at Canossa, 1077. ] Henry decided to anticipate the arrival of the pope. He hastened acrossthe Alps in midwinter and appeared as an humble suppliant before thecastle of Canossa, whither the pope had come on his way to Augsburg. Forthree days the German king appeared before the closed door, barefoot andin the coarse garments of a pilgrim and a penitent, and even thenGregory was induced only by the expostulations of his influentialcompanions to admit the humiliated ruler. The spectacle of this mightyprince of distinguished appearance, humiliated and in tears before thenervous little man who humbly styled himself the "servant of theservants of God, " has always been regarded as most completely typifyingthe power of the Church and the potency of her curses, against whicheven the most exalted of the earth found no weapon of defense exceptabject penitence. [115] [Sidenote: A new king chosen. ] [Sidenote: Henry again excommunicated. ] 65. The pardon which Henry received at Canossa did not satisfy theGerman princes; for their main object in demanding that he shouldreconcile himself with the Church had been to cause him additionalembarrassment. They therefore proceeded to elect another ruler, and thenext three or four years was a period of bloody struggles between theadherents of the rival kings. Gregory remained neutral until 1080, whenhe again "bound with the chain of anathema" Henry, "the so-called king, "and all his followers. He declared him deprived of his royal power anddignity and forbade all Christians to obey him. [Sidenote: Henry triumphs over Gregory. ] [Sidenote: Death of Gregory. ] The new excommunication had precisely the opposite effect from the firstone. Henry's friends increased rather than decreased. The German clergywere again aroused, and they again deposed "this same most brazenHildebrand. " Henry's rival fell in battle, and Henry, accompanied by ananti-pope, betook himself to Italy with the double purpose of puttinghis pope on the throne and winning the imperial crown. Gregory held outfor no less than two years, but at last Rome fell into Henry's hands andGregory withdrew and soon died. His last words were, "I have lovedjustice and hated iniquity, therefore I die an exile, " and thefair-minded historical student will not question their truth. [116] [Sidenote: Henry IV's further troubles. ] The death of Gregory did not put an end to Henry's difficulties. Hespent the remaining twenty years of his life in trying to maintain hisrights as king of Germany and Italy against his rebellious subjects onboth sides of the Alps. In Germany his chief enemies were the Saxons andhis discontented vassals. In Italy the pope was now actively engaged asa temporal ruler, in building up a little state of his own. He was, moreover, always ready to encourage the Lombard cities--which weregrowing more and more powerful and less and less willing to submit tothe rule of a German--in their opposition to the emperor. [Sidenote: Rebellion at home and in Italy. ] [Sidenote: Treason of Henry's sons. ] [Sidenote: Death of Henry IV, 1106. ] A combination of his Italian enemies called Henry again to Italy in1090, although he was forced to leave Germany but half subdued. He wasseriously defeated by the Italians; and the Lombard cities embraced theopportunity to form their first union against their foreign king. In1093 Milan, Cremona, Lodi, and Piacenza joined in an offensive anddefensive alliance for their own protection. After seven years ofhopeless lingering in Italy, Henry returned sadly across the Alps, leaving the peninsula in the hands of his enemies. But he found no peaceat home. His discontented German vassals induced his son, whom he hadhad crowned as his successor, to revolt against his father. Thereuponfollowed more civil war, more treason, and a miserable abdication. In1106 death put an end to perhaps the saddest reign that history records. [Sidenote: Henry V, 1106-1125. ] The achievement of the reign of Henry IV's son, Henry V, which chieflyinterests us was the adjustment of the question of investitures. PopePaschal II, while willing to recognize those bishops already chosen bythe king, provided they were good men, proposed that thereafterGregory's decrees against lay investiture should be carried out. Theclergy should no longer do homage and lay their hands, consecrated tothe service of the altar, in the blood-stained hands of the nobles. Henry V, on the other hand, declared that unless the clergy took theoath of fealty the bishops would not be given the lands, towns, castles, tolls, and privileges attached to the bishoprics. [Sidenote: Settlement of the question of lay investiture in theConcordat of Worms, 1122. ] After a succession of troubles a compromise was at last reached in theConcordat of Worms (1122), which put an end to the controversy overinvestitures in Germany. [117] The emperor promised to permit the Churchfreely to elect the bishops and abbots and renounced his old claim toinvest with the spiritual emblems of the ring and the crosier. But theelections were to be held in the presence of the king, and he waspermitted, in a separate ceremony, to invest the new bishop or abbotwith his fiefs and secular prerogatives by a touch of the scepter. Inthis way the spiritual rights of the bishops were obviously conferred bythe churchmen who elected him; and although the king might stillpractically invalidate an election by refusing to invest with thecoveted temporal privileges, still the direct appointment of the bishopsand abbots was taken out of his hands. As for the emperor's control overthe papacy, too many popes, since the advent of Henry IV, had beengenerally recognized as properly elected without the sanction of theemperor, for any one to believe any longer that his sanction wasnecessary. CHAPTER XIV THE HOHENSTAUFEN EMPERORS AND THE POPES [Sidenote: Frederick I, Barbarossa, 1152-1190. ] [Sidenote: The historian, Otto of Freising. ] 66. Frederick I, nicknamed Barbarossa, i. E. , "Redbeard, " who became kingof Germany in 1152, [118] is the most interesting of all the Germanemperors; and the records we have of his reign enable us to gain apretty good view of Europe in the middle of the twelfth century. Withhis advent, we feel that we are emerging from that long period whichused to be known as the dark ages. Most of our knowledge of Europeanhistory from the sixth to the twelfth century is derived from meager andunreliable monkish chronicles, whose authors were often ignorant andcareless, and usually far away from the scenes of the events theyrecorded. In the latter half of the twelfth century, however, information grows much more abundant and varied. We begin to haverecords of the town life and are no longer entirely dependent upon themonks' records. The first historian with a certain philosophic grasp ofhis theme was Otto of Freising. His _Life of Frederick Barbarossa_ andhis history of the world form invaluable sources of knowledge of theperiod we now enter. [Sidenote: Frederick's ideal of the Empire. ] Frederick's ambition was to raise the Roman Empire to its old glory andinfluence. He regarded himself as the successor of the Cæsars, ofJustinian, of Charlemagne, and of Otto the Great. He believed his officeto be quite as divinely established as the papacy. In announcing hiselection to the pope, he stated that the Empire had been "bestowed uponhim by God, " and he did not ask for the pope's sanction, as hispredecessors had done. But in his lifelong attempt to maintain what heassumed to be the rights of the emperor he encountered all the olddifficulties. He had to watch his rebellious vassals in Germany and meetthe opposition of a series of unflinching popes, ready to defend themost exalted claims of the papacy. He found, moreover, in the Lombardcities unconquerable foes, who finally brought upon him a signal defeat. [Sidenote: The towns begin to play a part in history. ] 67. One of the most striking differences between the ages beforeFrederick and the whole period since, lies in the development of townlife, with all that that implies. Up to this time we have heard only ofemperors, popes, bishops, and feudal lords; from now on the cities mustbe reckoned with, as Frederick was to discover to his sorrow. [119] [Sidenote: The government of the Lombard cities becomes partiallydemocratic. ] The government of the towns of Lombardy fell, after Charlemagne's time, into the hands of their respective bishops, who exercised theprerogatives of counts. Under the bishops the towns flourished withintheir walls and also extended their control over the neighboringdistricts. As industry and commerce increased, the prosperous citizens, and the poorer classes as well, aspired to some control over thegovernment. Cremona very early expelled its bishop, destroyed hiscastle, and refused to pay him any dues. Later Henry IV stirred up Luccaagainst its bishop and promised that its liberties should never beinterfered with henceforth by bishop, duke, or count. Other towns threwoff the episcopal rule, and in practically all of them the governmentcame at last into the hands of municipal officials elected by thosecitizens who were permitted to have a hand in the government. [Sidenote: The turmoil in the Italian towns; their remarkablecivilization. ] [Illustration: Italian Towns in the Twelfth Century] The more humble artisans were excluded altogether from a voice in cityaffairs. Their occasional revolts, as well as the feuds between thefactions of the nobles, --who took up their residence in the townsinstead of remaining on their estates, --produced a turmoil which weshould think intolerable in our modern peaceable cities. This wasgreatly increased by bitter wars with neighboring towns. Yet, in spiteof incredible disorder within and without, the Italian towns becamecenters of industry, learning, and art, unequaled in history except bythe famous cities of Greece. They were able, moreover, to maintain theirindependence for several centuries. Frederick's difficulties in playingthe emperor in Italy were naturally greatly increased by the sturdyopposition of the Lombard towns which could always count on a faithfulally in the pope. He and they had a common interest in seeing that thepower of the king of Germany remained purely nominal on their side ofthe mountains. [120] [Sidenote: Frederick's first expedition to Italy, 1154. ] 68. Milan was the most powerful of the Lombard towns and was heartilydetested by her neighbors, over whom she was constantly endeavoring toextend her control. Two refugees from Lodi brought word to the newlyelected emperor of Milan's tyranny. When Frederick's representativesreached the offending city they were insulted and the imperial seal wastrampled in the dust. Like the other towns, Milan would acknowledge thesupremacy of the emperor only so long as he made it no trouble. The wishto gain the imperial crown and to see what this bold conduct of Milanmeant, brought Frederick to Italy, in 1154, on the first of sixexpeditions, which together were to occupy many years of his reign. Frederick pitched his camp in the plain of Roncaglia and there receivedrepresentatives from the Lombard towns, who had many and grievouscomplaints to make of the conduct of their neighbors, especially of thearrogant Milan. We get a hint of the distant commerce of the maritimecities when we read that Genoa sent gifts of ostriches, lions, andparrots. Frederick made a momentary impression by proceeding, upon thecomplaint of Pavia, to besiege and destroy the town of Tortona. As soonas he moved on to Rome, Milan plucked up courage to punish two or threeneighbors who had too enthusiastically supported the emperor; it alsolent a hand to Tortona's hapless citizens in rebuilding their city. [Sidenote: Frederick and Pope Hadrian. ] When the pope, Hadrian IV, and the emperor first met there was somebitter feeling because Frederick hesitated to hold the pope's stirrup. He made no further objection, however, when he learned that it was thecustom. Hadrian was relying upon his assistance, for Rome was in themidst of a remarkable revolution. Under the leadership of the famousArnold of Brescia, [121] the city was attempting to reëstablish agovernment similar to that of the times when the Roman senate ruled thecivilized world. It is needless to say that the attempt failed, thoughFrederick gave the pope but little help against Arnold and therebellious Romans. After receiving his crown, the emperor hastened backto Germany and left the disappointed Hadrian to deal with his refractorypeople as best he might. This desertion and later misunderstandingsproduced much ill feeling between the pope and Frederick. [Sidenote: The assembly at Roncaglia, 1158. ] [Sidenote: Its decision as to the rights (_regalia_) of the emperor overthe Lombard towns. ] In 1158 Frederick was back in Italy and held another great assembly atRoncaglia. He summoned hither certain teachers of the Roman law fromBologna (where the revived study of the law was actively pursued), aswell as representatives of the towns, to decide exactly what his rightsas emperor were. There was little danger but that those versed in a lawwhich declared that "whatsoever the prince has willed has the force oflaw, " should give the emperor his due. His _regalia_, or governmentalprerogatives, were declared to consist in feudal suzerainty over thevarious duchies and counties, and in the right to appoint magistrates, collect tolls, impose an extraordinary war tax, coin money, and enjoythe revenue from fisheries and from salt and silver mines. Such personsor towns as could produce proof that any of these privileges had beenformally conceded to them might continue to enjoy them; otherwise theemperor assumed them. As most of the towns had simply succeeded to therights of the bishops and had no legal proofs of any concessions fromthe emperor, this decision meant the loss of their independence. Theemperor greatly increased his revenue for the moment; but these extrememeasures and the hated governors whom he appointed to represent him werebound to produce ultimate revolt. It became a matter of life and deathto the towns to get rid of the imperial officials and taxgatherers. [Sidenote: The destruction of Crema and Milan. ] The town of Crema refused to level its walls at the command of theemperor. It had to undergo a most terrible siege and finally succumbed. Its citizens were allowed to depart with nothing but their lives, andthe place was given over to plunder and destruction. Then Milan drovethe emperor's deputies from the gates. A long siege brought even thisproud city to terms; and the emperor did not hesitate to order itsdestruction, in spite of its commercial and political importance (1162). It is a melancholy commentary upon the relations between the varioustowns that Milan's neighbors begged to be permitted to carry out herannihilation. Her inhabitants were allowed to settle in the neighborhoodof the spot where their prosperous city had stood, and from the rapiditywith which they were able to rebuild it later, we may conclude that thedemolition was not so thoroughgoing as some of the accounts imply. [Sidenote: The Lombard towns secretly unite to form the Lombard League. ] 69. The only hope for the Lombard towns was in _union_, which theemperor had explicitly forbidden. Soon after Milan's destructionmeasures were secretly taken to form the nucleus of what became laterthe great Lombard League. Cremona, Brescia, Mantua, and Bergamo joinedtogether against the emperor. Encouraged by the pope and aided by theLeague, Milan was speedily rebuilt. Frederick, who had been engaged inconquering Rome with a view of placing an anti-pope on the throne of St. Peter, was glad, in 1167, to escape the combined dangers of Roman feverand the wrath of the towns and get back to Germany. The League wasextended to include Verona, Piacenza, Parma, and eventually many othertowns. It was even deemed best to construct an entirely new town, with aview of harboring forces to oppose the emperor on his return, andAlessandria remains a lasting testimonial to the energy and coöperativespirit of the League. The new town got its name from the League's ally, Pope Alexander III, one of the most conspicuous among the papalopponents of the German kings. [Sidenote: Frederick completely defeated by the League at Legnano, 1176. ] After several years spent in regulating affairs in Germany, Frederickagain appeared in Lombardy. He found the new "straw" town, as theimperialists contemptuously called it, too strong for him. The Leaguegot its forces together, and a great battle took place at Legnano in1176, --a really decisive conflict, which was rare enough in the MiddleAges. Frederick had been unable to get the reënforcements he wished fromacross the Alps, and, under the energetic leadership of Milan, theLeague so completely and hopelessly defeated him that the question ofthe mastery in Lombardy was settled for some time. [Sidenote: Peace of Constance (1183) establishes independence of Lombardtowns. ] A great congress was thereupon assembled at Venice, and here, under theauspices of Pope Alexander III, a truce was concluded, which was made aperpetual peace at Constance in 1183. The towns received backpractically all their regalia and, upon formally acknowledging theemperor's overlordship, were left by him to go their own way. Frederickwas forced, moreover, humbly to recognize a pope that he had solemnlysworn should never be obeyed by him. The pope and the towns had madecommon cause and enjoyed a common victory. [Sidenote: Origin of the power of the Guelfs. ] From this time on we find the name _Guelf_ assumed by the party in Italywhich was opposed to the emperors. [122] This is but another form of thename of the Welf family, who made most of the trouble for theHohenstaufens in Germany. A certain Welf had been made duke of Bavariaby Henry IV (in 1070). His son added to the family estates by marrying arich north-German heiress. His grandson, Henry the Proud, looked stillhigher and became the son-in-law of the duke of Saxony and the heir tohis great duchy. This, added to his other vast possessions, made him themost powerful and dangerous of the vassals of the Hohenstaufen emperors. [Sidenote: Division of Saxony and the other great German duchies. ] On returning from his disastrous campaign against the Lombard towns, Frederick Barbarossa found himself at war with the Guelf leader, Henrythe Lion (son of Henry the Proud), who had refused to come to theemperor's aid before the battle of Legnano. Henry was banished, andFrederick divided up the Saxon duchy. His policy was to split up the oldduchies, for he clearly saw the danger of permitting his vassals tocontrol districts as large as he himself held. [Sidenote: The Hohenstaufens extend their power into southern Italy. ] 70. Before his departure upon the crusading expedition during which helost his life, Frederick saw his son, Henry VI, crowned king of Italy. Moreover, in order to extend the power of the Hohenstaufens oversouthern Italy, he arranged a marriage between the young Henry andConstance, the heiress to the Norman kingdom of Naples and Sicily. [123]Thus the hopeless attempt to keep both Germany and Italy under the samehead was continued. It brought about new conflicts with the popes, whowere the feudal suzerains of Naples and Sicily, and ended in the ruin ofthe house of Hohenstaufen. [Sidenote: Henry VI, 1190-1197. ] [Sidenote: His troubles in Italy and Germany. ] Henry VI's short reign was beset with difficulties which he sturdily metand overcame. Henry the Lion, the Guelf leader, having broken the oathhe had sworn to Frederick to keep away from Germany, returned andorganized a rebellion. So soon as this was quelled and the Guelf partywas under control for a time, Henry VI had to hasten south to rescue hisSicilian kingdom. There a certain Norman count, Tancred, was leading anational revolt against the German claimant. The pope, who regardedSicily as his fief, had freed the emperor's Norman subjects from theiroath of fidelity to him. Moreover, Richard the Lion-Hearted of Englandhad landed on his way to the Holy Land and allied himself with Tancred. Henry VI's expedition to Italy proved a complete disaster. His empresswas captured by Tancred's people, his army largely perished by sickness, and Henry the Lion's son, whom he held as a hostage, escaped. To add tohis troubles, no sooner had he reached Germany once more than he wasconfronted by a new and more formidable revolt (1192). Luckily for him, Richard, stealing home through Germany from his crusade, fell into hishands. He held the English king, as an ally of the Guelfs, until heobtained an enormous ransom, which supplied him with the means offighting his enemies in both Germany and Italy. The death of Tancredenabled him to regain his realms in southern Italy. But he endeavored invain to induce the German princes to recognize the permanent union ofthe southern Italian kingdom with Germany, or to make the imperial crownhereditary in his house. [Sidenote: Pope Innocent III. ] At the age of thirty-two, and in the midst of plans for a world empire, Henry succumbed to Italian fever, leaving the fate of the Hohenstaufenfamily in the hands of his infant son, who was to become the famousFrederick II. Just as Henry VI died, the greatest, perhaps, of all thepopes was about to ascend the throne of St. Peter, and for nearly ascore of years to dominate the political affairs of western Europe. Fora time the political power of the popes almost overshadows that of aCharlemagne or a Napoleon. In a later chapter a description will begiven of the great institution over which Innocent III presided like amonarch upon his throne. But first we must follow the history of thestruggle between the papacy and the house of Hohenstaufen during theremarkable career of Frederick II. [Sidenote: Philip of Hohenstaufen and Otto of Brunswick rival claimantsfor the German throne. ] 71. No sooner was Henry VI out of the way than Germany became, in thewords of Henry's brother Philip, "like a sea lashed by every wind. " Sowild was the confusion, so torn and so shaken was poor Germany in allits parts, that far-sighted men doubted if they would ever see it returnto peace and order. Philip first proposed to play the rôle of regent tohis little nephew, but before long he assumed the imperial prerogatives, after being duly elected king of the Romans. The Archbishop of Cologne, however, summoned an assembly and brought about the election of a rivalking, Otto of Brunswick, the youthful son of Henry the Lion. [Sidenote: Innocent III decides in favor of Otto. ] So the old struggle between Guelf and Hohenstaufen was renewed. Both ofthe kings bid for the support of Innocent III, who openly proclaimedthat the decision of the matter lay with him. Otto was willing to makethe most reckless concessions to him; and as the pope naturally feared arevival of the power of the Hohenstaufen house should Philip berecognized, he decided in favor of the Guelf claimant in 1201. Thegrateful Otto wrote to him, "My kingship would have dissolved in dustand ashes had not your hand, or rather the authority of the ApostolicChair, weighed the scale in my favor. " Innocent appears here, as uponother occasions, as the arbiter of Europe. In the dreary civil wars which followed in Germany, Otto gradually lostall his friends. His rival's promising career was, however, speedily cutshort, for he was murdered by a private enemy in 1208. Thereupon thepope threatened to excommunicate any German bishop or prince who failedto support Otto. The following year Otto went to Rome to be crowned, buthe promptly made an enemy of the pope by playing the emperor in Italy;he even invaded the Sicilian kingdom of the pope's ward, Frederick, theson of Henry VI. [Sidenote: Innocent III the arbiter of western Europe. ] Innocent then repudiated Otto, in whom he claimed to have "been deceivedas God himself was once deceived in Saul. " He determined that the youngFrederick should be made emperor, but he took great precautions toprevent him from becoming a dangerous enemy of the pope, as his fatherand grandfather had been. When Frederick was elected king in 1212 hemade all the promises that Innocent asked. [Sidenote: John of England becomes a vassal of the pope. ] While the pope had been guiding the affairs of the empire he had by nomeans neglected to exhibit his power in other quarters, above all inEngland. The monks of Canterbury had (1205) ventured to choose anarchbishop--who was at the same time their abbot--without consultingtheir king, John. Their appointee hastened off to Rome to gain thepope's confirmation, while the irritated John forced the monks to holdanother election and make his treasurer archbishop. Innocent thereuponrejected both of those who had been elected, sent for a new deputationof monks from Canterbury, and bade them choose Stephen Langton, a man ofgreat ability. John then angrily drove the monks of Canterbury out ofthe kingdom. Innocent replied by placing England under the _interdict_, that is to say, he ordered the clergy to close all the churches andsuspend all public services, --a very terrible thing to the people of thetime. John was excommunicated, and the pope threatened that unless theking submitted to his wishes he would depose him and give his crown toPhilip Augustus of France. As Philip made haste to collect an army forthe conquest of England, John humbly submitted to the pope in 1213. Hewent so far as to hand England over to Innocent III and receive it backas a fief, thus becoming the vassal of the pope. He agreed also to senda yearly tribute to Rome. [124] [Sidenote: The fourth Lateran Council, 1215. ] Innocent, in spite of several setbacks, now appeared to have attainedall his ambitious ends. The emperor, Frederick II, was his protégé and, as king of Sicily, his acknowledged vassal, as was also the king ofEngland. He not only asserted but also maintained his right tointerfere in all the important political affairs of the various Europeancountries. In 1215 a stately international congress--the fourth LateranCouncil--met in his palace. It was attended by hundreds of bishops, abbots, and representatives of kings, princes, and towns. Its decreeswere directed against the abuses in the Church and the progress ofheresy, both of which were seriously threatening the power of theclergy. It confirmed the election of Frederick II and excommunicatedonce more the now completely discredited Otto. [125] [Sidenote: Death of Innocent III, 1216. ] [Sidenote: Emperor Frederick II, 1212-1250. ] 72. Innocent III died during the following year and left a heritage oftrouble to his successors in the person of the former papal ward, Frederick II, who was little inclined to obey the pope. He had beenbrought up in Sicily and was much influenced by the Arabic culture whichprevailed there. He appears to have rejected many of the receivedopinions of the time. His enemies asserted that he was not even aChristian, and that he declared that Moses, Christ, and Mohammed wereall alike impostors. He was nearsighted, bald, and wholly insignificantin person; but he exhibited the most extraordinary energy and ability inthe organization of his kingdom of Sicily, in which he was far moreinterested than in Germany. He drew up an elaborate code of laws for hissouthern realms and may be said to have founded the first modernwell-regulated state, in which the king was indisputably supreme. [Sidenote: His bitter struggle with the papacy. ] We cannot stop to relate the romantic and absorbing story of his longstruggle with the popes. They speedily discovered that he was bent uponestablishing a powerful state to the south of them, and upon extendinghis control over the Lombard cities in such a manner that the papalpossessions would be held as in a vise. This, they felt, should never bepermitted. Almost every measure that Frederick adopted aroused theirsuspicion and opposition, and they made every effort to destroy him andhis house. [Sidenote: Frederick recognized as king of Jerusalem. ] His chance of success in the conflict with the head of the Church wasgravely affected by the promise which he had made before Innocent III'sdeath to undertake a crusade. He was so busily engaged with his endlessenterprises that he kept deferring the expedition, in spite of the papaladmonitions, until at last the pope lost patience and excommunicatedhim. While excommunicate, he at last started for the East. He met withsignal success and actually brought Jerusalem, the Holy City, once moreinto Christian hands and was himself recognized as king of Jerusalem. [Sidenote: Extinction of the Hohenstaufens' power. ] Frederick's conduct continued, however, to give offense to the popes. The emperor was denounced in solemn councils, and at last the popesbegan to raise up rival kings in Germany to replace Frederick, whom theydeposed. After Frederick died (1250) his sons maintained themselves fora few years in the Sicilian kingdom; but they finally gave way before aFrench army, led by the brother of St. Louis, Charles of Anjou, uponwhom the pope bestowed the southern realms of the Hohenstaufens. [126] [Sidenote: Frederick's death marks the close of the mediæval empire. ] With Frederick's death the mediæval empire may be said to have come toan end. It is true that after a period of "fist law, " as the Germanscall it, a new king, Rudolf of Hapsburg, was elected in Germany in 1273. The German kings continued to call themselves emperors. Few of them, however, took the trouble to go to Rome to be crowned by the pope. Noserious effort was ever made to reconquer the Italian territory forwhich Otto the Great, Frederick Barbarossa, and his son and grandson hadmade such serious sacrifices. Germany was hopelessly divided and itsking was no real king. He had no capital, no well-organized government. [Sidenote: Division of Germany and Italy into small independentstates. ] By the middle of the thirteenth century it became apparent that neitherGermany nor Italy was to be converted into a strong single kingdom likeEngland and France. The map of Germany shows a confused group ofduchies, counties, archbishoprics, bishoprics, abbacies, and free towns, each one of which asserted its practical independence of the weak kingand emperor. In northern Italy each town, including a certain district about itswalls, had become an independent state, dealing with its neighbors aswith independent powers. The Italian towns were destined to become thebirthplace of our modern culture during the fourteenth and fifteenthcenturies. Venice and Florence, in spite of their small size, came to bereckoned among the most important states of Europe. In the central partof the peninsula the pope maintained more or less control over hispossessions, but he often failed to subdue the towns within his realms. To the south Naples remained for some time under the French dynasty, which the pope had called in, but the island of Sicily drifted intoSpanish hands. CHAPTER XV THE CRUSADES 73. Of all the events of the Middle Ages, the most romantic andfascinating are the Crusades, the adventurous expeditions to Syria, undertaken by kings and doughty knights with the hope of permanentlyreclaiming the Holy Land from the infidel Turks. All through the twelfthand thirteenth centuries each generation beheld at least one great armyof crusaders gathering from all parts of the West and starting towardthe Orient. Each year witnessed the departure of small bands of pilgrimsor of solitary soldiers of the cross. For two hundred years there was acontinuous stream of Europeans of every rank and station making theirway into western Asia. If they escaped the countless hazards of thejourney, they either settled in this distant land and devoted themselvesto war or commerce, or returned home, bringing with them tales of greatcities and new peoples, of skill and luxury unknown in the West. [Sidenote: Natural temptation to overrate the importance of theCrusades. ] Our sources of information in regard to the Crusades are so abundant andso rich in picturesque incidents that writers have often yielded to thetemptation to give more space to these expeditions than theirconsequences really justify. They were, after all, only one of the greatforeign enterprises which have been undertaken from time to time by theEuropean peoples. While their influence upon the West was doubtless veryimportant, --like that of the later conquest of India by the English andthe colonization of America, --the details of the campaigns in the Eastscarcely belong to the history of western Europe. [Sidenote: The Holy Land conquered first by the Arabs and then by theTurks. ] [Sidenote: Eastern emperor appeals to the pope for aid against theinfidel Turks. ] Syria had been overrun by the Arabs in the seventh century, shortlyafter the death of Mohammed, and the Holy City of Jerusalem had falleninto the hands of the infidels. The Arab, however, shared the venerationof the Christian for the places associated with the life of Christ and, in general, permitted the Christian pilgrims who found their way thitherto worship unmolested. But with the coming of a new and ruder people, the Seljuk Turks, in the eleventh century, the pilgrims began to bringhome news of great hardships. Moreover, the eastern emperor was defeatedby the Turks in 1071 and lost Asia Minor. The presence of the Turks inpossession of the fortress of Nicæa, just across from Constantinople, was of course a standing menace to the Eastern Empire. When theenergetic Emperor Alexius (1081-1118) ascended the throne he endeavoredto expel the infidel. Finding himself unequal to the task, he appealedfor assistance to the head of Christendom, Urban II. The first greatimpetus to the Crusades was the call issued by Urban at the celebratedcouncil which met in 1095 at Clermont in France. [Sidenote: Urban II issues the call to the First Crusade at the Councilof Clermont, 1095. ] In an address, which produced more remarkable immediate results than anyother which history records, the pope exhorted knights and foot soldiersof all ranks to give up their usual wicked business of destroying theirChristian brethren in private warfare and turn instead to the succor oftheir fellow-Christians in the East. Otherwise the insolent Turks would, if unchecked, extend their sway still more widely over the faithfulservants of the Lord. "Let the Holy Sepulcher of the Lord our Saviour, which is possessed by unclean nations, especially urge you on, and theholy places which they are now treating with ignominy and irreverentlypolluting. " Urban urged besides that France was too poor to support allits people, while the Holy Land flowed with milk and honey. "Enter uponthe road to the Holy Sepulcher; wrest the land from the wicked race andsubject it to yourselves. " When the pope had finished, all who werepresent exclaimed, with one accord, "It is the will of God. " This, thepope declared, should be the rallying cry of the crusaders, who were towear a cross upon their bosoms as they went forth, and upon their backsas they returned, as a holy sign of their sacred mission. [127] [Sidenote: The motives of the crusaders. ] The Crusades are ordinarily represented as the most striking examples ofthe simple faith and religious enthusiasm of the Middle Ages. Theyappealed, however, to many different kinds of men. The devout, theromantic, and the adventurous were by no means the only classes thatwere attracted. Syria held out inducements to the discontented noble whomight hope to gain a principality in the East, to the merchant who waslooking for new enterprises, to the merely restless who wished to avoidhis responsibilities at home, and even to the criminal who enlisted witha view of escaping the results of his past offenses. It is noteworthythat Urban appeals especially to those who had been "contending againsttheir brethren and relatives, " and urges those "who have hitherto beenrobbers now to become soldiers of Christ. " The conduct of many of thecrusaders indicates that the pope found a ready hearing among thisclass. Yet higher motives than a love of adventure and the hope ofconquest impelled many who took their way eastward. Great numbers, doubtless, went to Jerusalem "through devotion alone, and not for thesake of honor or gain, " with the sole object of freeing the HolySepulcher from the hands of the infidel. [Sidenote: Privileges of the crusaders. ] To such as these the pope promised that the journey itself should takethe place of all penance for sin. The faithful crusader, like thefaithful Mohammedan, was assured of immediate entrance into heaven if hedied repentant in the holy cause. Later the Church exhibited itsextraordinary authority by what would seem to us an unjust interferencewith business contracts. It freed those who, with a pure heart, enteredupon the journey from the payment of interest upon their debts, andpermitted them to mortgage property against the wishes of their feudallords. The crusaders' wives and children and property were taken underthe immediate protection of the Church, and he who troubled themincurred excommunication. [128] These various considerations help toexplain the great popularity of undertakings that, at first sight, wouldseem to have promised only hardships and disappointment. [Illustration: ROUTES OF THE CRUSADERS] [Sidenote: Peter the Hermit and his army. ] 74. The Council of Clermont met in November. Before spring (1096) thosewho set forth to preach the Crusade, above all the famous Peter theHermit, who was formerly given credit for having begun the wholecrusading movement, had collected, in France and along the Rhine, anextraordinary army of the common folk. Peasants, artisans, vagabonds, and even women and children, answered the summons, all fanaticallyintent upon rescuing the Holy Sepulcher, two thousand miles away. Theywere confident that the Lord would sustain them during the weary leaguesof the journey, and grant them a prompt victory over the infidel. Thehost was got under way in several divisions under the leadership ofPeter the Hermit, [129] and of Walter the Penniless and other humbleknights. Many of the crusaders were slaughtered by the Hungarians, whorose to protect themselves from the depredations of this motley horde. Part of them got as far as Nicæa, only to be slaughtered by the Turks. This is but an example, on a large scale, of what was going oncontinually for a century or so after this first great catastrophe. Individual pilgrims and adventurers, and sometimes considerable bodiesof crusaders, were constantly falling a prey to every form ofdisaster--starvation, slavery, disease, and death--in their endeavors toreach the Holy Land. [Sidenote: The First Crusade, 1096. ] The conspicuous figures of the long period of the Crusades are not, however, to be found among the lowly followers of Peter the Hermit, butare the knights, in their long coats of mail. A year after the summonsissued at Clermont great armies of fighting men had been collected inthe West under noble leaders;--the pope speaks of three hundred thousandsoldiers. Of the various divisions which were to meet in Constantinople, the following were the most important: the volunteers from Provenceunder the papal legate and Count Raymond of Toulouse; inhabitants ofGermany, particularly of Lorraine, under Godfrey of Bouillon and hisbrother Baldwin, both destined to be rulers of Jerusalem; and lastly, anarmy of French and of the Normans of southern Italy under Bohemond andTancred. [130] [Illustration: Knight of the First Crusade. ] The distinguished knights who have been mentioned were not actually incommand of real armies. Each crusader undertook the expedition on hisown account and was only obedient to any one's orders so long as hepleased. The knights and men naturally grouped themselves around themore noted leaders, but considered themselves free to change chiefs whenthey pleased. The leaders themselves reserved the right to look out fortheir own special interests rather than sacrifice themselves to the goodof the expedition. [Sidenote: Hostilities between the Greeks and the crusaders. ] Upon the arrival of the crusaders at Constantinople it quickly becameclear that they had little more in common with the Greeks than with theTurks. Emperor Alexius ordered his soldiers to attack Godfrey's army, encamped in the suburbs of his capital, because their chief at firstrefused to take the oath of feudal homage to him. The emperor'sdaughter, in her remarkable history of the times, gives a sad picture ofthe outrageous conduct of the crusaders. They, on the other hand, denounced the "schismatic Greeks" as traitors, cowards, and liars. The eastern emperor had hoped to use his western allies to reconquerAsia Minor and force back the Turks. The leading knights, on thecontrary, dreamed of carving out principalities for themselves in theformer dominions of the emperor and proposed to control them by right ofconquest. Later we find both Greeks and western Christians shamelesslyallying themselves with the Mohammedans against each other. Therelations of the eastern and western enemies of the Turks were wellillustrated when the crusaders besieged their first town, Nicæa. When itwas just ready to surrender, the Greeks arranged with the enemy to havetheir troops admitted first. They then closed the gates against theirwestern confederates and invited them to move on. [Sidenote: Dissension among the leaders of the crusaders. ] The first real allies that the crusaders met with were the ChristianArmenians, who brought them aid after their terrible march through AsiaMinor. With their help Baldwin got possession of Edessa, of which hemade himself prince. The chiefs induced the great body of the crusadersto postpone the march on Jerusalem, and a year was spent in taking therich and important city of Antioch. A bitter strife then broke out, especially between the Norman Bohemond and the count of Toulouse, as towho should have the conquered town. After the most unworthy conduct onboth sides, Bohemond won, and Raymond set to work to conquer aprincipality for himself on the coast about Tripoli. [Illustration: Map of the Crusaders' States in Syria] [Sidenote: Capture of Jerusalem. ] In the spring of 1099 about twenty thousand warriors finally moved uponJerusalem. They found the city well walled and in the midst of adesolate region where neither food nor water, nor the materials toconstruct the apparatus necessary for the capture of the town, were tobe found, The opportune arrival at Jaffa of galleys from Genoa furnishedthe besiegers with supplies, and, in spite of all the difficulties, theplace was taken in a couple of months. The crusaders, with theircustomary barbarity, massacred the inhabitants. Godfrey of Bouillon waschosen ruler of Jerusalem and took the modest title of "Defender of theHoly Sepulcher. " He soon died and was succeeded by his brother Baldwin, who left Edessa in 1100 to take up the task of extending the bounds ofthe Kingdom of Jerusalem. [Sidenote: Founding of Latin kingdoms in Syria. ] It will be observed that the "Franks, " as the Mohammedans called all thewestern folk, had established the centers of four principalities. Thesewere Edessa, Antioch, the region about Tripoli conquered by Raymond, andthe Kingdom of Jerusalem. The last was speedily increased by Baldwin;with the help of the mariners from Venice and Genoa, he succeeded ingetting possession of Acre, Sidon, and a number of coast towns. The news of these Christian victories quickly reached the West, and in1101 tens of thousands of new crusaders started eastward. Most of themwere lost or dispersed in passing through Asia Minor, and few reachedtheir destination. The original conquerors were consequently left tohold the land against the Saracens and to organize their conquests asbest they could. The permanent hold of the Franks upon the eastern borders of theMediterranean depended upon the strength of the colonies which theirvarious princes were able to establish. It is impossible to learn howmany pilgrims from the West made their permanent homes in the new Latinprincipalities. Certainly the greater part of those who visitedPalestine returned home after fulfilling their vow to kneel at the HolySepulcher. Still the princes could rely upon a certain number ofsoldiers who would be willing to stay and fight the Mohammedans. TheTurks, moreover, were so busy fighting one another that they showed lessenergy than might have been expected in attempting to drive the Franksfrom the narrow strip of territory--some five hundred miles long andfifty wide--which they had conquered. [Sidenote: The Hospitalers. ] 75. A noteworthy outcome of the crusading movement was the foundation ofseveral curious orders--the Hospitalers, the Templars, and the TeutonicKnights--which combined the dominant interests of the time, those of themonk and the soldier. They permitted a man to be both at once; theknight might wear a monkish cowl over his coat of mail. The Hospitalersgrew out of a monastic association that was formed before the FirstCrusade for the succor of the poor and sick among the pilgrims. Laterthe society admitted noble knights to its membership and became amilitary order, while continuing its care for the sick. This charitableassociation, like the earlier monasteries, received generous gifts ofland in western Europe and built and controlled many fortifiedmonasteries in the Holy Land itself. After the evacuation of Syria inthe thirteenth century, the Hospitalers moved their headquarters to theisland of Rhodes, and later to Malta. The order still exists and it isconsidered a distinction to this day to have the privilege of wearingits emblem, the cross of Malta. [Illustration: Costume of the Hospitalers, showing the Form of the Crossof Malta. ] [Sidenote: The Templars. ] Before the Hospitalers were transformed into a military order, a littlegroup of French knights banded together in 1119 to defend pilgrims ontheir way to Jerusalem from the attacks of the infidel. They wereassigned quarters in the king's palace at Jerusalem on the site of theformer Temple of Solomon; hence the name, Templars, which they weredestined to render famous. The "poor soldiers of the Temple" wereenthusiastically approved by the Church. They wore a white cloak adornedwith a red cross, and were under a very strict monastic rule which boundthem by the vows of obedience, poverty, and celibacy. The fame of theorder spread throughout Europe, and the most exalted, even dukes andprinces, were ready to renounce the world and serve Christ under itsblack and white banner, with the legend, _Non nobis, Domine_. The order was aristocratic from the first, and it soon became incrediblyrich and independent. It had its collectors in all parts of Europe, whodispatched the "alms" they received to the Grand Master at Jerusalem. Towns, churches, and estates were given to the order, as well as vastsums of money. The king of Aragon proposed to bestow upon it a third ofhis kingdom. The pope showered privileges upon the Templars. They wereexempted from tithes and taxes, and were brought under his immediatejurisdiction; they were released from feudal obligations, and bishopswere forbidden to excommunicate them. [Sidenote: Abolition of the order of Templars. ] No wonder they grew insolent and aroused the jealousy and hate ofprinces and prelates alike. Even Innocent III violently upbraided themfor admitting to their order wicked men, who then enjoyed all theprivileges of churchmen. Early in the fourteenth century, through thecombined efforts of the pope and Philip the Fair of France, the orderwas brought to a terrible end. Its members were accused of the mostabominable practices, --such as heresy, the worship of idols, and thesystematic insulting of Christ and his religion. Many distinguishedTemplars were burned for heresy, others perished miserably in dungeons. The order was abolished and its property confiscated. [Sidenote: The Teutonic Knights conquer the Prussians. ] As for the third great order, that of the Teutonic Knights, theirgreatest importance lies in their conquest, after the Crusades wereover, of the heathen Prussians. Through their efforts a new Christianstate was formed on the shores of the Baltic, in which the importantcities of Königsberg and Dantzig grew up. [Sidenote: The Second Crusade. ] 76. Fifty years after the preaching of the First Crusade, the fall ofEdessa (1144), an important outpost of the Christians in the East, ledto a second great expedition. This was forwarded by no less a personthan St. Bernard, who went about using his unrivaled eloquence to inducevolunteers to take the cross. In a fierce hymn of battle he cried to theKnights Templars: "The Christian who slays the unbeliever in the HolyWar is sure of his reward, the more sure if he himself be slain. TheChristian glories in the death of the pagan, because Christ isglorified. " The king of France readily consented to take the cross, butthe emperor, Conrad III, appears to have yielded only after St. Bernardhad preached before him and given a vivid picture of the terrors of theJudgment Day. In regard to the less distinguished recruits, the historian, Otto ofFreising, tells us that so many thieves and robbers hastened to take thecross that every one recognized in their enthusiasm the hand of God. St. Bernard himself, the chief promoter of the expedition, gives a mostunflattering description of the "soldiers of Christ. " "In that countlessmultitude you will find few except the utterly wicked and impious, thesacrilegious, homicides, and perjurers, whose departure is a doublegain. Europe rejoices to lose them and Palestine to gain them; they areuseful in both ways, in their absence from here and their presencethere. " It is quite unnecessary to describe the movements and fate ofthe crusaders; suffice it to say that, from a military standpoint, theso-called Second Crusade was a miserable failure. [Sidenote: The Third Crusade. ] Forty years later, in 1187, Jerusalem was taken by Saladin, the mostheroic and distinguished of all the Saracen rulers. The loss of the HolyCity led to the most famous of all the military expeditions to the HolyLand, in which Frederick Barbarossa, Richard the Lion-Hearted ofEngland, and his political rival, Philip Augustus of France, all tookpart. The accounts of the enterprise show that while the severalChristian leaders hated one another heartily enough, the Christians andSaracens were coming to respect one another. We find examples of themost courtly relations between the representatives of the opposingreligions. In 1192 Richard concluded a truce with Saladin, by the termsof which the Christian pilgrims were allowed to visit the holy placeswith safety and comfort. [131] [Sidenote: The Fourth and subsequent Crusades. ] In the thirteenth century the crusaders began to direct theirexpeditions toward Egypt as the center of the Saracen power. The firstof these was diverted in an extraordinary manner by the Venetians, whoinduced the crusaders to conquer Constantinople for their benefit. Thefurther expeditions of Frederick II and St. Louis need not be described. Jerusalem was irrevocably lost in 1244, and although the possibility ofrecovering the city was long considered, the Crusades may be said tohave come to a close before the end of the thirteenth century. [Illustration: Ruins of a Fortress of the Hospitalers in the Holy Land] [Sidenote: Settlements of the Italian merchants. ] 77. For one class at least, the Holy Land had great and permanentcharms, namely, the Italian merchants, especially those from Genoa, Venice, and Pisa. It was through their early interest and supplies fromtheir ships, that the conquest of the Holy Land had been renderedpossible. The merchants were always careful to see that they were wellpaid for their services. When they aided in the successful siege of atown they arranged that a definite quarter should be assigned to themin the captured place, where they might have their market, docks, church, and all that was necessary for a permanent center for theircommerce. This district belonged to the town to which the merchantsbelonged. Venice even sent governors to live in the quarters assigned toits citizens in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Marseilles also hadindependent quarters in Jerusalem, and Genoa had its share in the countyof Tripoli. [Sidenote: Oriental luxury introduced into Europe. ] This new commerce had a most important influence in bringing the Westinto permanent relations with the Orient. Eastern products from Indiaand elsewhere--silks, spices, camphor, musk, pearls, and ivory--werebrought by the Mohammedans from the East to the commercial towns ofPalestine and Syria; then, through the Italian merchants, they foundtheir way into France and Germany, suggesting ideas of luxury hithertoscarcely dreamed of by the still half-barbarous Franks. [Illustration: Tomb of a Crusader] [Sidenote: Results of the Crusades. ] Some of the results of the Crusades upon western Europe must already beobvious, even from this very brief account. Thousands and thousands ofFrenchmen, Germans, and Englishmen had traveled to the Orient by landand by sea. Most of them came from hamlets or castles where they couldnever have learned much of the great world beyond the confines of theirnative village or province. They suddenly found themselves in greatcities and in the midst of unfamiliar peoples and customs. This couldnot fail to make them think and give them new ideas to carry home. TheCrusade took the place of a liberal education. The crusaders came intocontact with those who knew more than they did, above all the Arabs, andbrought back with them new notions of comfort and luxury. Yet in attempting to estimate the debt of the West to the Crusades itshould be remembered that many of the new things may well have come fromConstantinople, or through the Saracens of Sicily and Spain, quiteindependently of the armed incursions into Syria. [132] Moreover, duringthe twelfth and thirteenth centuries towns were rapidly growing up inEurope, trade and manufactures were extending, and the universities werebeing founded. It would be absurd to suppose that without the Crusadesthis progress would not have taken place. So we may conclude that thedistant expeditions and the contact with strange and more highlycivilized peoples did no more than hasten the improvement which wasalready perceptible before Urban made his ever-memorable address atClermont. [133] General Reading. --A somewhat fuller account of the Crusades will be found in EMERTON, _Mediæval Europe_, Chapter XI. Their results are discussed in ADAMS, _Civilization_, Chapter XI. Professor Munro has published a number of very interesting documents in _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. I, Nos. 2, 4 (Letters of the Crusaders), and Vol. III, No. 1 (The Fourth Crusade). See also his _Mediæval History_, Chapter XI, on the Crusades. ARCHER and KINGSFORD, _The Crusades_ (G. P. Putnam's Sons, $1. 50), is probably the best modern work in English. CHAPTER XVI THE MEDIÆVAL CHURCH AT ITS HEIGHT 78. In the preceding pages it has been necessary to refer constantly tothe Church and the clergy. Indeed, without them mediæval history wouldbecome almost a blank, for the Church was incomparably the mostimportant institution of the time and its officers were the soul ofnearly every great enterprise. In the earlier chapters, the rise of theChurch and of its head, the pope, has been reviewed, as well as the workof the monks as they spread over Europe. We must now consider themediæval Church as a completed institution at the height of its power inthe twelfth and thirteenth centuries. [Sidenote: Ways in which the mediæval church differed from modernchurches. ] We have already had abundant proofs that the mediæval Church was verydifferent from modern churches, whether Catholic or Protestant. [Sidenote: Membership in the mediæval church compulsory. ] 1. In the first place, every one was required to belong to it, just aswe all must belong to the state to-day. One was not born into theChurch, it is true, but he was ordinarily baptized into it before he hadany opinion in the matter. All western Europe formed a single religiousassociation, from which it was a crime to revolt. To refuse allegianceto the Church, or to question its authority or teachings, was reputedtreason against God and was punishable with death. [Sidenote: The wealth of the Church. ] [Sidenote: The tithe. ] 2. The mediæval Church did not rely for its support, as churches usuallymust to-day, upon the voluntary contributions of its members. Itenjoyed, in addition to the revenue from its vast tracts of lands and agreat variety of fees, the income from a regular tax, the _tithe_. Those upon whom this fell were forced to pay it, just as we all must nowpay taxes imposed by the government. [Sidenote: Resemblance of the Church to a state. ] 3. It is obvious, moreover, that the mediæval Church was not merely areligious body, as churches are to-day. Of course it maintained placesof worship, conducted devotional exercises, and cultivated the spirituallife; but it did far more. It was, in a way, a state, for it had anelaborate system of law, and its own courts, in which it tried manycases which are now settled in our ordinary tribunals. [134] It had alsoits prisons, to which it might sentence offenders to lifelong detention. [Sidenote: Unity of organization in the Church. ] 4. The Church not only performed the functions of a state; it had theorganization of a state. Unlike the Protestant ministers of to-day, allchurchmen and religious associations of mediæval Europe were under onesupreme head, who made laws for all and controlled every church officer, wherever he might be, whether in Italy or Germany, Spain or Ireland. Thewhole Church had one official language, Latin, in which allcommunications were dispatched and in which its services were everywhereconducted. [Sidenote: The mediæval Church a monarchy in its form of government. ] 79. The mediæval Church may, therefore, properly be called a monarchy inits government. The pope was its all-powerful and absolute head andconcentrated in his person its entire spiritual and disciplinaryauthority. He was the supreme lawgiver. No council of the Church, nomatter how large and important, could make laws against his will, forits decrees, to be valid, required his sanction. [Sidenote: Dispensations. ] The pope might, moreover, set aside or abrogate any law of the Church, no matter how ancient, so long as it was not ordained by the Scripturesor by Nature. He might, for good reasons, make exceptions to all merelyhuman laws; as, for instance, permit cousins to marry, or free a monkfrom his vows. Such exceptions were known as _dispensations_. [Sidenote: The pope the supreme judge of Christendom. ] The pope was not merely the supreme lawgiver; he was the supreme judge. As a distinguished legal writer has said, the whole of western Europewas subject to the jurisdiction of one tribunal of last resort, thepope's court at Rome. Any one, whether clergyman or layman, in any partof Europe, could appeal to him at any stage in the trial of a largeclass of cases. Obviously this system had serious drawbacks. Graveinjustice might be done by carrying to Rome a case which ought to havebeen settled in Edinburgh or Cologne, where the facts were best known. The rich, moreover, always had the advantage, as they alone could affordto bring suits before so distant a court. [Sidenote: The control of the pope over the clergy at large. ] The control of the pope over the clergy scattered throughout Christendomwas secured in several ways. A newly elected archbishop might notventure to perform any of the duties of his office until he had taken anoath of fidelity and obedience to the pope and received from him the_pallium_, the archbishop's badge of office. This was a narrow woolenscarf made by the nuns of the convent of St. Agnes at Rome. Bishops andabbots were also required to have their election duly confirmed by thepope. He claimed, too, the right to settle the very frequent disputedelections of church officials. He might even set aside both of the rivalcandidates and fill the office himself, as did Innocent III when heforced the monks of Canterbury, after a double election, to chooseStephen Langton. Since the time of Gregory VII the pope had claimed the right to deposeand transfer bishops at will. The control of Rome over all parts of theChristian Church was further increased by the legates. These papalemissaries were intrusted with great powers. Their haughty mien oftenenough offended the prelates and rulers to whom they brought home theauthority of the pope, --as, for instance, when the legate Pandulfgrandly absolved all the subjects of King John of England, before hisvery face, from their oath of fealty to him. [Sidenote: The Roman Curia. ] The task assumed by the pope of governing the whole western worldnaturally made it necessary to create a large body of officials at Romein order to transact all the multiform business and prepare and transmitthe innumerable legal documents. [135] The cardinals and the pope'sofficials constituted what was called the papal Curia, or court. [Sidenote: Sources of the pope's income. ] To carry on his government and meet the expenses of palace and retinue, the pope had need of a vast income. This he secured from varioussources. Heavy fees were exacted from those who brought suits to hiscourt for decision. The archbishops were expected to make generouscontributions on receiving their palliums, and the bishops and abbotsupon their confirmation. In the thirteenth century the pope began tofill many benefices throughout Europe himself, and customarily receivedhalf the first year's revenues from those whom he appointed. For severalcenturies before the Protestants finally threw off their allegiance tothe popes, there was widespread complaint on the part of both clergy andlaymen that the fees and taxes levied by the Curia were excessive. [Illustration: Ecclesiastical Map of France in the Middle Ages] [Sidenote: The archbishops. ] 80. Next in order below the head of the Church were the archbishops. Anarchbishop was a bishop whose power extended beyond the boundaries ofhis own diocese and who exercised a certain control over all the bishopswithin his _province_. [136] One of the chief prerogatives of thearchbishop was the right to summon the bishops of his province to meetin a provincial council. His court received appeals from the bishops'courts. Except, however, for the distinction of his title and the factthat he generally lived in an important city and often had vastpolitical influence, the archbishop was not very much more powerful, asan officer of the Church, than the other bishops. [Illustration: The Costume of a Bishop, showing Miter and Crosier. Froma manuscript of the twelfth century. ] [Sidenote: The importance of the bishops. ] There is perhaps no class of persons in mediæval times whose position itis so necessary to understand as that of the bishops. They were regardedas the successors of the apostles, whose powers were held to be divinelytransmitted to them. They represented the Church Universal in theirrespective dioceses, under the supreme headship of their "elderbrother, " the Bishop of Rome, the successor of the chief of theapostles. Their insignia of office, the miter and crosier, are familiarto every one. Each bishop had his especial church, which was called acathedral, and usually surpassed the other churches of the diocese insize and beauty. [Sidenote: Duties of a Bishop. ] Only a bishop could ordain new members of the clergy or degrade the old. He alone could consecrate churches or anoint kings. He alone couldperform the sacrament of confirmation, though as priest he mightadminister any of the other sacraments. [137] Aside from his purelyreligious duties, he was the overseer of all the churchmen in hisdiocese, including the monks. [138] He held a court where a great varietyof suits were tried. If he were a conscientious prelate, he traveledabout his diocese visiting the parish churches and the monasteries tosee if the priests did their duty and the monks behaved themselvesproperly. [Sidenote: The bishop's temporal duties. ] In addition to the oversight of his diocese, it was the bishop'sbusiness to see to the lands and other possessions which belonged to thebishopric. He had, moreover, to perform those governmental duties whichthe king, especially in Germany, had thrown upon him, and he wasconspicuous among the monarch's counselors. Lastly, the bishop wasusually a feudal lord, with the obligations that that implied. He mighthave vassals and subvassals, and often was himself a vassal, not only ofthe king but also of some neighboring lord. As one reads through thearchives of a bishopric, it is hard to tell whether the bishop should becalled, first and foremost, a churchman or a feudal lord. In short, theduties of the bishop were as manifold as those of the mediæval Churchitself. [Sidenote: Election of the bishops. ] The reforms of Gregory VII had resulted in placing the choice of thebishop in the hands of the cathedral _chapter_, [139] that is, the bodyof clergy connected with the cathedral church. But this did not preventthe king from suggesting the candidate, since the chapter did notventure to proceed to an election without procuring a license from theking. Otherwise he might have refused to invest the person they chosewith the lands and political prerogatives attached to the office. [Illustration: Canterbury Cathedral] [Sidenote: The parish priest and his duties. ] The lowest division of the Church was the parish. This had definitelimits, although the parishioners might vary in number from a fewfamilies to a considerable village or an important district of a town. At the head of the parish was the parish priest, who conducted servicesin the parish church and absolved, baptized, married, and buried hisparishioners. The priests were supposed to be supported by the landsbelonging to the parish church and by the tithes. But both of thesesources of income were often in the hands of laymen or of a neighboringmonastery, while the priest received the merest pittance, scarcelysufficient to keep soul and body together. The parish church was the center of village life and the priest was thenatural guardian of the community. It was his business, for example, tosee that no undesirable persons lurked in the village, --heretics, sorcerers, or lepers. It will be observed that the priest, besidesattending to the morals of his flock, was expected to see to theirbodily welfare by preventing the presence of those afflicted with theonly infectious disease against which precautions were taken in theMiddle Ages. [140] [Sidenote: Other sources of the Church's power. ] 81. The unexampled authority of the mediæval Church is, however, onlypartially explained by its wonderful organization. To understand thehold which it had upon mankind, we must consider the exalted position ofthe clergy and the teachings of the Church in regard to salvation, ofwhich it claimed to be the exclusive agent. [Sidenote: The exalted position of the clergy. ] The clergy were set apart from the laity in several ways. The higherorders--bishop, priest, deacon, and sub-deacon--were required to remainunmarried, and in this way were freed from the cares and interests offamily life. The Church held, moreover, that the higher clergy, whenthey had been properly ordained, received through their ordination amysterious imprint, the "indelible character, " so that they could neverbecome simple laymen again, even if they ceased to perform their dutiesaltogether or were cast out of the Church for crime. Above all, theclergy alone could administer the _sacraments_ upon which the salvationof every individual soul depended. [Sidenote: Peter Lombard's _Sentences_. ] Although the Church believed that all the sacraments were established byChrist, it was not until the middle of the twelfth century that theywere clearly described. Peter Lombard (d. 1164), a teacher of theologyat Paris, prepared a manual of the doctrines of the Church as he foundthem in the Scriptures and in the writings of the church fathers, especially Augustine. These _Sentences_ (Latin, _sententiæ_, opinions)of Peter Lombard were very influential, for they appeared at a time whenthere was a new interest in theology, particularly at Paris, where agreat university was growing up. [141] [Sidenote: The seven sacraments. ] It was Peter Lombard who first distinctly formulated the doctrine of theseven sacraments. His teachings did not claim, of course, to be morethan an orderly statement and reconciliation of the various opinionswhich he found in the Scriptures and the church fathers; but hisinterpretations and definitions constituted a new basis for mediævaltheology. Before his time the word _sacramentum_ (that is, somethingsacred, a mystery) was applied to a variety of sacred things, forexample, baptism, the cross, Lent, holy water, etc. But Peter Lombardstates that there are seven sacraments, to wit: baptism, confirmation, extreme unction, marriage, penance, ordination, and the Lord's Supper. Through these sacraments all righteousness either has its beginning, orwhen begun is increased, or if lost is regained. They are essential tosalvation, and no one can be saved except through them. [142] [Sidenote: Baptism. ] [Sidenote: Confirmation. ] [Sidenote: Extreme unction. ] [Sidenote: Marriage. ] [Sidenote: Penance. ] [Sidenote: Ordination. ] [Sidenote: The Lord's Supper, or Holy Eucharist. ] By means of the sacraments the Church accompanied the faithful throughlife. By baptism all the sin due to Adam's fall was washed away; throughthat door alone could a soul enter the spiritual life. With the holy oiland the balsam, typifying the fragrance of righteousness, which wererubbed upon the forehead of the boy or girl at confirmation by thebishop, the young were strengthened so that they might boldly confessthe name of the Lord. If the believer fell perilously ill, the priestanointed him with oil in the name of the Lord and by this sacrament ofextreme unction expelled all vestiges of former sin and refreshed thespirit of the dying. Through the priest alone might marriage besanctified; and when the bonds were once legally contracted they mightnever be sundered. If evil desire, which baptism lessened but did notremove, led the Christian into deadly sin, as it constantly did, theChurch, through the sacrament of penance, reconciled him once more withGod and saved him from the jaws of hell. For the priest, through thesacrament of ordination, received the most exalted prerogative offorgiving sins. He enjoyed, too, the awful power and privilege ofperforming the miracle of the Mass, --of offering up Christ anew for theremission of the sinner's guilt. [Sidenote: The sacrament of penance. ] 82. The sacrament of penance is, with the Mass, of especial historicalimportance. When a bishop ordained a priest, he said to him: "Receive yethe Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven them:whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. " In this way the priestwas intrusted with the keys of the kingdom of heaven. There was no hopeof salvation for one who had fallen into mortal sin unless hereceived--or at least desired and sought--the absolution of the priest. To one who scorned the priest's ministrations the most sincere andprayerful repentance could not by itself bring forgiveness in the eyesof the Church. Before the priest could utter the solemn "I absolve theefrom thy sins, " the sinner must have duly confessed his sins and haveexpressed his vehement detestation of them and his firm resolve nevermore to offend. It is clear that the priest could not pronounce judgmentunless he had been told the nature of the case. Nor would he bejustified in absolving an offender who was not truly sorry for what hehad done. Confession and penitence were, therefore, necessarypreliminaries to absolution. [143] [Sidenote: Penance and purgatory. ] Absolution did not free the contrite sinner from all the results of hissin. It cleared the soul of the deadly guilt which would otherwise havebeen punished by everlasting suffering, but did not exempt the penitentfrom temporal penalties. These might be imposed by the priest in thisworld or suffered after death in the fires of purgatory, which cleansedthe soul and prepared it for heaven. [Sidenote: Nature of penance. ] The punishment prescribed by the priest was called _penance_. This tooka great variety of forms. It might consist in fasting, repeatingprayers, visiting holy places, or abstaining from one's ordinaryamusements. A journey to the Holy Land was regarded as taking the placeof all penance. Instead, however, of requiring the penitent actually toperform the fasts, pilgrimages, or other sacrifices imposed as penanceby the priest, the Church early permitted him to change his penance intoa contribution, to be applied to some pious enterprise, like building achurch or bridge, or caring for the poor and sick. [Sidenote: The Mass. ] [Sidenote: Transubstantiation. ] The priest not only forgave sin; he was also empowered to perform thestupendous miracle of the Mass. The early Christians had celebrated theLord's Supper or Holy Eucharist in various ways and entertained variousconceptions of its nature and significance. Gradually the idea came tobe universally accepted that by the consecration of the bread and thewine the whole substance of the bread was converted into the substanceof the body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine into hisblood. This change was termed _transubstantiation_. The Church believed, further, that in this sacrament Christ was offered up anew, as he hadbeen on the cross, as a sacrifice to God. This sacrifice might beperformed for the sins of the absent as well as of the present, and forthe dead as well as for the living. Moreover, Christ was to be worshipedunder the form of the bread, or _host_ (Latin, _hostia_, sacrifice), with the highest form of adoration. The host was to be borne about insolemn procession when God was to be especially propitiated, as in thecase of a famine or plague. [Sidenote: Consequences of conceiving the Mass as a sacrifice. ] This conception of the Mass as a sacrifice had some important practicalconsequences. It became the most exalted of the functions of the priestand the very center of the Church's services. Besides the public massesfor the people, private ones were constantly celebrated for the benefitof individuals, especially of the dead. Foundations were created, theincome of which went to support priests for the single purpose of sayingdaily masses for the repose of the soul of the donor or those of themembers of his family. It was also a common practice to bestow giftsupon churches and monasteries on condition that annual or more frequentmasses should be said for the giver. [Sidenote: The dominant position of the clergy and the sources of theirpower. ] [Sidenote: Excommunication and interdict. ] 83. The sublime prerogatives of the Church, together with its unrivaledorganization and vast wealth, combined to make its officers, the clergy, the most powerful social class of the Middle Ages. They held the keys ofheaven and without their aid no one could hope to enter in. Byexcommunication they could not only cast an offender out of the Church, but also forbid his fellow-men to associate with him, since he wasaccursed and consigned to Satan. By means of the _interdict_ they couldsuspend the consolations of religion in a whole city or country byclosing the church doors and prohibiting all public services. [144] [Sidenote: Their monopoly of the advantages of education. ] The influence of the clergy was greatly enhanced by the fact that theyalone were educated. For six or seven centuries after the overthrow ofthe Roman government in the West, very few outside of the clergy everdreamed of studying or even of learning to read and write. Even in thethirteenth century an offender who wished to prove that he belonged tothe clergy, in order that he might be tried by a church court, had onlyto show that he could read a single line; for it was assumed by thejudges that no one unconnected with the Church could read at all. [145] It was therefore inevitable that almost all the books should be writtenby priests and monks and that the clergy should become the ruling powerin all intellectual, artistic, and literary matters, --the chiefguardians and promoters of civilization. Moreover, the civil governmentwas forced to rely upon churchmen to write out the public documents andproclamations. The priests and monks held the pen for the king. Representatives of the clergy sat in the king's councils and acted ashis ministers; in fact, the conduct of the government largely devolvedupon them. [146] [Sidenote: Offices in the Church open to all classes. ] The offices in the Church were open to all ranks of men, and many of thepopes themselves sprang from the humblest classes. The Church thusconstantly recruited its ranks with fresh blood. No one held an officesimply because his father had held it before him, as was the case in thecivil government. [Sidenote: Lea's description of the mediæval Church. ] The man who entered the service of the Church "was released from thedistraction of family cares and the seduction of family ties. The Churchwas his country and his home and its interests were his own. The moral, intellectual, and physical forces, which throughout the laity weredivided between the claims of patriotism, the selfish struggle foradvancement, the provision for wife and children, were in the Churchconsecrated to a common end, in the success of which all might hope toshare, while all were assured of the necessities of existence, and wererelieved of anxiety as to the future. " The Church was thus "an armyencamped on the soil of Christendom, with its outposts everywhere, subject to the most efficient discipline, animated with a commonpurpose, every soldier panoplied with inviolability and armed with thetremendous weapons which slew the soul" (Lea). General Reading. --CUTTS, _Parish Priests and their People_ (E. & J. B. Young, $3. 00). PRÉVOST, _L'Église et les Campagnes au Moyen Âge_ (Paris, $1. 50). CHAPTER XVII HERESY AND THE FRIARS [Sidenote: The question of the character of the mediæval clergy. ] 84. It is natural to ask whether the commanders of the great army whichmade up the Church proved valiant leaders in the eternal warfare againstevil. Did they, on the whole, resist the temptations which their almostlimitless power and wealth constantly placed in their way? Did they usetheir vast resources to advance the cause of the Great Leader whosehumble followers and servants they claimed to be? Or were they, on thecontrary, selfish and corrupt, turning the teachings of the Church totheir own advantage, and discrediting its doctrines in the eyes of thepeople by flagrant maladministration and personal wickedness? [Sidenote: The debt of western Europe to the church. ] No simple answer to this question is possible. One who realizes howcompletely the Church dominated every human interest and influencedevery department of life in the Middle Ages must hesitate to attempt tobalance the good and evil to be placed to its account. That the Churchconferred incalculable benefits upon western Europe, few will question. To say nothing of its chief mission, --the moral uplifting of mankindthrough the Christian religion, --we have seen how, under its auspices, the barbarians were civilized and brought into the family of nations, how violence was checked by the "Truce of God, " and how an educatedclass was maintained during the centuries when few laymen could eitherread or write. These are only the more obvious of its achievements; thesolace and protection which it afforded to the weak, the wretched, andthe heart-sore, no one can assume to estimate. [Sidenote: The corruption of the clergy. ] On the other hand, no one can read the sources of our knowledge of thehistory of the Church without perceiving that there were always badclergymen who abused their high prerogatives. Many bishops and priestswere no more worthy to be intrusted with their extensive powers than theunscrupulous office-seekers to whom high stations in our moderngovernments sometimes fall. [Sidenote: Tendency to exaggerate the evil in the Church. ] Yet as we read the fiery denunciations of the clergy's evil practices, which may be found in the records of nearly every age, we must notforget that the critic is always prone to take the good for granted andto dwell upon the evil. This is particularly true in dealing with agreat religious institution, where corruption is especially shocking. One wicked bishop, or one form of oppression or immorality among theclergy, made a far deeper impression than the humble virtues of ahundred dutiful and God-fearing priests. If, however, we make all dueallowance for the good which escaped the writers of the twelfth andthirteenth centuries, it must be admitted by all who read theirtestimony that they give us a gloomy picture of the life of manyprelates, priests, and monks, and of the startling variety of abuseswhich developed in the Church. [Sidenote: Temptations to corruption among the clergy. ] Gregory VII imagined that the reason for the existence of bad clergymenwas that the kings and feudal lords forced their favorites into theoffices of the Church. The root of the difficulty lay, however, in thewealth and power of the Church itself. It would have needed saintsalways to exercise righteously the tremendous powers which the clergyhad acquired, and to resist the temptations to which they weresubjected. When we consider the position of a rich prelate, it is notsurprising that corruption abounded. The offices of the Church offeredthe same possibilities of money-making that civil offices, especiallythose in the great American cities, offer to the mere schemer to-day. The descriptions of some of the churchmen of the twelfth and thirteenthcenturies remind us far more of the professional politician than of amodern clergyman, whether Catholic or Protestant. [Sidenote: The chief forms of corruption in the Church. ] 85. At least a brief description of the more notorious forms ofcorruption among the clergy will be necessary to an understanding of thevarious heresies or revolts against the Church. These began seriously tothreaten its power in the twelfth century and culminated in thesuccessful Protestant revolt of the sixteenth. The vices of the clergyserve to account also for the appearance of the begging monks, theFranciscans and Dominicans, and to explain the need of the great reformwhich they undertook in the thirteenth century. [Sidenote: Simony. ] [Sidenote: The worldly and immoral lives of many bishops and abbots. ] In the first place, there was simony, a disease so deep-seated andpersistent that Innocent III declared it incurable. This has alreadybeen described in an earlier chapter. Even boys were made bishops andabbots through the influence of their friends and relatives. Wealthybishoprics and monasteries were considered by feudal lords an admirablemeans of support for their younger sons, since the eldest born usuallyinherited the fief. The life led by bishops and abbots was often merelythat of a feudal prince. If a prelate had a taste for fighting, heorganized military expeditions for conquest or to satisfy a grudgeagainst a neighbor, exactly as if he belonged to the bellicose laity ofthe period. [Sidenote: Corruption in the ecclesiastical courts. ] Besides simony and the scandalous lives of many of the clergy, therewere other evils which brought the Church into disrepute. While thepopes themselves, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, were usuallyexcellent men and sometimes distinguished statesmen, who honestlyendeavored to exalt the vast institution over which they presided, theirofficials, who tried the innumerable cases which were brought to thepapal court, had a reputation for grave corruption. [147] It wasgenerally believed that the decision was always in favor of him whocould pay most and that the poor received scant attention. The bishops'courts were notorious for their oppression, since a considerable portionof the bishop's income, like that of the feudal lord, came from thefines imposed upon those condemned by his officials. The same person wassometimes summoned to different courts at the same time and then finedfor neglecting to appear at one or the other. [Sidenote: The parish priests often no better than their superiors. ] As for the parish priests, they appear often to have followed thedemoralizing example set by their superiors. The acts of church councilsindicate that the priest sometimes turned his parsonage into a shop andsold wine or other commodities. He further increased his income, as wehave seen, by demanding fees for merely doing his duty in baptizing, confessing, absolving, marrying, and burying his parishioners. The monks of the twelfth century, with some remarkable exceptions, didlittle to supply the deficiencies of the secular clergy. [148] Instead ofinstructing the people and setting before them an example of a pure andholy life, they enjoyed no better reputation than the bishops andpriests. Efforts were made, however, by newly founded orders in theeleventh and twelfth centuries--like that of the Cistercians to whichSt. Bernard belonged--to reform the monks. [Sidenote: Corruption and abuses recognized and condemned by the betterelement in the clergy itself. ] The universal impression of selfishness and depravity which the corruptchurchmen made upon all observers is reflected in innumerable writingsof the time, --in the letters of the popes, in the exhortations of holymen like St. Bernard, in the acts of the councils, in the satiricalpoems of the popular troubadours and the sprightly versifiers of thecourts. [149] All agree in denouncing the iniquity of the clergy, theirgreed, and their reckless disregard of their sacred duties. St. Bernardsadly asks, "Whom can you show me among the prelates who does not seekrather to empty the pockets of his flock than to subdue their vices?" [Sidenote: The lay critics of the Church. ] 86. The evils which the churchmen themselves so frankly admitted couldnot escape the notice and comment of laymen. But while the betterelement among the clergy vigorously urged a reform of the existingabuses, no churchman dreamed of denying the truth of the Church'sdoctrines or the efficacy of its ceremonies. Among the laity, however, certain popular leaders arose who declared that the Church was thesynagogue of Satan; that no one ought any longer to rely upon it for hissalvation; that all its elaborate ceremonies were worse than useless;that its masses, holy water, and relics were mere money-getting devicesof a depraved priesthood and helped no one to heaven. These bold rebelsagainst the Church naturally found a hearing among those who felt thatthe ministrations of a wicked priest could not possibly help a sinner, as well as among those who were exasperated by the tithes and otherecclesiastical dues. [Sidenote: Heresy. ] Those who questioned the teachings of the Church and proposed to castoff its authority were, according to the accepted view of the time, guilty of the supreme crime of heresy. To the orthodox believer nothingcould exceed the guilt of one who committed treason against God byrejecting the religion which had been handed down in the Roman Churchfrom the immediate followers of his Son. Moreover, doubt and unbeliefwere not merely sin, they were revolt against the most powerful socialinstitution of the time, which, in spite of the depravity of some of itsofficials, continued to be venerated by people at large throughoutwestern Europe. The extent and character of the heresies of the twelfthand thirteenth centuries and the efforts of the Church to suppress themby persuasion, by fire and sword, and by the stern court of theInquisition, form a strange and terrible chapter in mediæval history. [Sidenote: Two classes of heretics. ] The heretics were of two sorts. One class merely abjured the practicesand some of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church while theyremained Christians and endeavored to imitate as nearly as possible thesimple life of Christ and the apostles. On the other hand, there werepopular leaders who taught that the Christian religion was false. Theyheld that there were two principles in the universe, the good and theevil, which were forever fighting for the victory. They asserted thatthe Jehovah of the Old Testament was really the evil power, and that itwas, therefore, the evil power whom the Catholic Church worshiped. [Sidenote: The Albigenses. ] This latter heresy was a very old one, by which even St. Augustine hadbeen fascinated in his early years. It was revived in Italy in theeleventh century and became very popular, especially in southern France, in the twelfth. Its adherents called themselves _Cathari_ (the pure), but we shall call them _Albigenses_, a name derived from the town ofAlbi in southern France, where they were very numerous. [150] [Sidenote: The Waldensians. ] Among those who continued to accept the Christian faith but refused toobey the clergy on account of their wickedness, the most important sectwas that of the Waldensians. These were followers of Peter Waldo ofLyons, who gave up all their property and lived a life of apostolicpoverty. They went about preaching the Gospel and expounding theScriptures, which they translated into the language of the people. Theymade many converts, and before the end of the twelfth century there weregreat numbers of them scattered throughout western Europe. The Church did not wish to condemn the efforts of good and simple men toimitate as exactly as possible the life of Christ and the apostles. Nevertheless these laymen, who claimed the right to preach and hearconfession, and who asserted that prayer was quite as efficacious whenuttered in bed or in a stable as in a church, seemed clearly to call inquestion the general belief in the Church as the exclusive agent ofsalvation, and seriously to threaten its influence among the people. [Sidenote: Beginning of the fight against heresy. ] Before the end of the twelfth century the secular rulers began to takenotice of heresy. Henry II of England, in 1166, ordered that no oneshould harbor heretics in England, and that any house in which they werereceived should be burned. The king of Aragon decreed (1194) that anyone who listened to the preaching of the Waldensians, or even gave themfood, should suffer the penalties for treason and should have hisproperty confiscated by the state. These are the beginnings of a seriesof pitiless decrees which even the most enlightened kings of thethirteenth century issued against all who should be convicted ofbelonging either to the Albigenses or the Waldensians. The Church andthe civil government agreed that heretics were dangerous to the welfareof both, and that they were criminals deserving the terrible death ofburning alive. [151] [Sidenote: Heresy regarded as treason. ] It is very difficult for us who live in a tolerant age to understand theuniversal and deep-rooted horror of heresy which prevailed not only inthe twelfth and thirteenth centuries, but also down at least to theeighteenth. Too much stress cannot be laid upon the fact that heresy wasconsidered treason against an institution which practically all, boththe learned and the unlearned, agreed was not only essential tosalvation but was necessary also to order and civilization. Frankcriticism of the evil lives of the clergy, not excluding the popehimself, was common enough. But this did not constitute heresy. Onemight believe that the pope and half the bishops were bad men, and yetin no way question the necessity for the Church's existence or the truthof every one of its dogmas; just as nowadays we might call particularrulers and government officials fools or knaves, without beingsuspected of repudiating government altogether. The heretic was theanarchist of the Middle Ages. He did not simply denounce the immoralityof the officers of the Church; he claimed that the Church was worse thanuseless. He sought to lead people to throw off their allegiance to itand to disregard its laws and commands. The Church and the civilgovernment consequently proceeded against him as against an enemy ofsociety and order. Heresy was, moreover, a contagious disease, andspread rapidly and unobserved, so that to the rulers of the times eventhe harshest measures appeared justifiable in order to prevent itsdissemination. [Sidenote: Different methods of opposing heresy. ] [Sidenote: Internal reform. ] 87. There were several ways of opposing heresy. First, a reform of thecharacter of the clergy and a suppression of the abuses in the Churchwould have removed a great cause of that discontent to which the writersof the time attributed the rapid growth of heresy. The attempt ofInnocent III to improve the conditions in the Church by summoning agreat council at Rome in 1215 failed, however, and, according to hissuccessor, matters grew worse rather than better. [Sidenote: Extermination by the sword. ] A second plan was to organize an expedition against the rebels andannihilate them by the sword. This policy was only possible if a largenumber of heretics could be found in a single district. In southernFrance there were many adherents of both the Albigenses and theWaldensians, especially in the county of Toulouse. At the beginning ofthe thirteenth century there was in this region an open contempt for theChurch and a bold defense of heretical teachings even among the higherclasses. [Sidenote: Albigensian crusade. ] Against the people of this flourishing land Innocent III preached acrusade in 1208. An army under Simon de Montfort[152] marched fromnorthern France into the doomed region and, after one of the mostatrocious and bloody wars upon record, suppressed the heresy bywholesale slaughter. At the same time the war checked the civilizationand destroyed the prosperity of the most enlightened portion of France. [Sidenote: The Inquisition. ] The third and most permanent defense against heresy was theestablishment, under the headship of the pope, of a system of tribunalsdesigned to ferret out secret cases of unbelief and bring the offendersto punishment. These courts of experts, who devoted their wholeattention to the discovery and conviction of heresy, constituted theHoly Inquisition, which gradually took form after the Albigensiancrusade. We cannot stop to describe these courts, which becameespecially notorious in Spain some two centuries after theirestablishment. The unfairness of the trials and the cruel treatment towhich those suspected of heresy were subjected, through longimprisonment or torture--inflicted with the hope of forcing them toconfess their crime or implicate others--have rendered the name of theInquisition infamous. Without by any means attempting to defend the methods employed, it maybe remarked that the inquisitors were often earnest and upright menwhose feelings were not unlike those of a New England judge presiding ata witch trial in the seventeenth century. The methods of procedure ofthe Inquisition were not more cruel than those used in the secularcourts of the period. The assertion of the suspected person that he was not a heretic did notreceive any attention, for it was assumed that he would naturally denyhis guilt, as would any other criminal. A person's belief had, therefore, to be judged by outward acts. Consequently one might fallinto the hands of the Inquisition by mere inadvertent conversation witha heretic, by some unintentional neglect to show due respect toward theChurch rites, or by the malicious testimony of one's neighbors. This isreally the most dreadful aspect of the Inquisition and its procedure. It put a premium on talebearing and resorted to most cruel means toconvict those who earnestly denied that their beliefs were differentfrom those of the Church. [Sidenote: Fate of the convicted heretic. ] If the suspected person confessed his guilt and abjured his heresy, hewas forgiven and received back into the Church; but a penance of lifeimprisonment was imposed upon him as a fitting means of wiping away theunspeakable sin of which he had been guilty. If he remained impenitent, he was "relaxed to the secular arm"[153]; that is to say, the Church, whose law forbade it to shed blood, handed over the convicted person tothe civil power, which burned him alive without further trial. [Sidenote: Founding of the mendicant orders. ] 88. We may now turn to that far more cheerful and effective method ofmeeting the opponents of the Church, which may be said to have beendiscovered by St. Francis of Assisi. His teachings and the example ofhis beautiful life probably did far more to secure continued allegianceto the Church than all the hideous devices of the Inquisition. We have seen how the Waldensians tried to better the world by livingsimple lives and preaching the Gospel. Owing to the disfavor of thechurch authorities, who declared their teachings erroneous anddangerous, they were prevented from publicly carrying on theirmissionary work. Yet all conscientious men agreed with the Waldensiansthat the world was in a sad plight owing to the negligence and themisdeeds of the clergy. St. Francis and St. Dominic strove to meet theneeds of their time by inventing a new kind of clergyman, the beggingbrother, or mendicant friar (Latin, _frater_, brother). He was to dojust what the bishops and parish priests ordinarily failed todo, --namely, lead a holy life of self-sacrifice, defend the orthodoxbeliefs against the reproaches and attacks of the heretics, and awakenthe people at large to a new spiritual life. The founding of themendicant orders is one of the most important and interesting events ofthe Middle Ages. [Sidenote: St. Francis of Assisi, 1182-1226. ] There is no more lovely and fascinating figure in all history than St. Francis. He was born (probably in 1182) at Assisi, a little town incentral Italy. He was the son of a well-to-do merchant, and during hisearly youth he lived a very gay life, spending his father's moneyfreely. He read the French romances of the time and dreamed of imitatingthe brave knights whose adventures they described. Although hiscompanions were wild and reckless, there was a delicacy and chivalry inFrancis' own make-up which made him hate all things coarse andheartless. When later he voluntarily became a beggar, his ragged coatstill covered a true poet and knight. [Sidenote: Francis forsakes his life of luxury and his inheritance andbecomes a hermit. ] The contrast between his own life of luxury and the sad state of thepoor early afflicted him. When he was about twenty, after a long andserious illness which made a break in his gay life and gave him time tothink, he suddenly lost his love for the old pleasures and began toconsort with the destitute, above all with the lepers. Now Francis, being delicately organized and nurtured, especially loathed thesemiserable creatures, but he forced himself to kiss their hands, as ifthey were his friends, and to wash their sores. So he gained a greatvictory over himself, and that which seemed bitter to him became, as hesays, "sweet and easy. " His father does not appear to have had any fondness whatever forbeggars, and the relations between him and his son grew more and morestrained. When finally he threatened to disinherit the young man, Francis cheerfully agreed to surrender all right to his inheritance. Stripping off his clothes and giving them back to his father, heaccepted the worn-out garment of a gardener and became a homelesshermit, busying himself in repairing the dilapidated chapels nearAssisi. [Sidenote: He believes he receives a direct message from Heaven. ] One day in February, 1209, as he was listening to Mass, the priest, turning toward him by chance, read: "And as ye go, preach, saying, Thekingdom of heaven is at hand.... Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brassin your purses, no wallet for your journey, neither two coats, norshoes, nor staff; for the laborer is worthy of his food" (Matt. X. 7-10). This seemed to the expectant Francis the answer of Christ himselfto his longings for guidance. Here was a complete programme laid out forhim. He threw aside his stick, wallet, and shoes and resolved thereafterto lead, literally and absolutely, the life the apostles had led. [Sidenote: Francis begins to preach and to attract followers. ] He began to preach in a simple way, and before long a richfellow-townsman resolved to sell all and give to the poor, and followFrancis' example. Others soon joined them, and these joyous penitents, free of worldly burdens, calling themselves "God's troubadours, " wentbarefoot and moneyless about central Italy preaching the Gospel. Some ofthose they met "listened willingly, others scoffed, the greater numberoverwhelmed them with questions, 'Whence come you? Of what order areyou?' and they, though sometimes it was wearisome to answer, saidsimply, 'We are penitents, natives of the city of Assisi. '" [Sidenote: Seeks and obtains the approval of the pope. ] When, with a dozen followers, Francis appealed to the pope in 1210 toapprove his plan, Innocent III hesitated. He did not believe that anyone could lead a life of absolute poverty. Then might not these ragged, ill-kempt vagabonds appear to condemn the Church by adopting a life sodifferent from that of the rich and comfortable clergy? Yet if hedisapproved the friars, he would seem to disapprove at the same timeChrist's directions to his apostles. He finally decided to give his oralsanction and to authorize the brethren to continue their missions. Theywere to receive the tonsure, and to come under the spiritual authorityof the Roman Church. [Sidenote: Missionary work undertaken. ] 89. Seven years later, when Francis' followers had greatly increased, missionary work was begun on a large scale, and brethren were dispatchedto Germany, Hungary, France, Spain, and even to Syria. It was not longbefore an English chronicler was telling with wonder of the arrival inhis country of these barefoot men, in their patched gowns and with ropesabout their waists, who, with Christian faith, took no thought for themorrow, believing that their Heavenly Father knew what things they hadneed of. [Sidenote: Francis did not desire to found a powerful order. ] The ill treatment which the friars received in their distant journeysled them to appeal to the pope for a letter which should request thefaithful everywhere to treat them kindly, since they were goodCatholics. This was the beginning of numberless privileges from thepope. It grieved Francis, however, to see his little band of companionsconverted into a great and powerful order. He foresaw that they wouldsoon cease to lead their simple, holy life, and would become ambitiousand perhaps rich. "I, little Brother Francis, " he writes, "desire tofollow the life and the poverty of Jesus Christ, persevering thereinuntil the end; and I beg you all and exhort you to persevere always inthis most holy life of poverty, and take good care never to depart fromit upon the advice and teachings of anyone whomsoever. " [Sidenote: Francis reluctantly draws up a new rule for the guidance ofthe friars. ] Francis sorrowfully undertook to draw up a new and more elaborateconstitution to take the place of the few Gospel passages which he hadoriginally brought together as a guide. After many modifications, tosuit the ideas of the pope and the cardinals, the Franciscan Rule wassolemnly ratified (1228) by Honorius III. It provides that "The brothersshall appropriate nothing to themselves, neither a house, nor a place, nor anything; but as pilgrims and strangers in this world, in povertyand humility serving God, they shall confidently seek alms. Nor needthey be ashamed, for the Lord made Himself poor for us in this world. "Yet the friars are to work if they are able and if their charitable andreligious duties leave them time to do so. They may be paid for thislabor in necessities for themselves or their brethren, but never maythey receive coin or money. Those may wear shoes who cannot get alongwithout them. They may repair their garments with sackcloth and otherremnants. They must live in absolute obedience to their superior and maynot, of course, marry nor may they leave the order. [154] After the death of St. Francis (1226), many of the order, which nownumbered several thousand members, wished to maintain the simple rule ofabsolute poverty. Others, including the new head of the order, believedthat much good might be done with the wealth which people were anxiousto give them. They argued that the individual friars might still remainabsolutely possessionless, even if the order had beautiful churches andcomfortable monasteries. A stately church was immediately constructed atAssisi to receive the remains of their humble founder, who in hislifetime had chosen a deserted hovel for his home; and a great chest wasset up in the church to receive offerings. [Sidenote: St. Dominic. ] 90. St. Dominic (b. 1170), the founder of the other great mendicantorder, was not a simple layman like Francis. He was a churchman and tooka regular course of instruction in theology for ten years in a Spanishuniversity. He then (1208) accompanied his bishop to southern France onthe eve of the Albigensian crusade and was deeply shocked to see theprevalence of heresy. His host at Toulouse happened to be anAlbigensian, and Dominic spent the night in converting him. He then andthere determined to devote his life to the extirpation of heresy. Thelittle we know of him indicates that he was a man of resolute purposeand deep convictions, full of burning zeal for the Christian faith, yetkindly and cheerful, and winning in manner. [Sidenote: Founding of the Dominican order. ] By 1214 a few sympathetic spirits from various parts of Europe hadjoined Dominic, and they asked Innocent III to sanction their new order. The pope again hesitated, but is said to have dreamed a dream in whichhe saw the great Roman Church of the Lateran tottering and ready to fallhad not Dominic supported it on his shoulders. So he inferred that thenew organization might sometime become a great aid to the papacy andgave it his approval. As soon as possible Dominic sent forth hisfollowers, of whom there were but sixteen, to evangelize the world, justas the Franciscans were undertaking their first missionary journeys. By1221 the Dominican order was thoroughly organized and had sixtymonasteries scattered over western Europe. "Wandering on foot over theface of Europe, under burning suns or chilling blasts, rejecting alms inmoney but receiving thankfully whatever coarse food might be set beforethe wayfarer, enduring hunger in silent resignation, taking no thoughtfor the morrow, but busied eternally in the work of snatching souls fromSatan and lifting men up from the sordid cares of daily life, ofministering to their infirmities and of bringing to their darkened soulsa glimpse of heavenly light" (Lea), --in this way did the earlyFranciscans and Dominicans win the love and veneration of the people. [Sidenote: Contrast between the mendicants and the older orders. ] 91. Unlike the Benedictine monks, each of the friars was under thecommand not only of the head of his particular monastery, but also ofthe "general" of the whole order. Like a soldier, he was liable to besent by his commander upon any mission that the work of the orderdemanded. The friars indeed regarded themselves as soldiers of Christ. Instead of devoting themselves to a life of contemplation apart from theworld, like the earlier monks, they were accustomed and required to mixwith all classes of men. They must be ready to dare and suffer all inthe interest of their work of saving not only themselves but theirfellow-men. [Sidenote: Contrast between the Dominicans and the Franciscans. ] The Dominicans were called the "Preaching Friars" and were carefullytrained in theology in order the better to refute the arguments of theheretics. The pope delegated to them especially the task of conductingthe Inquisition. They early began to extend their influence over theuniversities, and the two most distinguished theologians and teachers ofthe thirteenth century, Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, wereDominicans. Among the Franciscans, on the other hand, there was always aconsiderable party who were suspicious of learning and who showed farmore anxiety to remain absolutely poor than did the Dominicans. Yet as awhole the Franciscans, like the Dominicans, accepted the wealth thatcame to them, and they, too, contributed distinguished scholars to theuniversities. [Sidenote: Importance and influence of the new orders. ] The pope quickly recognized the importance of these new orders. Hegranted them successive privileges which freed them from all control ofthe bishops, and finally declared that they were to be bound only bytheir own rules. What was still more important, he gave them the right, if they were priests, to celebrate Mass everywhere, to preach and toperform the ordinary functions of the parish priests, such as hearingconfession, granting absolution, and conducting burials. The friarsinvaded every parish, and appear to have largely replaced the parishpriests. The laity believed them to be holier than the secular clergyand therefore regarded their prayers and ministrations as moreefficient. Few towns were without a gray friars' (Franciscan) or a blackfriars' (Dominican) cloister; few princes but had a Dominican or aFranciscan confessor. [Sidenote: Opposition of the secular clergy. ] It is hardly necessary to say that the secular clergy took theseencroachments very ill. They repeatedly appealed to the pope to abolishthe orders, or at least to prevent them from enriching themselves at theexpense of the parish priests. But they got little satisfaction. Oncethe pope quite frankly told a great deputation of cardinals, bishops, and minor clergy that it was their own vain and worldly lives whichmade them hate the mendicant brothers, who spent the bequests theyreceived from the dying for the honor of God, instead of wasting it inpleasure. The mendicant orders have counted among their numbers men of thegreatest ability and distinction, --scholars like Thomas Aquinas, reformers like Savonarola, artists like Fra Angelico and FraBartolommeo, and scientists like Roger Bacon. In the busy world of thethirteenth century there was no agency more active for good than thefriars. Yet their vagrant lives, free from the ordinary control of theChurch, and the great wealth which was showered upon them, afforded manyobvious temptations which they did not long withstand. Bonaventura, whowas made head of the Franciscan order in 1257, admits the generaldislike aroused by the greed, idleness, and vice of its degeneratemembers, as well as by their importunate begging, which rendered thefriar more troublesome to the wayfarer than the robber. Nevertheless thefriars were preferred to the ordinary priests by high and low alike; itwas they, rather than the secular clergy, who maintained and cultivatedthe religious life in both city and country. General Reading. --The opening chapter of Lea's monumental work, _A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages_ (Harper Bros. & Co. , 3 vols. , $10. 00), gives a remarkable account of the mediæval Church and the abuses which prevailed. The first volume also contains unexcelled chapters upon the origin of both the Franciscan and Dominican orders. For St. Francis, by far the best work is Sabatier's beautiful biography, _St. Francis of Assisi_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, $2. 50). The earliest and best source for Francis is _The Mirror of Perfection_ (Page, Boston, 75 cents), by Brother Leo, which shows the love and admiration in which "Little Brother Francis" was held by one of his companions. See also JESSOPP, _The Coming of the Friars, and Other Historic Essays_ (G. P. Putnam's Sons, $1. 25), Chapter I. CHAPTER XVIII THE PEOPLE IN COUNTRY AND TOWN [Sidenote: Little known of the life of the people in the Middle Ages. ] 92. Since the development of the rather new science of politicaleconomy, historical writers have become much interested in the conditionand habits of the farmer, tradesman, and artisan in the Middle Ages. Unfortunately no amount of research is likely to make our knowledge veryclear or certain regarding the condition of the people at large duringthe five or six centuries following the barbarian invasions. It rarelyoccurred to a mediæval chronicler to describe the familiar things abouthim, such as the way in which the peasant lived and tilled his land. Only the conspicuous personages and the startling events caught hisattention. Nevertheless enough is known of the mediæval manor and townto make them very important subjects for the student of general history. [Sidenote: Unimportance of town life in the early Middle Ages. ] There was little town life in western Europe before the twelfth century. The Roman towns were decreasing in population before the German inroads. The confusion which followed the invasions hastened their decline, and agreat number of them disappeared altogether. Those which survived andsuch new towns as sprang up were, to judge from the chronicles, of verylittle importance during the early Middle Ages. We may assume, therefore, that during the long period from Theodoric to FrederickBarbarossa by far the greater part of the population of England, Germany, and northern and central France were living in the country, onthe great estates belonging to the feudal lords, abbots, andbishops. [155] [Sidenote: The manor, or vill. ] These mediæval estates were called _vills_, or _manors_, and closelyresembled the Roman villas described in an earlier chapter. A portion ofthe estate was reserved by the lord for his own use; the rest of it wasdivided up among the peasants, [156] usually in long strips, of whicheach peasant had several scattered about the manor. The peasants weregenerally serfs who did not own their fields, but could not, on theother hand, be deprived of them so long as they worked for the lord andpaid him certain dues. They were attached to the land and went with itwhen it changed hands. The serfs were required to till those fieldswhich the lord reserved for himself and to gather in his crops. Theymight not marry without their lord's permission. Their wives andchildren rendered such assistance as was necessary in the manor house. In the women's buildings the daughters of the serfs engaged in spinning, weaving, sewing, baking, and brewing, thus producing clothes, food, anddrink to be used by the whole community. [Illustration: An English Manor House, Thirteenth Century] [Sidenote: The obligations of the serfs. ] We get our clearest ideas of the position of the serfs from the ancientdescriptions of manors, which give an exact account of what each memberof a particular community owed to the lord. For example, we find thatthe abbot of Peterborough held a manor upon which Hugh Miller andseventeen other serfs, mentioned by name, were required to work for himthree days in each week during the whole year, except one week atChristmas, one at Easter, and one at Whitsuntide. Each serf was to givethe lord abbot one bushel of wheat and eighteen sheaves of oats, threehens and one cock yearly, and five eggs at Easter. If he sold his horsefor more than ten shillings, he was to give the said abbot four pence. Five other serfs, mentioned by name, held but half as much land as Hughand his companions, by paying and doing in all things half as muchservice. There were sometimes a few people on the manor who did not belong to thegreat body of cultivators. The limits of the manor and those of theparish often coincided; in that case there would be a priest who hadsome scattered acres and whose standing was naturally somewhat superiorto that of the people about him. Then the miller, who ground the flourand paid a substantial rent to the lord, was generally somewhat betteroff than his neighbors, and the same may be said of the blacksmith. [Sidenote: The manor independent of the outside world. ] One of the most remarkable characteristics of the manor was itsindependence of the rest of the world. It produced nearly everythingthat its members needed and might almost have continued to existindefinitely without communication with those who lived beyond itsbounds. Little or no money was necessary, for the peasants paid what wasdue to the lord in the form of labor and farm products. They alsorendered the needful help to one another and found little occasion forbuying and selling. [Sidenote: The monotony and misery of the peasants' lives. ] There was almost no opportunity to better one's condition, and life, inthe greater part of the hamlets, must have gone on for generation aftergeneration in a weary routine. The life was not merely monotonous, itwas miserable. The food was coarse and there was little variety, as thepeasants did not even take pains to raise fresh vegetables. The housesusually had but one room. This was ill-lighted by a single little windowand had no chimney. [Sidenote: The manor court. ] Yet the very dependence upon one another can hardly have failed toproduce a certain spirit of brotherhood and mutual assistance in thecommunity. It was not only separated from the outside world, but itsmembers were brought together constantly by their intermingled fields, their attendance at one church, and their responsibility to oneproprietor. The men were all expected to be present at the "court" whichwas held in each manor, where the business of the manor was transactedunder the supervision of a representative of the lord. Here, forinstance, disputes were settled, fines imposed for the violation of thecustoms of the manor, and redistributions of the strips of land tookplace. [Sidenote: The serf an inferior farmer who could only exist when therewas plenty of land. ] The serf was ordinarily a bad farmer and workman. He cultivated the soilin a very crude manner, and his crops were accordingly scanty andinferior. Obviously serfdom could exist only as long as land wasplentiful. But in the twelfth and thirteenth century western Europeappears to have been gaining steadily in population. Serfdom would, therefore, naturally tend to disappear when the population so increasedthat the carelessly cultivated fields no longer supplied the foodnecessary for the growing numbers. [Sidenote: Barter replaced by money transactions. ] The increased use of money in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, which came with the awakening trade and industry, also tended to breakup the manor. The old habit of bartering one thing for another withoutthe intervention of money began to disappear. As time went on, neitherthe lord nor the serf was satisfied with the ancient primitivearrangements, which had answered well enough in the time of Charlemagne. The serfs, on the one hand, began to obtain money by the sale of theirproducts in the markets of neighboring towns. They soon found it moreprofitable to pay the lord a certain sum instead of working for him, forthey could then turn their whole attention to their own farms. Theproprietors, on the other hand, found it to their advantage to acceptmoney in place of the services of their tenants. With this money thelandlord could hire laborers to cultivate his fields and could buy theluxuries which were brought to his notice as commerce increased. So itcame about that the lords gradually renounced their control over thepeasants, and the serf was no longer easily distinguishable from thefreeman who paid a regular rent for his land. [157] A serf might alsogain his liberty by fleeing to a town. If he remained undiscovered, orwas unclaimed by his lord, for a year and a day, he became a freeman. [Sidenote: Disappearance of serfdom. ] The slow extinction of serfdom in western Europe appears to have begunas early as the twelfth century. A very general emancipation had takenplace in France by the end of the thirteenth century (and in Englandsomewhat later), though there were still some serfs in France when therevolution came in 1789. Germany was far more backward in this respect. We find the peasants revolting against their hard lot in Luther's time, and it was not until the beginning of the nineteenth century that theserfs were freed in Prussia. [Sidenote: Importance of town life. ] 93. It is hardly necessary to point out that the gradual reappearance oftown life in western Europe is of the greatest interest to the studentof history. The cities had been the centers of Greek and Romancivilization, and in our own time they dominate the life, culture, andbusiness enterprise of the world. Were they to disappear, our wholelife, even in the country, would necessarily undergo a profound changeand tend to become primitive again like that of the age of Charlemagne. [Sidenote: Origin of the mediæval towns. ] [Sidenote: Compactness of a mediæval town. ] A great part of the mediæval towns, of which we begin to have somescanty records about the year 1000, appear to have originated on themanors of feudal lords or about a monastery or castle. The French namefor town, _ville_, is derived from vill, the name of the manor. The needof protection was probably the usual reason for establishing a town witha wall about it, so that the neighboring country people might findsafety in it when attacked. The way in which a mediæval town was builtseems to justify this conclusion. It was generally crowded and compactcompared with its more luxurious Roman predecessors. Aside from themarket place there were few or no open spaces. There were noamphitheaters or public baths as in the Roman cities. The streets wereoften mere alleys over which the jutting stories of the high housesalmost met. The high, thick wall that surrounded it prevented itsextending easily and rapidly as our cities do nowadays. [Sidenote: Townsmen originally serfs. ] All towns outside of Italy were evidently small in the eleventh andtwelfth centuries, and, like the manors on which they had grown up, theyhad little commerce as yet with the outside world. They produced almostall that their inhabitants needed except the farm products which camefrom the neighboring country. There was likely to be little expansion solong as the town remained under the absolute control of the lord ormonastery upon whose land it was situated. The townspeople were scarcelymore than serfs, in spite of the fact that they lived within a wall andengaged in industry instead of farming. They had to pay irritating duesto their lord, just as if they had still formed a farming community. Theemancipation of the townsmen from their lords and the establishment of asuitable form of government for their town were necessary preliminariesto the free development of town life. [Sidenote: Increase of trade promotes the growth of the towns. ] With the increase of trade came the longing for this freedom. For whennew and attractive commodities began to be brought from the East and theSouth, the people of the towns were encouraged to produce goods with theidea of exchanging them at some neighboring fair for the products ofdistant lands. But no sooner did the townsmen begin to engage inmanufacturing and to enter into relations with the outside world, thanthey became conscious that they were greatly hampered by theirhalf-servile condition and were subject to exactions and restrictionswhich would render progress impossible. Consequently during the twelfthcentury there were many insurrections of the towns against their lordsand a general demand that the lords should grant the townsmen _charters_in which the rights of both parties should be definitely stated. [Illustration: A Castle on the Rhine with a Village below it] [Sidenote: The communes. ] In France the citizens organized themselves into what were called_communes_, or unions for the purpose of gaining their independence. This word _commune_ appeared a new and detestable one to the lords, for, to their minds, it was merely another name for a company of serfsleagued against their masters. The nobles sometimes put down theinsurrections of their townsmen with great cruelty. On the other hand, the lords often realized that they would increase the prosperity oftheir towns by granting them freedom from arbitrary taxation and theright to govern themselves. In England the towns gained their privilegesmore gradually by purchasing them from the lords. [Sidenote: Town charters. ] The town charters were written contracts between the lord and thecommune or the guild of merchants of a town. The charter served at onceas the certificate of birth of the town and as its constitution. Itcontained a promise on the part of the lord or king to recognize theexistence of the guild of merchants. It limited the rights of the lordin calling the townsmen before his court and fining them, and enumeratedthe taxes which he might exact from the townspeople. The old dues andservices were either abolished or changed into money payments. King Henry II of England promised the inhabitants of Wallingford that"wheresoever they shall go on their journeys as merchants through mywhole land of England and Normandy, Aquitaine and Anjou, 'by water andby strand, by wood and by land, ' they shall be free from toll andpassage fees and from all customs and exactions; nor are they to betroubled in this respect by anyone under penalty of ten pounds. " In thecase of the town of Southampton he concedes "that my men of Hamptonshall have and hold their guild and all their liberties and customs, byland and by sea, in as good, peaceable, just, free, quiet, and honorablea manner as they had the same most freely and quietly in the time ofKing Henry, my grandfather; and let no one upon this do them any injuryor insult. " [Sidenote: Customs revealed in the charters. ] The customs of the times, as revealed in the charters, seem to us veryprimitive. We find in the charter of the French town of St. Omer, in1168, provisions like the following: He who shall commit a murder in thetown shall not find an asylum anywhere within the walls. If he shallseek to escape punishment by flight, his buildings shall be torn downand his goods confiscated; nor may he come back into the town unless hebe first reconciled with the relations of his victim and pay ten pounds, of which a half shall go to the lord's representatives and the otherhalf to the commune, to be spent on its fortifications. He who strikesanother one in the town shall pay one hundred sous; he who pulls out thehair of another shall pay forty sous, etc. [Illustration: A Mediæval Town, Siegen] Many of the towns had, as a visible sign of their freedom, a belfry, ahigh building with a watchtower, where a guard was kept day and night inorder that the bell might be rung in case of approaching danger. Itcontained an assembly hall, where the commune held its meetings, and aprison. In the fourteenth century the wonderful townhalls began to beerected, which, with the exception of the cathedrals and other churches, are usually the most remarkable buildings which the traveler sees to-dayin the old commercial cities of Europe. [Sidenote: Craft guilds. ] The tradesmen in the mediæval towns were at once artisans and merchants;they not only made, but offered for sale, the articles which theyproduced in their shops. In addition to the original guild of merchantswhich helped the towns to gain and preserve their privileges, many newcorporations of tradesmen grew up, the so-called _craft guilds_. Theoldest statutes of a guild in Paris are those of the candle makers, which go back to 1061. The number of trades differed greatly indifferent towns, but the guilds all had the same object, --to preventevery one from practicing a trade who had not been duly admitted to thecorporation. [Illustation: LINES OF TRADE AND MEDIÆVAL TOWNS] [Sidenote: The guild system. ] A young man had to spend several years in learning his trade. He livedin the house of a master workman, but received no remuneration. He thenbecame a "journeyman" and could earn wages, although he could still workonly for master workmen and not directly for the public. A simple trademight be learned in three years, but to become a goldsmith one must bean apprentice for ten years. The number of apprentices that a masterworkman might employ was strictly limited, in order that the journeymenmight not become too numerous. The way in which each trade was to bepracticed was carefully regulated, as well as the time that should bespent in work each day. The system of guilds discouraged enterprise butmaintained a uniform efficiency everywhere. Had it not been for theseunions, the defenseless, isolated workmen, serfs as they had formerlybeen, would have found it impossible to secure freedom and municipalindependence from the feudal lords who had formerly been their masters. [Sidenote: Practical disappearance of commerce in the early MiddleAges. ] 94. The chief reason for the growth of the towns and their increasingprosperity was a great development of trade throughout western Europe. Commerce had pretty much disappeared with the decline of the Roman roadsand the general disorganization produced by the barbarian invasions. There was no one in the Middle Ages to mend the ancient Roman roads. Thegreat network of highways from Persia to Britain fell apart whenindependent nobles or poor local communities took the place of a worldempire. All trade languished, for there was little demand for thosearticles of luxury which the Roman communities in the North had beenaccustomed to obtain from the South. There was little money and scarcelyany notion of luxury, for the nobility lived a simple life in theirdreary and rudely furnished castles. [Sidenote: Italian cities trade with the Orient. ] In Italy, however, trade does not seem to have altogether ceased. Venice, Genoa, Amalfi, and other towns appear to have developed aconsiderable Mediterranean commerce even before the Crusades. Theirmerchants, as we have seen, supplied the destitute crusaders with thematerial necessary for the conquest of Jerusalem. The passion forpilgrimages offered inducements to the Italian merchants for expeditionsto the Orient, whither they transported the pilgrims and returned withthe products of the East. The Italian cities established tradingstations in the East and carried on a direct traffic with the caravanswhich brought to the shores of the Mediterranean the products of Arabia, Persia, India, and the Spice Islands. The southern French towns andBarcelona entered also into commercial relations with the Mohammedans innorthern Africa. [Illustration: Street in Frankfort-on-the-Main] [Sidenote: Commerce stimulates industry. ] This progress in the South could not but stir the lethargy of the restof Europe. The new commerce encouraged a revolution in industry. So longas the manor system prevailed and each man was occupied in producingonly what he and the other members of his group needed, there wasnothing to send abroad and nothing to exchange for luxuries. But whenmerchants began to come with tempting articles, the members of acommunity were encouraged to produce a surplus of goods above what theythemselves needed, and to sell or exchange this surplus for commoditiescoming from a distance. Merchants and artisans gradually directed theirenergies toward the production of what others wished as well as what wasneeded by the little group to which they belonged. [Sidenote: The luxuries of the East introduced into Europe. ] The romances of the twelfth century indicate that the West wasastonished and delighted by the luxuries of the East, --the rich fabrics, Oriental carpets, precious stones, perfumes, drugs (like camphor andlaudanum), silks and porcelains from China, spices from India, andcotton from Egypt. Venice introduced the silk industry from the East andthe manufacture of those glass articles which the traveler may still buyin the Venetian shops. The West learned how to make silk and velvet aswell as light and gauzy cotton and linen fabrics. The eastern dyes wereintroduced, and Paris was soon imitating the tapestries of the Saracens. In exchange for those luxuries which they were unable to produce, theFlemish towns sent their woolen cloths to the East, and Italy its wines. But there was apparently always a considerable cash balance to be paidto the Oriental merchants, since the West could not produce enough topay by exchange for all that it demanded from the Orient. [Sidenote: Some of the important commercial centers. ] The northern merchants dealt mainly with Venice and brought their waresacross the Brenner Pass and down the Rhine, or sent them by sea to beexchanged in Flanders. By the thirteenth century important centers oftrade had come into being, some of which are still among the greatcommercial towns of the world. Hamburg, Lübeck, and Bremen carried onactive trade with the countries on the Baltic and with England. Augsburgand Nuremberg, in the south of Germany, became important on account oftheir situation on the line of trade between Italy and the North. Bruges and Ghent sent their manufactures everywhere. English commercewas relatively unimportant as yet compared with that of the great portsof the Mediterranean. [Sidenote: Restrictions on trade. ] [Sidenote: Idea of a 'just' price. ] 95. A word must be said of the numerous and almost incredible obstaclesin the way of commerce in the Middle Ages. There was very little of thatfreedom which we now regard as essential to successful business. Ourwholesale dealers would have been considered an abomination in theMiddle Ages. Those who bought up a quantity of a commodity in order tosell it at a high rate were called by the ugly name of _forestallers_. It was universally believed that everything had a "just" price, whichwas merely enough to cover the cost of the materials used in itsmanufacture and remunerate the maker for the work he had put upon it. Itwas considered outrageous to sell a thing for more than the just price, no matter how anxious the purchaser might be to obtain it. Everymanufacturer was required to keep a shop in which he offered at retailall that he made. Those who lived near a town were permitted to selltheir products in the market place within the walls on condition thatthey sold directly to the consumers. They might not dispose of theirwhole stock to one dealer, for fear that if he had all there was of acommodity he might raise the price above a just one. [Sidenote: Payment of interest on money forbidden. ] Akin to these prejudices against wholesale trade was that againstinterest. Money was believed to be a dead and sterile thing, and no onehad a right to demand any return for lending it. Interest was wicked, since it was exacted by those who took advantage of the embarrassmentsof others. Usury, as the taking of even the most moderate and reasonablerate of interest was then called, was strenuously forbidden by the lawsof the Church. We find church councils ordering that impenitent usurersshould be refused Christian burial and have their wills annulled. Somoney-lending, necessary to all great commercial and industrialundertakings, was left to the Jews, from whom Christian conduct was notexpected. [Sidenote: The Jews as money-lenders. ] This ill-starred people played a most important part in the economicdevelopment of Europe, but they were terribly maltreated by theChristians, who held them guilty of the supreme crime of putting Christto death. The active persecution of the Jews did not, however, becomecommon before the thirteenth century, when they first began to berequired to wear a peculiar cap, or badge, which made them easilyrecognized and exposed them to constant insult. Later they weresometimes shut up in a particular quarter of the city, called the Jewry. Since they were excluded from the guilds, they not unnaturally turned tothe business of money-lending, which no Christian might practice. Undoubtedly their occupation had much to do in causing theirunpopularity. The kings permitted them to make loans, often at a mostexorbitant rate; Philip Augustus allowed them to exact forty-six percent, but reserved the right to extort their gains from them when theroyal treasury was empty. In England the usual rate was a penny a poundfor each week. [Sidenote: The 'Lombards' as bankers. ] In the thirteenth century the Italians--"Lombards"--began to go into asort of banking business and greatly extended the employment of bills ofexchange. They lent for nothing, but exacted damages for all delay inrepayment. This appeared reasonable and right even to those whocondemned ordinary interest. Capitalists, moreover, could contributemoney towards an enterprise and share the profits as long as no interestwas exacted. In these and other ways the obstacles offered by theprejudice against interest were much reduced, and large commercialcompanies came into existence, especially in Italy. [Sidenote: Tolls, duties, and other annoyances to which merchants weresubjected on land. ] 96. Another serious disadvantage which the mediæval merchant had to facewas the payment of an infinite number of tolls and duties which wereexacted by the lords through whose domains his way passed. Not only wereduties exacted on the highways, bridges, and at the fords, but thosebarons who were so fortunate as to have castles on a navigable riverblocked the stream in such a way that the merchant could not bring hisvessel through without a payment for the privilege. The charges wereusually small, but the way in which they were exacted and the repeateddelays must have been a serious source of irritation and loss to themerchants. For example, a certain monastery lying between Paris and thesea required that those hastening to town with fresh fish should stopand let the monks pick out what they thought worth three pence, withlittle regard to the condition in which they left the goods. When a boatladen with wine passed up the Seine to Paris, the agent of the lord ofPoissy could have three casks broached, and, after trying them all, hecould take a measure from the one he liked best. At the markets allsorts of dues had to be paid, such, for example, as payments for usingthe lord's scales or his measuring rod. Besides this, the great varietyof coinage which existed in feudal Europe caused infinite perplexity anddelay. [Sidenote: Dangers by sea. ] [Sidenote: Pirates. ] [Sidenote: Strand laws. ] Commerce by sea had its own particular trials, by no means confined tothe hazards of wind and wave, rock and shoal. Pirates were numerous inthe North Sea. They were often organized and sometimes led by men ofhigh rank, who appear to have regarded the business as no disgrace. Thenthere were the so-called _strand laws_, according to which a ship withits cargo became the property of the owner of the coast upon which itmight be wrecked or driven ashore. Lighthouses and beacons were few andthe coasts dangerous. Moreover, natural dangers were increased by falsesignals which wreckers used to lure ships to shore in order to plunderthem. [Sidenote: The Hanseatic League. ] With a view to mitigating these manifold perils, the towns early beganto form unions for mutual defense. The most famous of these was that ofthe German cities, called the _Hanseatic League_. Lübeck was always theleader, but among the seventy towns which at one time and another wereincluded in the confederation, we find Cologne, Brunswick, Dantzig, andother centers of great importance. The union purchased and controlledsettlements in London, --the so-called _Steelyard_ near LondonBridge, --at Wisby, Bergen, and the far-off Novgorod in Russia. Theymanaged to monopolize nearly the whole trade on the Baltic and NorthSea, either through treaties or the influence that they were able tobring to bear. The League made war on the pirates and did much to reduce the dangers oftraffic. Instead of dispatching separate and defenseless merchantmen, their ships sailed out in fleets under the protection of a man-of-war. On one occasion the League undertook a successful war against the kingof Denmark, who had interfered with their interests. At another time itdeclared war on England and brought her to terms. For two hundred yearsbefore the discovery of America, the League played a great part in thecommercial affairs of western Europe; but it had begun to decline evenbefore the discovery of new routes to the East and West Indiesrevolutionized trade. [Sidenote: Trade regulated by the towns (thirteenth to fifteenthcentury), not by nations or individuals. ] It should be observed that, during the thirteenth, fourteenth, andfifteenth centuries, trade was not carried on between nations, but bythe various towns, like Venice, Lübeck, Ghent, Bruges, Cologne. Amerchant did not act or trade as an independent individual but as amember of a particular merchant guild, and he enjoyed the protection ofhis town and of the treaties it arranged. If a merchant from a certaintown failed to pay a debt, a fellow-townsman might be seized where thedebt was due. At the period of which we have been speaking, aninhabitant of London was considered a foreigner or an alien in Bristol, just as was the merchant from Cologne or Antwerp. Only gradually did thetowns merge into the nations to which their people belonged. [158] [Sidenote: The burghers, or commons, become an influential class. ] The increasing wealth of the merchants could not fail to raise them to aposition of importance in society which they had not hitherto enjoyed. Their prosperity enabled them to vie with the clergy in education andwith the nobility in the luxury of their dwellings and surroundings. They began to give some attention to reading, and as early as thefourteenth century many of the books appear to have been written with aview of meeting their tastes and needs. Representatives of the townswere called into the councils of the king, who was obliged to take theiradvice along with their contributions to the support of the government. The rise of the burgher class alongside the older orders of the clergyand nobility, which had so long dominated the life of western Europe, isone of the most momentous changes of the thirteenth century. General Reading. --GIBBINS, _History of Commerce in Europe_ (The Macmillan Company, 90 cents), the best short account of the subject, with good maps of trade routes. INGRAM, _History of Slavery and Serfdom_ (Black, London, $2. 00), especially Chapters IV and V. CUNNINGHAM, _Western Civilization in its Economic Aspects_, Vol. II, Mediæval and Modern Times (The Macmillan Company, $1. 25), is very suggestive. There are several excellent accounts of the economic situation in England in the Middle Ages, which, in many respects, was similar to the conditions on the continent. CHEYNEY, _Industrial and Social History of England_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 40); GIBBINS, _The Industrial History of England_ (Methuen, $1. 00), and a more elaborate treatise by the same writer, _Industry in England_ (Methuen, $3. 00); CUNNINGHAM, _Outlines of English Industrial History_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 50), and much fuller by the same writer, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce during the Middle Ages_ (The Macmillan Company, $4. 00). All these give excellent accounts of the manor, the guilds, the fairs, etc. See also JESSOPP, _Coming of the Friars_, second essay, "Village Life Six Hundred Years Ago. " CHAPTER XIX THE CULTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES 97. The interest of the Middle Ages lies by no means exclusively in thestatesmanship of kings and emperors, their victories and defeats; in thepolicy of popes and bishops; or even in feudalism and Europe's escapefrom it. Important as all these are, we should have but a very imperfectidea of the period which we have been studying if we left it withoutconsidering the intellectual life and the art of the time, the booksthat were written, the universities that were founded, and thecathedrals that were built. [Sidenote: General use of Latin in the Middle Ages. ] To begin with, the Middle Ages differed from our own time in the verygeneral use then made of Latin, both in writing and speaking. In thethirteenth century, and long after, all books that made any claim tolearning were written in Latin;[159] the professors in the universitieslectured in Latin, friends wrote to one another in Latin, and statepapers, treaties, and legal documents were drawn up in the samelanguage. The ability of every educated person to make use of Latin, aswell as of his native tongue, was a great advantage at a time when therewere many obstacles to intercourse among the various nations. It helpsto explain, for example, the remarkable way in which the pope kept intouch with all the clergymen of western Christendom, and the ease withwhich students, friars, and merchants could wander from one country toanother. There is no more interesting or important revolution than thatby which the language of the people in the various European countriesgradually pushed aside the ancient tongue and took its place, so thateven scholars scarcely ever think now of writing books in Latin. In order to understand how it came about that two languages, the Latinand the native speech, were both commonly used in all the countries ofwestern Europe all through the Middle Ages, we must glance at the originof the modern languages. These all fall into two quite distinct groups, the Germanic and the Romance. [Sidenote: The Germanic languages derived from the dialects of theGerman barbarians. ] Those German peoples who had continued to live outside of the RomanEmpire, or who, during the invasions, had not settled far enough withinits bounds to be led, like the Franks in Gaul, to adopt the tongue ofthose they had conquered, naturally adhered to the language they hadalways used, namely, the particular Germanic dialect which theirforefathers had spoken for untold generations. From the variouslanguages spoken by the German barbarians, modern German, English, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, and Icelandic are derived. [Sidenote: The Romance languages derived from the spoken Latin. ] The second group of languages developed within the territory which hadformed a part of the Roman Empire, and includes modern French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese. It has now been clearly proved, by a veryminute study of the old forms of words, that these Romance languageswere one and all derived from the _spoken_ Latin, employed by thesoldiers, merchants, and people at large. This differed considerablyfrom the elaborate and elegant written Latin which was used, forexample, by Cicero and Cæsar. It was undoubtedly much simpler in itsgrammar and doubtless varied a good deal in different regions;--a Gaul, for instance, could not pronounce the words like an Italian. Moreover, in conversation people did not always use the same words as those in thebooks. For example, a horse was commonly spoken of as _caballus_, whereas a writer would use the word _equus_; it is from _caballus_ thatthe word for horse is derived in Spanish, Italian, and French(_caballo_, _cavallo_, _cheval_). As time went on the spoken language diverged farther and farther fromthe written. Latin is a troublesome speech on account of its complicatedinflections and grammatical rules, which can be mastered only after agreat deal of study. The people of the Roman provinces and the incomingbarbarians naturally paid very little attention to the niceties ofsyntax and found easy ways of saying what they wished. [160] Yet severalcenturies elapsed after the German invasions before there was anythingwritten in the language of conversation. So long as the uneducated couldunderstand the correct Latin of the books when they heard it read orspoken, there was no necessity of writing anything in their familiardaily speech. But the gulf between the spoken and the written languagehad become so great by the time Charlemagne came to the throne, that headvised that sermons should be given thereafter in the language of thepeople, who, apparently, could no longer follow the Latin. The Strasburgoaths[161] are, however, about the first example which has come down tous of the speech which was growing into French. [Sidenote: Earliest examples of the Germanic languages. ] [Sidenote: Gothic. ] 98. As for the Germanic languages, one at least was reduced to writingeven before the break-up of the Empire. An eastern bishop, Ulfilas (d. 381), had undertaken to convert the Goths while they were still livingnorth of the Danube before the battle of Adrianople. In order to carryon his work, Ulfilas translated a great part of the Bible into Gothic, using the Greek letters to represent the sounds. With the singleexception of the Gothic, there is no example of writing in any Germanlanguage before Charlemagne's time. There is no doubt, however, that theGermans possessed an unwritten literature, which was passed down by wordof mouth for several centuries before any of it was written out. Charlemagne caused certain ancient poems to be collected, whichpresumably celebrated the great deeds of the German heroes during theinvasions. These invaluable specimens of ancient German are said to havebeen destroyed by the order of Louis the Pious, who was shocked by theirpaganism. The great German epic, the _Song of the Niebelungs_, was notreduced to writing until the end of the twelfth century, after it hadbeen transmitted orally for many generations. [Sidenote: Ancient English, or Anglo-Saxon. ] The oldest form of English is commonly called Anglo-Saxon and is sodifferent from the language that we use that, in order to read it, itmust be learned like a foreign language. We hear of an English poet, Cædmon, as early as Bede's time, a century before Charlemagne. Amanuscript of an Anglo-Saxon epic, called _Beowulf_, has been preservedwhich belongs perhaps to the close of the eighth century. The interestwhich King Alfred displayed in the mother tongue has already beenmentioned. This old form of our language prevailed until after theNorman Conquest; the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, which does not close until1154, is written in pure Anglo-Saxon. Then changes may be noticed in thelanguage as it appears in the books of the time, and decade by decade itapproaches more nearly to that which we speak. Although the first publicdocument in English (1256), which belongs to the reign of Henry III, isscarcely to be understood without study, a poem written in his son'stime is tolerably intelligible. [162] English literature was destined one day to arouse the admiration of thepeoples across the Channel and exercise an important influence uponother literatures. In the Middle Ages, however, French, not English, wasthe most important of the vernacular languages of western Europe. InFrance a vast literature was produced in the language of the peopleduring the twelfth and thirteenth centuries which profoundly affectedthe books written in Italy, Spain, Germany, and England. [Sidenote: French and Provençal. ] 99. Two quite different languages had gradually developed in France fromthe spoken Latin of the Roman Empire. If a line were drawn on the mapfrom La Rochelle, on the Atlantic, eastward to the Alps, crossing theRhone a little below Lyons, it would give a general idea of the limitsof the two tongues. To the north, French was spoken; to the south, in aregion bounded by the Pyrenees and the Alps, Provençal. [163] [Sidenote: Mediæval French romances. ] Very little in the ancient French language written before the year 1100has been preserved. The West Franks undoubtedly began much earlier tosing of their heroes, of the great deeds of Clovis, Dagobert, andCharles Martel. These famous rulers were, however, completelyovershadowed later by Charlemagne, who became the unrivaled hero ofmediæval poetry and romance. It was believed that he had reigned for ahundred and twenty-five years, and the most marvelous exploits wereattributed to him and his knights. He was supposed, for instance, tohave led a crusade to Jerusalem. Such themes as these--more legend thanhistory--were woven into long epics, which were the first writtenliterature of the Frankish people. These poems, combined with thestories of adventure, developed a spirit of patriotic enthusiasm amongthe French which made them regard "fair France" as the especial care ofProvidence. [Sidenote: The _Song of Roland_. ] It is little wonder that the best of these long poems came to be lookedupon as the national epic of the French. This is the _Song of Roland_, probably written just before the First Crusade. It tells the story ofCharlemagne's retreat from Spain, during which Roland, one of hiscommanders, lost his life in a romantic encounter in the defiles of thePyrenees. That death was on him he knew full well; Down from his head to his heart it fell. On the grass beneath a pine tree's shade, With face to earth, his form he laid, Beneath him placed he his horn and sword, And turned his face to the heathen horde. Thus hath he done the sooth to show, That Karl and his warriors all may know, That the gentle count a conqueror died. [164] [Sidenote: Romances of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. ] In the latter part of the twelfth century the romances of King Arthurand his Knights of the Round Table begin to appear. These enjoyed greatpopularity in all western Europe for centuries, and they are by no meansforgotten yet. Arthur, of whose historical existence no one can be quitesure, was supposed to have been king of Britain shortly after the Saxonsgained a foothold in the island. In other long poems of the time, Alexander the Great, Cæsar, and other ancient worthies appear as heroes. The absolute disregard of historical facts and the tendency to representthe warriors of Troy and Rome as mediæval knights, show the inability ofthe mediæval mind to understand that the past could have been differentfrom the present. All these romances are full of picturesque adventuresand present a vivid picture of the valor and loyalty of the true knight, as well as of his ruthlessness and contempt for human life. [165] [Sidenote: The _fabliaux_ and the fables. ] Besides the long and elaborate epics, like _Roland_, and the romances inverse and prose, there were numberless short stories in verse (the_fabliaux_), which usually dealt with the incidents of everyday life, especially with the comical ones. Then there were the fables, the mostfamous of which are the stories of Reynard the Fox, which were satiresupon the customs of the time, particularly the weaknesses of the priestsand monks. [Sidenote: The troubadours. ] 100. Turning now to southern France, the beautiful songs of thetroubadours, which were the glory of the Provençal tongue, reveal a gayand polished society at the courts of the numerous feudal princes. Therulers not merely protected and encouraged the poets; they aspired to bepoets themselves and to enter the ranks of the troubadours, as thecomposers of these elegant verses were called. These songs were alwayssung to an accompaniment on some instrument, usually the lute. Those whomerely sang them, without being themselves poets, were called_jongleurs_. The troubadours and jongleurs traveled from court to court, not only in France, but north into Germany and south into Italy, carrying with them the southern French poetry and customs. We have fewexamples of Provençal before the year 1100, but from that time on, fortwo centuries, countless songs were written, and many of the troubadoursenjoyed an international reputation. The terrible Albigensian crusadebrought misery and death into the sprightly circles which had gatheredabout the count of Toulouse and others who had treated the heretics tooleniently. But the literary critic traces signs of decline in theProvençal verse even before this disaster. [166] [Sidenote: Chivalry. ] For the student of history, the chief interest of the epics of northernFrance and the songs of the South lies in the insight that they giveinto the life and aspirations of this feudal period. These are usuallysummed up in the term _chivalry_, or _knighthood_, of which a word mayproperly be said here, since we should know little of it were it not forthe literature of which we have been speaking. The knights play thechief rôle in all the mediæval romances; and, as many of the troubadoursbelonged to the knightly class, they naturally have much to say of it intheir songs. Chivalry was not a formal institution established at any particularmoment. Like feudalism, with which it was closely connected, it had nofounder, but appeared spontaneously throughout western Europe to meetthe needs and desires of the period. We learn from Tacitus that even inhis time the Germans considered the moment a solemn one when the youngwarrior was first invested with the arms of a soldier. "This was thesign that the youth had reached manhood; this was his first honor. " Itis probably a survival of this feeling which we find in the idea ofknighthood. When the youth of good family had been carefully trained toride his horse, use his sword, and manage his hawk in the hunt, he wasmade a _knight_ by a ceremony in which the Church took part, althoughthe knighthood was actually conferred by an older knight. [Sidenote: Nature of the knightly order. ] The knight was a Christian soldier, and he and his fellows were supposedto form, in a way, a separate order with high ideals of the conductbefitting their class. Knighthood was not, however, membership in anassociation with officers and a written constitution. It was an ideal, half-imaginary society, --a society to which even those who enjoyed thetitle of king or duke were proud to belong. One was not born a knight ashe might be born a duke or count, and could become one only through theceremony mentioned above. One might be a noble and still not belong tothe knightly order, and, on the other hand, one baseborn might be raisedto knighthood on account of some valorous deed. [Sidenote: The ideals of the knight. ] The knight must, in the first place, be a Christian and must obey anddefend the Church on all occasions. He must respect all forms ofweakness and defend the helpless wherever he might find them. He mustfight the infidel ceaselessly, pitilessly, and never give way before theenemy. He must perform all his feudal duties, be faithful in all thingsto his lord, never lie or violate his plighted word. He must be generousand give freely and ungrudgingly to the needy. He must be faithful tohis lady and be ready to defend her person and her honor at all costs. Everywhere he must be the champion of the right against injustice andoppression. In short, chivalry was the Christianized profession of arms. In the stories of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table thereis a beautiful picture of the ideal knight. The dead Lancelot isaddressed by one of his sorrowing companions as follows: "Thou wert thecourtliest knight that ever bare shield, and thou wert the truest friendto thy lover that ever bestrode horse, and thou wert the truest lover ofa sinful man [i. E. , among sinful men] that ever loved woman, and thouwert the kindest man that ever struck with sword, and thou wert thegoodliest person that ever came among the press of knights, and thouwert the meekest man and the gentlest that ever ate in hall amongladies, and thou wert the sternest knight to thy mortal foe that everput spear in breast. " [Sidenote: The German minnesingers. ] [Sidenote: Walther von der Vogelweide. ] [Sidenote: _Parsifal. _] The Germans also made their contribution to the literature of chivalry. The German poets of the thirteenth century are called _minnesingers_. Like the troubadours, whom they greatly admired, they usually sang oflove (German, _Minne_). The most famous of the minnesingers was Walthervon der Vogelweide (d. About 1228), whose songs are full of charm and ofenthusiasm for his German fatherland. Wolfram von Eschenbach (d. About1225) in his story of _Parsifal_ gives the long and sad adventures of aknight in search of the Holy Grail, --the sacred vessel which had heldthe blood of Christ. Only those perfectly pure in thought, word, anddeed could hope to behold it. Parsifal failed to speak a word ofsympathy to a suffering man and was forced to undergo a long atonement. At last he learned that only through pity and humility and faith in Godcould he hope to find the Grail. [Sidenote: Difference between the earlier and later ideals of chivalry. ] The chivalry depicted in the _Song of Roland_ and the more serious poemsof northern France is of a severe type, in which the service of theChurch, especially against the infidel, and the obligations to thefeudal suzerain have the predominant place. On the other hand, in theArthurian legends, and, above all, in the songs of the troubadours, theideal conduct of a polished and valorous gentleman, especially towardthe lady of his choice, finds expression. The later romances of chivalry(in the thirteenth and following centuries) deal very largely withknighthood in the latter sense of the word. No one, indeed, any longerthought of fighting the infidel; for the Crusades were over and theknight was forced to seek adventures nearer home. [167] [Sidenote: General ignorance of the past. ] 101. So long as all books had to be copied by hand, there were, ofcourse, but few of them compared with modern times. The literature ofwhich we have been speaking was not in general read, but was listenedto, as it was sung or recited by those who made it their profession. Wherever the wandering jongleur appeared he was sure of a delightedaudience for his songs and stories, both serious and light. Thoseunfamiliar with Latin could, however, learn little of the past; therewere no translations of the great classics of Greece and Rome, of Homer, Plato, Cicero, or Livy. All that they could know of ancient history wasderived from the fantastic romances referred to above, which had fortheir theme the quite preposterous deeds ascribed to Alexander theGreat, Æneas, and Cæsar. As for their own history, the epics relating tothe earlier course of events in France and the rest of Europe werehopelessly confused. The writers attributed a great part of the acts ofthe Frankish kings, from Clovis to Pippin, to Charlemagne. The firstreal history written in French is Villehardouin's account of the captureof Constantinople by the crusaders (in 1204), which he witnessed. [Sidenote: Mediæval popular science. ] What we should call scientific literature was practically wanting. It istrue that there was a kind of encyclopedia in verse which gave a greatdeal of misinformation about things in general. Every one believed instrange animals like the unicorn, the dragon, and the phoenix, and instill stranger habits of real animals. A single example will suffice toshow what passed for zoölogy in the thirteenth century. "There is a little beast made like a lizard and such is its nature thatit will extinguish fire should it fall into it. The beast is so cold andof such a quality that fire is not able to burn it, nor will troublehappen in the place where it shall be. " This beast signifies the holyman who lives by faith, who "will never have hurt from fire nor willhell burn him.... This beast we name also by another name, --it is calledsalamander, as you find written, --it is accustomed to mount intoapple-trees, poisons the apples, and in a well where it shall fall itwill poison the water. " It will be noticed that the habits of the animals were supposed to havesome spiritual meaning and carry with them a lesson for mankind. It maybe added that this and similar stories were centuries old. The mostimprobable things were repeated from generation to generation withoutits occurring to any one to inquire if there was any truth in them. Eventhe most learned men of the time believed in astrology and in themiraculous virtues of herbs and gems. For instance, Albertus Magnus, oneof the most distinguished scientists of the thirteenth century, agreesthat a sapphire will drive away boils and that the diamond can besoftened in the blood of a stag, which will work best if the stag hasbeen fed on wine and parsley. [168] 102. It is not only in the literature of the Middle Ages that we findthe thought and life of the people reflected, but in the art as well, for painters, sculptors, and builders were at work in every country ofwestern Europe. [Sidenote: Illuminations done by the monks. ] [Sidenote: In religious works. ] The paintings were altogether different from those of to-day, andconsisted chiefly of illustrations in the books, called _illuminations_. Just as the books had all to be laboriously written out by hand, so eachpicture was painted on the parchment page with tiny brushes and usuallyin brilliant colors with a generous use of gold. And as the monks wroteout the books, so it was, in general, the monks who painted thepictures. The books that they adorned were chiefly those used in thechurch services, especially the breviary, the psalter, and the book ofhours. Naturally these pictures usually dealt with religious subjectsand illustrated the lives of the saints or the events of biblicalhistory. Virtue was encouraged by representations of the joys of heavenand also stimulated by spirited portrayals of the devil and his fiends, and of the sufferings of the lost. [Sidenote: In secular books. ] Secular works, too, were sometimes provided with pictures drawn from awide variety of subjects. We find in their pages such homely andfamiliar figures as the farmer with his plow, the butcher at his block, the glass blower at his furnace; then, again, we are transported to animaginary world, peopled with strange and uncouth beasts and adornedwith fantastic architecture. [Sidenote: The artist governed by fixed rules. ] The mediæval love of symbols and of fixed rules for doing things isstrikingly illustrated in these illuminations. Each color had itsespecial significance. There were certain established attitudes and waysof depicting various characters and emotions which were adhered to bygeneration after generation of artists and left comparatively littleopportunity for individual talent or lifelike presentation. On the otherhand, these little pictures--for of course they were alwayssmall[169]--were often executed with exquisite care and skill andsometimes in the smaller details with great truth to nature. Beside the pictures of which we have been speaking, it was a commonpractice to adorn the books with gay illuminated initials or pageborders, which were sometimes very beautiful in both design and color. In these rather more freedom was allowed to the caprice of theindividual artist, and they were frequently enlivened with very charmingand lifelike flowers, birds, squirrels, and other small animals. [Illustration: A Romanesque Church] [Sidenote: Sculpture subservient to architecture. ] The art of sculpture was more widely and successfully cultivated duringthe Middle Ages than painting. Mediæval sculpture did not, however, concern itself chiefly with the representation of the human figure, butwith what we may call _decorative carving_; it was almost whollysubservient to the dominant art of the Middle Ages, namely, architecture. [Sidenote: Architecture the dominant art of the Middle Ages. ] It is in the great cathedrals and other churches scattered throughoutEngland, France, Spain, Holland, Belgium, and Germany, that we find thenoblest and most lasting achievements of mediæval art, which all theresources of modern skill have been unable to equal. Everybody belongedto the Church, but the Church, too, belonged to each individual. Thebuilding and beautifying of a new church was a matter of interest to thewhole community, --to men of every rank. It gratified at once theirreligious sentiments, their local pride, and their artistic cravings. All the arts and crafts ministered to the construction and adornment ofthe new edifice, and, in addition to its religious significance, it tookthe place of our modern art museum. [Illustration: Durham Cathedral (Romanesque)] [Sidenote: The Romanesque style. ] Up to the beginning of the thirteenth century the churches were built inthe Romanesque style. [170] They were, generally speaking, in the form ofa cross, with a main aisle, and two side aisles which were both narrowerand lower than the main aisle. The aisles were divided from each otherby massive round pillars which supported the round vaulting of the roofand were connected by round arches. The round-arched windows wereusually small for the size of the building, so that the interior was notvery light. The whole effect was one of massive simplicity. There was, however, especially in the later churches of this style, a profusion ofcarved ornament, usually in geometric designs. [Sidenote: Introduction of the Gothic style. ] [Sidenote: The pointed arch. ] [Sidenote: Flying buttresses. ] The _pointed_ form of arch was used occasionally in windows during theeleventh and twelfth centuries. But about the beginning of thethirteenth century[171] it began to be employed much more extensively, and in an incredibly short time practically superseded the round archand became the characteristic feature of a new style, called _Gothic_. The adoption of the pointed arch had very important results. It enabledthe builder to make arches of the same height but various widths, and ofvarying height and the same width. A round arch of a given span can beonly half as high as it is wide, but the pointed arch may have a greatdiversity of proportions. The development of the Gothic style wasgreatly forwarded by the invention of the "flying buttress. " By means ofthis graceful outside prop it became possible to lighten the masonry ofthe hitherto massive walls and pierce them with great windows which leta flood of light into the hitherto dark churches. [172] [Illustration: Round and Pointed Arches] [Illustration: FAÇADE OF RHEIMS CATHEDRAL] [Sidenote: Stained glass. ] The light from all these great windows might even have been too glaringhad it not been for the wonderful stained glass set in exquisite stonetracery with which they were filled. The stained glass of the mediævalcathedral, especially in France, where the glass workers brought theirart to the greatest perfection, was one of its chief glories. By far thegreater part of this old glass has of course been destroyed, but it isstill so highly prized that every bit of it is now carefully preserved, for it has never since been equaled. A window set with odd bits of itpieced together like crazy patch-work is more beautiful, in its rich andjewel-like coloring, than the finest modern work. [Illustration: Flying Buttresses of Notre Dame, Paris] [Sidenote: Sculptured ornament. ] As the Gothic style developed and the builders grew all the time moreskillful and daring, the churches became marvels of lightness anddelicacy of detail and finish, while still retaining their dignity andbeauty of proportion. Sculptors enriched them with the most beautifulcreations of their art. Moldings and capitals, pulpits, altars, andchoir screens, the wooden seats for the clergy and choristers, aresometimes literally covered with carving representing graceful leaf andflower forms, familiar animals or grotesque monsters, biblical incidentsor homely scenes from everyday life. In the cathedral of Wells, inEngland, one capital shows us among its vines and leaves a boy whoseface is screwed up with pain from the thorn he is extracting from hisfoot; another depicts a whole story of sin found out, thieves stealinggrapes pursued by an angry farmer with a pitchfork. One characteristicof the mediæval imagination is its fondness for the grotesque. It lovedqueer beasts, half eagle, half lion, hideous batlike creatures, monsterslike nothing on land or sea. They lurk among the foliage on choirscreens, leer at you from wall or column, or squat upon the gutters highon roof and steeple. [Illustration: Window in the Cathedral of Sens, France] [Sidenote: Gothic sculpture. ] A striking peculiarity of the Gothic structure is the great number ofstatues of apostles, saints, and rulers which adorn the façades andespecially the main portal of the churches. These figures are cut fromthe same kind of stone of which the building is made and appear to bealmost a part of it. While, compared with later sculpture, they seemsomewhat stiff and unlifelike, they harmonize wonderfully with the wholebuilding, and the best of them are full of charm and dignity. [Illustration: INTERIOR OF EXETER CATHEDRAL] [Sidenote: Secular buildings. ] So far we have spoken only of the church architecture, and that was byfar the most important during the period with which we have beendealing. Later, in the fourteenth century, many beautiful secularbuildings were constructed in the Gothic style. The most striking andimportant of these were the guildhalls built by the rich merchantguilds, and the townhalls of some of the important cities. But theGothic style has always been especially dedicated to, and seemspeculiarly fitted for, ecclesiastical architecture. Its lofty aisles andopen floor spaces, its soaring arches leading the eye toward heaven, andits glowing windows suggesting the glories of paradise, may well havefostered the ardent faith of the mediæval Christian. [Illustration: Figures (gargoyles) on Notre Dame, Paris] [Sidenote: The mediæval castle. ] We have already touched upon some of the characteristics of domesticarchitecture in referring to the mediæval castle. This was rather astronghold than a home, --strength and inaccessibility were its mainrequirements. The walls were many feet thick and the tiny windows, oftenhardly more than slits in the massive walls, the stone floors, the greatbare halls warmed only by large fireplaces, suggest nothing of thecomfort of a modern household. At the same time they imply a simplicityof taste and manners and a hardihood of body which we may well envy. [Sidenote: The schools before the eleventh century. ] 103. On turning from the language and books of the people and the art ofthe period to the occupations of the learned class, who carried on theirstudies and discussions in Latin, we naturally inquire where suchpersons obtained their education. During the long centuries whichelapsed between the time when Justinian closed the government schoolsand the advent of Frederick Barbarossa, there appears to have beennothing in western Europe, outside of Italy and Spain, corresponding toour universities and colleges. Some of the schools which the bishops andabbots had established in accordance with Charlemagne's commands were, it is true, maintained all through the dark and disorderly times whichfollowed his death. But the little that we know of the instructionoffered in them would indicate that it was very elementary, althoughthere were sometimes noted men at their head. [Sidenote: Abelard, d. 1142. ] About the year 1100 an ardent young man named Abelard started out fromhis home in Brittany to visit all the places where he might hope toreceive instruction in logic and philosophy, in which, like all hislearned contemporaries, he was especially interested. He reports that hefound teachers in several of the French towns, particularly in Paris, who were attracting large numbers of students to listen to theirlectures upon logic, rhetoric, and theology. Abelard soon showed hissuperiority to his teachers by defeating them several times in debate. Before long he began lecturing on his own account, and such was hissuccess that thousands of students flocked to hear him. [Sidenote: Abelard's _Yea and Nay_. ] He prepared a remarkable little text-book, called _Yea and Nay_, containing seemingly contradictory opinions of the church fathers uponparticular questions. The student was left to reconcile thecontradictions, if he could, by careful reasoning; for Abelard held thata constant questioning was the only path to real knowledge. His free wayof dealing with the authorities upon which men based their religiousbeliefs seemed wicked to many of his contemporaries, especially to St. Bernard, who made him a great deal of trouble. Nevertheless it soonbecame the fashion to discuss the various doctrines of Christianity withgreat freedom and to try to make a well-reasoned system of theology byfollowing the rules of Aristotle's logic. It was just after Abelard'sdeath (1142) that Peter Lombard published his _Sentences_, alreadydescribed. Abelard did not found the University of Paris, as has sometimes beensupposed, but he did a great deal to make the discussions of theologicalproblems popular, and by his attractive method of teaching he greatlyincreased the number of those who wished to learn. The sad story of hislife, which he wrote when he was worn out with the calamities that hadovertaken him, is the best and almost the only account which exists ofthe remarkable interest in learning which explains the origin of theUniversity of Paris. [173] [Sidenote: Origin of the University of Paris. ] Before the end of the twelfth century the teachers had become sonumerous in Paris that they formed a union, or guild, for theadvancement of their interests. This union of professors was called bythe usual name for corporations in the Middle Ages, _universitas_; henceour word "university. " The king and pope both favored the university andgranted the teachers and students many of the privileges of the clergy, a class to which they were regarded as belonging, because learning hadfor so many centuries been confined to the clergy. [Sidenote: Study of the Roman and canon law in Bologna. ] [Sidenote: The _Decretum_ of Gratian. ] About the time that we find the beginnings of a university or guild ofprofessors at Paris, a great institution of learning was growing up atBologna. Here the chief attention was given, not to theology, as atParis, but to the study of the law, both Roman and canon. Very early inthe twelfth century a new interest in the Roman law became apparent inItaly, where the old jurisprudence of Rome had never been completelyforgotten. Then, in 1142 or thereabouts, a monk, Gratian, published agreat work in which he aimed to reconcile all the conflictinglegislation of the councils and popes and to provide a convenienttext-book for the study of the church or canon law. Students then beganto stream to Bologna in greater numbers than ever before. In order toprotect themselves in a town where they were regarded as strangers, theyorganized themselves into associations, which became so powerful thatthey were able to force the professors to obey the rules which they laiddown. [Sidenote: Other universities founded. ] The University of Oxford was founded in the time of Henry II, probablyby English students and masters who had become discontented at Paris forsome reason. The University of Cambridge, as well as numerousuniversities in France, Italy, and Spain, appeared in the thirteenthcentury. The German universities, which are still so famous, wereestablished somewhat later, most of them in the latter half of thefourteenth and in the fifteenth centuries. The northern institutionsgenerally took the great mother university on the Seine as their model, while those in southern Europe usually adopted the habits of Bologna. [Sidenote: The academic degree. ] When, after some years of study, a student was examined by theprofessors, he was, if successful, admitted to the corporation ofteachers and became a master himself. What we call a degree to-day wasoriginally, in the mediæval universities, nothing more than thequalification to teach. But in the thirteenth century many began todesire the honorable title of master or doctor (which is only the Latinword for _teacher_) who did not care to become professors in our senseof the word. [174] [Sidenote: Simple methods of instruction. ] The students in the mediæval universities were of all ages, fromthirteen to forty, and even older. There were no university buildings, and in Paris the lectures were given in the Latin quarter, in StrawStreet, so called from the straw strewn on the floors of the hired roomswhere the lecturer explained the text-book, with the students squattingon the floor before him. There were no laboratories, for there was noexperimentation. All that was required was a copy of thetext-book, --Gratian's _Decretum_, the _Sentences_, a treatise ofAristotle, or a medical book. This the lecturer explained sentence bysentence, and the students listened and sometimes took notes. [Sidenote: The universities could move freely from one town to another. ] The fact that the masters and students were not bound to any particularspot by buildings and apparatus left them free to wander about. If theybelieved themselves ill-treated in one town they moved to another, greatly to the disgust of the tradespeople of the place which theydeserted, who of course profited by the presence of the university. Theuniversities of Oxford and of Leipsic, among others, were founded byprofessors and students who had deserted their former home. [Sidenote: Course of study. ] The course in arts, which corresponded to our college course and led tothe degree of Master of Arts, occupied six years at Paris. The studieswere logic, various sciences, --physics, astronomy, etc. , --studied inAristotle's treatises, and some philosophy and ethics. There was nohistory, no Greek. Latin had to be learned in order to carry on the workat all, but little attention was given to the Roman classics. The newmodern languages were considered entirely unworthy of the learned. Itmust of course be remembered that none of the books which we considerthe great classics in English, French, Italian, or Spanish had as yetbeen written. [Sidenote: Aristotle's works become known in the West. ] 104. The most striking peculiarity of the instruction in the mediævaluniversity was the supreme deference paid to Aristotle. Most of thecourses of lectures were devoted to the explanation of some one of hisnumerous treatises, --his _Physics_, his _Metaphysics_, his varioustreatises on logic, his _Ethics_, his minor works upon the soul, heavenand earth, etc. Only his _Logic_ had been known to Abelard, as all hisother works had been forgotten. But early in the thirteenth century allhis comprehensive contributions to science reached the West, either fromConstantinople or through the Arabs who had brought them to Spain. TheLatin translations were bad and obscure, and the lecturer had enough todo to give some meaning to them, to explain what the Arab philosophershad said of them, and, finally, to reconcile them to the teachings ofChristianity. [Sidenote: Veneration for Aristotle. ] Aristotle was, of course, a pagan. He was uncertain whether the soulcontinued to exist after death; he had never heard of the Bible and knewnothing of the salvation of man through Christ. One would have supposedthat he would have been promptly rejected with horror by those who neverquestioned the doctrines of Christianity. But the teachers of thethirteenth century were fascinated by his logic and astonished at hislearning. The great theologians of the time, Albertus Magnus (d. 1280)and Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), did not hesitate to prepare elaboratecommentaries upon all his works. He was called "The Philosopher"; and sofully were scholars convinced that it had pleased God to permitAristotle to say the last word upon each and every branch of knowledgethat they humbly accepted him, along with the Bible, the church fathers, and the canon and Roman law, as one of the unquestioned authoritieswhich together formed a complete guide for humanity in conduct and inevery branch of science. [Sidenote: Scholasticism. ] The term _scholasticism_ is commonly given to the philosophy, theology, and method of discussion of the mediæval professors. To those who lateroutgrew the fondness for logic and the supreme respect for Aristotle, scholasticism, with its neglect of Greek and Roman literature, came toseem an arid and profitless plan of education. Yet if we turn over thepages of the wonderful works of Thomas Aquinas, we see that thescholastic philosopher might be a person of extraordinary insight anderudition, ready to recognize all the objections to his position, andable to express himself with great clearness and cogency. [175] Thetraining in logic, if it did not increase the sum of human knowledge, accustomed the student to make careful distinctions and present hismaterial in an orderly way. [Sidenote: Roger Bacon's attack on scholasticism. ] Even in the thirteenth century there were a few scholars who criticisedthe habit of relying upon Aristotle for all knowledge. The mostdistinguished fault-finder was Roger Bacon, an English Franciscan monk(d. About 1290), who declared that even if Aristotle were very wise hehad only planted the tree of knowledge and that this had "not as yet putforth all its branches nor produced all its fruits. " "If we couldcontinue to live for endless centuries we mortals could never hope toreach full and complete knowledge of all the things which are to beknown. No one knows enough of nature completely to describe thepeculiarities of a single fly and give the reason for its color and whyit has just so many feet, no more and no less. " Bacon held that truthcould be reached a hundred thousand times better by experiments withreal things than by poring over the bad Latin translations of Aristotle. "If I had my way, " he declared, "I should burn all the books ofAristotle, for the study of them can only lead to a loss of time, produce error and increase ignorance. " So we find that even when scholasticism was most popular in theuniversities, there were keen-sighted scientists who recommended themodern scientific method of discovering truth. This does not consist indiscussing, according to the rules of logic, what a Greek philosophersaid hundreds of years ago, but in the patient observation of thingsabout us. * * * * * [Sidenote: Review of the great changes between the break-up of the RomanEmpire in the west and the end of the thirteenth century. ] We have now traversed somewhat over one half of the long period offifteen hundred years which separates Europe of to-day from thedisintegrating Roman Empire of the fifth century. The eight hundredyears which lie between the century of Alaric, Attila, Leo the Great, and Clovis, and that of Innocent III, St. Louis, and Edward I, witnessedmomentous changes, quite as important as any that have occurred since. [Sidenote: The 'dark ages. '] It is true that it seemed at first as if the barbarous Goths, Franks, Vandals, and Burgundians were bringing nothing but turmoil anddistraction. Even the strong hand of Charlemagne curbed the unrulyelements for only a moment; then the discord of his grandsons and theincursions of Northmen, Hungarians, Slavs, and Saracens plunged westernEurope once more into the same anarchy and ignorance through which ithad passed in the seventh and eighth centuries. Two hundred years and more elapsed after Charlemagne's death before wecan begin once more to note signs of progress. While we know little ofthe eleventh century, and while even its most distinguished writers areforgotten by all save the student of the period, it was undoubtedly atime of preparation for the brilliant twelfth century--for Abelard andSt. Bernard, for the lawyers, poets, architects, and philosophers whoseem to come suddenly upon the scene. [Sidenote: The twelfth and thirteenth centuries a period of rapidadvance. ] The Middle Ages may therefore be divided into two fairly distinct andquite different periods. The centuries prior to the age of Gregory VIIand of William the Conqueror may, on account of their disorder andignorance, be properly called the "dark ages, " although they beheld someimportant stages in the transformation of Europe. The later Middle Ages, on the contrary, were a time of rapid and unmistakable progress inalmost every line of human endeavor. Indeed by the end of the thirteenthcentury a great part of those changes were well under way which serve tomake modern Europe so different from the condition of western Europeunder the Roman Empire. The most striking of these are the following. [Sidenote: Appearance of national states. ] (1) A group of national states in which a distinct feeling ofnationality was developing had taken the place of the Roman Empire, which made no allowance in its government for the differences betweenItalians, Gauls, Germans, and Britons. The makeshift feudal governmentwhich had grown up during the dark ages was yielding to the kinglypower (except in Germany and Italy) and there was no hope of everreuniting western Europe into a single empire. [Sidenote: The national states begin to deprive the Church of itsgovernmental powers. ] (2) The Church had, in a way, taken the place of the Roman Empire byholding the various peoples of western Europe together under theheadship of the pope and by assuming the powers of government during theperiod when the feudal lords were too weak to secure order and justice. Organized like an absolute monarchy, the Church was in a certain sensefar the most powerful state of the Middle Ages. But it attained thezenith of its political influence under Innocent III, at the opening ofthe thirteenth century; before its close the national states had sogrown in strength that it was clear that they would gradually reassumethe powers of government temporarily exercised by the Church and confinethe pope and clergy more and more to their strictly religious functions. [Sidenote: Appearance of the commons or third estate. ] (3) A new social class had come into prominence alongside the clergy andthe knightly aristocracy. The emancipation of the serfs, the founding oftowns, and the growth of commerce made it possible for merchants andsuccessful artisans to rise to importance and become influential throughtheir wealth. From these beginnings the great intelligent and educatedpublic of modern times has sprung. [Sidenote: Books begin to be written in the language of the people. ] (4) The various modern languages began to be used in writing books. Forfive or six hundred years after the invasions of the Germans, Latin wasused by all writers, but in the eleventh and following centuries thelanguage of the people began to replace the ancient tongue. This enabledthe laymen who had not mastered the intricacies of the old Roman speechto enjoy the stories and poems which were being composed in French, Provençal, German, English, and Spanish, and, somewhat later, inItalian. [Sidenote: The clergy lose the monopoly of learning. ] Although the clergy still directed education, laymen were beginning towrite books as well as to read them, and gradually the churchmen ceasedto enjoy the monopoly of learning which they had possessed during theearly Middle Ages. [Sidenote: Study of law, theology, and philosophy. ] [Sidenote: The universities. ] (5) Scholars began as early as the year 1100 to gather eagerly aboutmasters who lectured upon the Roman and canon law or upon logic, philosophy, or theology. The works of Aristotle, the most learned of theancients, were sought out, and students followed him enthusiasticallyinto all fields of knowledge. The universities grew up which are now soconspicuous a feature of our modern civilization. [Sidenote: Beginnings of experimental science. ] (6) Scholars could not satisfy themselves permanently with the works ofAristotle but began themselves to add to the fund of human knowledge. InRoger Bacon and his sympathizers we find a group of scientificinvestigators who were preparing the way for the unprecedentedachievements in natural science which are the glory of recent times. [Sidenote: Artistic progress. ] (7) The developing appreciation of the beautiful is attested by theskill and taste expressed in the magnificent churches of the twelfth andthirteenth centuries, which were not a revival of any ancient style butthe original production of the architects and sculptors of the period. General Reading. --The most convenient and readable account of mediæval literature is perhaps that of SAINTSBURY, _The Flourishing of Romance_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, $1. 50). For chivalry, see CORNISH, _Chivalry_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 75). For Gothic architecture, see C. H. MOORE, _Development and Character of Gothic Architecture_ (The Macmillan Company, $4. 50). For the art in general, LÜBKE, _Outlines of the History of Art_ (Dodd, Mead & Co. , 2 vols. , $7. 50). For the universities, RASHDALL, _History of the Universities of the Middle Ages_ (Clarendon Press, 3 vols. , $14. 00). CHAPTER XX THE HUNDRED YEARS' WAR [Sidenote: Plan of the following four chapters. ] 105. In dealing with the history of Europe during the fourteenth andfifteenth centuries the following order has been adopted. (1) Englandand France are treated together, since the claims of the English kingsto the French crown, and the long Hundred Years' War between the twocountries, bring them into the same tale of disorder and finalreorganization. (2) Next the history of the papal power and theremarkable efforts to better the Church at the great Council ofConstance (1414) are considered. (3) Then the progress of enlightenmentis taken up, particularly in the Italian towns, which were the leadersin culture during this period. This leads to an account of the inventionof printing and the extraordinary geographical discoveries of the latterpart of the fifteenth century. (4) In a fourth chapter the situation ofwestern Europe at the opening of the sixteenth century is described, inorder that the reader may be prepared to understand the great revoltagainst the Church under the leadership of Martin Luther. [Sidenote: Extent of the king of England's realms before Edward I(1272-1307). ] We turn first to England. The English kings who preceded Edward I hadruled over only a portion of the island of Great Britain. To the west oftheir kingdom lay the mountainous district of Wales, inhabited by thatremnant of the original Britons which the German invaders had beenunable to conquer. To the north of England was the kingdom of Scotland, which was quite independent except for an occasional vague recognitionon the part of its rulers of the English kings as their feudalsuperiors. Edward I, however, succeeded in conquering Wales permanentlyand Scotland temporarily. [Illustration: THE BRITISH ISLES] [Sidenote: The Welsh and their bards. ] For centuries a border warfare had been carried on between the Englishand the Welsh. William the Conqueror had found it necessary to establisha chain of earldoms on the Welsh frontier, and Chester, Shrewsbury, andMonmouth became the outposts of the Normans. While the raids of theWelsh constantly provoked the English kings to invade Wales, nopermanent conquest was possible, for the enemy retreated into themountains about Snowdon and the English soldiers were left to starve inthe wild regions into which they had ventured. The long and successfulresistance which the Welsh made against the English must be attributednot only to their inaccessible retreats but also to the patrioticinspiration of their bards. These fondly believed that their peoplewould sometime reconquer the whole of England, which they had possessedbefore the coming of the Angles and Saxons. [176] [Sidenote: Edward I conquers Wales. ] [Sidenote: The title of 'Prince of Wales. '] When Edward I came to the throne he demanded that Llewelyn, Prince ofWales, as the head of the Welsh clans was called, should do him homage. Llewelyn, who was a man of ability and energy, refused the king'ssummons, and Edward marched into Wales. Two campaigns were necessarybefore the Welsh finally succumbed. Llewelyn was killed (1282), and withhim expired the independence of the Welsh people. Edward divided thecountry into shires and introduced English laws and customs, and hispolicy of conciliation was so successful that there was but a singlerising in the country for a whole century. He later presented his son tothe Welsh as their prince, and from that time down to the present thetitle of "Prince of Wales" has usually been conferred upon the heir tothe English throne. [Sidenote: Scotland before Edward I. ] [Sidenote: The Highlands and Lowlands. ] The conquest of Scotland proved a far more difficult matter than that ofWales. The early history of the kingdom of Scotland is a complicatedone. When the Angles and Saxons landed in Britain, a great part of themountainous region north of the Firth of Forth was inhabited by a Celtictribe, the Picts. There was, however, on the west coast a little kingdomof the Irish Celts, who were then called Scots. By the opening of thetenth century the Picts had accepted the king of the Scots as theirruler, and the annalists begin to refer to the highland region as theland of the Scots. As time went on the English kings found it to theiradvantage to grant to the Scottish rulers certain border districts, including the Lowlands, between the river Tweed and the Firth of Forth. This region was English in race and speech, while the Celts in theHighlands spoke, and still speak, Gaelic. [Sidenote: Character of the inhabitants of the Lowlands. ] It was very important in the history of Scotland that its kings chose todwell in the Lowlands rather than in the Highlands, and made Edinburgh, with its fortress, their chief town. With the coming of William theConqueror many Englishmen, and also a number of discontented Normannobles, fled across the border to the Lowlands of Scotland, and foundedsome of the great families, like those of Balliol and Bruce, who laterfought for Scottish liberty. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuriesthe country, especially in the south, developed rapidly under theinfluence of the neighboring Anglo-Norman civilization, and the townsincreased in size and importance. [Sidenote: Edward intervenes in Scotch affairs. ] [Sidenote: Alliance between Scotland and France. ] It was not until the time of Edward I that the long series of troublesbetween England and Scotland began. The death of the last representativeof the old line of Scotch kings in 1290 was followed by the appearanceof a number of claimants to the crown. In order to avoid civil war, Edward was asked to decide who should be king. He agreed to make thedecision on condition that the one whom he selected should hold Scotlandas a fief from the English king. This arrangement was adopted, and thecrown was given to Robert Balliol. But Edward unwisely made demands uponthe Scots which aroused their anger, and their king renounced hishomage to the king of England. The Scotch, moreover, formed an alliancewith Edward's enemy, Philip the Fair of France; thenceforth, in all thedifficulties between England and France, the English kings had always toreckon with the disaffected Scotch, who were glad to aid England'senemies. [Sidenote: Edward attempts to incorporate Scotland with England. ] Edward marched in person against the Scotch (1296) and speedily put downwhat he regarded as a rebellion. He declared that Balliol had forfeitedhis fief through treason, and that consequently the English king hadbecome the immediate lord of the Scotch nobles, whom he forced to do himhomage. He emphasized his claim by carrying off the famous Stone ofScone, upon which the kings of Scotland had been crowned for ages. Continued resistance led Edward to attempt to incorporate Scotland withEngland in the same way that he had treated Wales. This was thebeginning of three hundred years of intermittent war between England andScotland, which ended only when a Scotch king, James VI, succeeded tothe English throne in 1603 as James I. [Sidenote: Scotland gains its independence under Robert Bruce. ] [Sidenote: Battle of Bannockburn, 1314. ] That Scotland was able to maintain her independence was mainly due toRobert Bruce, a national hero who succeeded in bringing both thenobility and the people under his leadership. Edward I died, old andworn out, in 1307, when on his way north to put down a rising underBruce, and left the task of dealing with the Scotch to his incompetentson, Edward II. The Scotch acknowledged Bruce as their king anddecisively defeated Edward II in the great battle of Bannockburn, themost famous conflict in Scottish history. Nevertheless, the Englishrefused to acknowledge the independence of Scotland until forced to doso in 1328. [Sidenote: The Scottish nation differs from the English. ] In the course of their struggles with England the Scotch people of theLowlands had become more closely welded together, and the independenceof Scotland, although it caused much bloodshed, first and last, servedto develop certain permanent differences between the little Scotchnation and the rest of the English race. The peculiarities of the peoplenorth of the Tweed have been made familiar by the writings of giftedScotchmen like Burns, Scott, and Stevenson. [Sidenote: Growth of the power of Parliament. ] Edward II's numerous enemies took advantage of his weakness to bringabout his downfall, but it is noteworthy that they worked throughParliament and in that way strengthened that fundamental nationalinstitution. We have seen how Edward I called representatives of thetownspeople, as well as the nobles and prelates, to the Model Parliamentof 1295. [177] This important innovation was formally ratified by hisson, who solemnly promised that all questions relating to his realm andits people should be settled in parliaments in which the commons shouldbe included. Thereafter no statute could be legally passed without theirconsent. In 1327 Parliament showed its power by forcing Edward II toabdicate in favor of his son, and thereby established the principle thatthe representatives of the nation might even go so far as to deposetheir ruler, should he show himself clearly unfit for his high duties. About this time Parliament began to meet in two distinct divisions, which later became the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Inmodern times this form of legislative assembly has been imitated by mostof the countries of Europe. [Sidenote: Cause of the Hundred Years' War. ] 106. The so-called Hundred Years' War, which we must now review, was along but frequently interrupted series of conflicts between the Englishand the French kings. It began in the following manner. The king ofEngland, through John's misconduct, had lost Normandy and other portionsof the great Plantagenet realm on the continent. [178] He still retained, however, the extensive duchy of Guienne, for which he did homage to theking of France, whose most powerful vassal he was. This arrangement wasbound to produce constant difficulty, especially as the French kingswere, as we have discovered, bent upon destroying as fast as possiblethe influence of their vassals, so that the royal power shouldeverywhere take the place of that of the feudal lords. It was obviouslyout of the question for the king of England meekly to permit the Frenchmonarch to extend his control directly over the people of Guienne, andyet this was the constant aim of Philip the Fair[179] and hissuccessors. THE FRENCH KINGS DURING THE FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES Louis IX (Saint Louis) (1226-1270) | Philip III (1270-1285) | +-------------+--------------------------------+ | | | |Philip IV, the Fair Charles of Valois, (1285-1314) ancestor of the house of Valois | | +-----+--------+-------------+------------+ | | | | | |Louis X Isabella, m. Philip V Charles IV |(1314-1316) Edward II (1316-1322) (1322-1328) | | | | | | +--+----+ | | | | | | Edward daughters daughter |daughter | III of Philip VI | England (1328-1350) John | (1316), | an | infant John II who died (1350-1364) when but | a few | days old +------------+ | | Charles V Philip, (1364-1380) founder of | the powerful Charles VI house (1380-1422) of Burgundy | Charles VII (1422-1461) | Louis XI (1461-1483) | Charles VIII (1483-1498) [Sidenote: The French succession in 1328. ] The inevitable struggle between England and France was rendered the moreserious by the claim made by Edward III that he was himself the rightfulking of France. He based his pretensions upon the fact that his motherIsabella was the daughter of Philip the Fair. Philip, who died in 1314, had been followed by his three sons in succession, none of whom had lefta male heir, so that the direct male line of the Capetians wasextinguished in 1328. The lawyers thereupon declared that it was avenerable law in France that no woman should succeed to the throne. Theprinciple was also asserted that a woman could not even transmit thecrown to her son. Consequently Edward III appeared to be definitelyexcluded, and Philip VI of Valois, a nephew of Philip the Fair, becameking. [Sidenote: Edward III claims the French crown. ] At first Edward III, who was a mere boy in 1328, appeared to recognizethe propriety of this settlement and did qualified homage to Philip VIfor Guienne. But when it became apparent later that Philip was not onlyencroaching upon Edward's prerogatives in Guienne but had sent Frenchtroops to aid the Scotch, the English king bethought him of hisneglected claim to the French crown. [Sidenote: The Flemish towns. ] The advantage of publicly declaring himself the rightful king of Francewas increased by the attitude of the flourishing towns of Flanders. Philip VI had assisted the count of Flanders in a bitter struggle toprevent the towns from establishing their independence. Consequently theFlemish burghers now announced their willingness to desert Philip andacknowledge and aid Edward as their king. [Sidenote: Commercial relations between the Flemish towns and England. ] [Sidenote: English wool. ] Flanders at this period was the most important trading and manufacturingcountry in western Europe. Ghent was a great manufacturing town, likeManchester to-day, and Bruges a busy port, like modern Antwerp orLiverpool. All this prosperity was largely dependent upon England, forit was from there that the Flemish manufacturers procured the fine, longwool which they wove on their looms into cloth and spun into yarn. In1336 the count of Flanders, perhaps at Philip's suggestion, ordered theimprisonment of all the Englishmen in Flanders. Edward promptlyretaliated by prohibiting the export of wool from England and theimportation of cloth. At the same time he protected and encouraged theFlemish artisans who had emigrated across the Channel and were carryingon their industry in the county of Norfolk. [Illustration: Royal Arms of Edward III] It is clear, then, that the Flemish burghers had good reason for wishingEdward to become their king, so that their relations with England mightnot be broken off. They did their part in inducing him to undertake theconquest of France, and (in 1340) we find him adding the _fleur de lis_of France to the lions of the English royal arms. [Sidenote: Edward III invades France, 1346. ] [Sidenote: The English victory at the battle of Crécy, 1346. ] Edward did not invade France for some years, but his sailors destroyedthe French fleet and began to show themselves able to maintain theirking's claim to be lord of the English seas upon every side. In 1346Edward himself landed in Normandy, devastated the country, and marchedup the Seine almost to Paris, but was then obliged to retreat northwardbefore a large army which Philip had collected. Edward made a halt atCrécy, and here one of the most celebrated battles of history tookplace. It taught the world a great lesson in warfare by proving oncemore, as the battle of Bannockburn had already done, that foot soldiers, properly armed and trained to act in concert, could defeat the feudalcavaliers in spite of their lances and heavy armor. The proud mountedknights of France performed prodigies of valor, each for himself, butthey did not act together and could not hold their ground against thedeadly shower of arrows poured into their midst from the long bows ofthe English archers. The flower of French chivalry was routed withterrible slaughter by the serried ranks of the humble English footsoldiers. [180] It was at Crécy that Edward's son, the Black Prince, --sonamed from his black armor, --won his spurs. [181] [Sidenote: The English take Calais. ] [Sidenote: The Black Prince wins a second great victory at Poitiers, 1356. ] After this great victory the English king proceeded to lay siege toCalais, the French coast town nearest England. This he took, drove out agreat part of the inhabitants, and substituted Englishmen for them. Thetown remained subject to England for two centuries. When the war wasrenewed the Black Prince, now at the height of his fame, was able todeal the enemy a still more crushing blow than at Crécy. He again putthe French knights to flight in the battle of Poitiers; he even capturedthe French king, John, and carried him off to London. [Sidenote: The Estates General attempt to control the king and reformthe government. ] 107. The French quite properly attributed the signal disasters of Crécyand Poitiers to the inefficiency of their king and his advisers. Accordingly, after the second defeat, the Estates General, which hadbeen summoned to approve the raising of more money, attempted to takematters into their own hands. The representatives of the towns, whomPhilip the Fair had first called in, [182] were on this occasion morenumerous than the members of the clergy and nobility. A great list ofreforms was drawn up, which provided, among other things, that theEstates should meet regularly whether summoned by the king or not, andthat the collection and expenditure of the public revenue should be nolonger entirely under the control of the king but should be supervisedby the representatives of the people. The city of Paris rose in supportof the revolutionary Estates, but the violence of its allies discreditedrather than helped the movement, and France was soon glad to accept theunrestricted rule of its king once more. [183] [Sidenote: Contrast between the position of the Estates General and theEnglish Parliament. ] This unsuccessful attempt to reform the French government is interestingin two ways. In the first place, there was much in the aims of thereformers and in the conduct of the Paris mob that suggests the greatsuccessful French revolution of 1789, which at last fundamentallymodified the organization of the state. In the second place, the historyof the Estates forms a curious contrast to that of the EnglishParliament, which was laying the foundation of its later power duringthis very period. While the French king occasionally summoned theEstates when he needed money, he did so only in order that theirapprobation of new taxes might make it easier to collect them. He neveradmitted that he had not the right to levy taxes if he wished withoutconsulting his subjects. In England, on the other hand, the kings eversince the time of Edward I had repeatedly agreed that no new taxesshould be imposed without the consent of Parliament. Edward II had gonefarther and accepted the representatives of the people as his advisersin all important matters touching the welfare of the realm. While theFrench Estates gradually sank into insignificance, the EnglishParliament soon learned to grant no money until the king had redressedthe grievances which it pointed out, and thus it insured its influenceover the king's policy. [Sidenote: Treaty of Bretigny, 1360. ] Edward III found it impossible to conquer France in spite of thevictories of the Black Prince and the capture of John. He was glad in1360 to sign the treaty of Bretigny, in which he not only renounced hispretensions to the French crown but agreed to say no more of the oldclaims of his family to Normandy and the Plantagenet provinces north ofthe Loire. In return for these concessions he received, in fullsovereignty and without any feudal obligations to the king of France, Poitou, Guienne, Gascony, and the town of Calais, amounting to about onethird of the territory of France. [Illustration: French Territory ceded to England by the Treaty ofBretigny, 1360] [Sidenote: England loses most of its French territory before the deathof Edward III, 1377. ] The promising peace of Bretigny was however soon broken. The BlackPrince, to whom the government of Guienne was delegated by his father, levied such heavy taxes that he quickly alienated the hearts of a peoplenaturally drawn to France rather than to England. When the sagaciousCharles V of France (1364-1380) undertook to reconquer the territorywhich his father had ceded to England, he met with no determinedopposition; Edward III was getting old and his warlike son, the BlackPrince, had fallen mortally ill. So when Edward died in 1377 nothingremained to the English king except Calais and a strip of land fromBordeaux southward. [Sidenote: Miserable condition of France. ] For a generation after the death of Edward III the war with France wasalmost discontinued. France had suffered a great deal more than England. In the first place, all the fighting had been done on her side of theChannel, and in the second place, the soldiers who found themselveswithout occupation after the treaty of Bretigny had wandered about inbands maltreating and plundering the people. Petrarch, who visitedFrance at this period, tells us that he could not believe that this wasthe same kingdom which he had once seen so rich and flourishing. "Nothing presented itself to my eyes but fearful solitude and extremepoverty, uncultivated land and houses in ruins. Even about Paris therewere everywhere signs of fire and destruction. The streets weredeserted; the roads overgrown with weeds. " [Sidenote: The bubonic plague of 1348-1349, commonly called the 'blackdeath. '] The horrors of war had been increased by the deadly bubonic plague whichappeared in Europe early in 1348. In April it had reached Florence; byAugust it was devastating France and Germany; it then spread overEngland from the southwest northward, attacking every part of thecountry during the year 1349. This disease, like other terribleepidemics, such as smallpox and cholera, came from Asia. Those who werestricken with it usually died in two or three days. It is impossible totell what proportion of the population perished. Reports of the time saythat in one part of France but one tenth of the people survived, inanother but one sixteenth; and that for a long time five hundred bodieswere carried from the great hospital of Paris every day. A carefulestimate shows that in England toward one half of the population died. At the Abbey of Newenham only the abbot and two monks were left aliveout of twenty-six. There were constant complaints that certain landswere no longer of any value to their lords because the tenants were alldead. [Sidenote: Conditions of English labor. ] 108. In England the growing discontent among the agricultural classesmay be ascribed partly to the results of the great pestilence and partlyto the new taxes which were levied in order to prolong the disastrouswar with France. Up to this time the majority of those who cultivatedthe land belonged to some particular manor, paid stated dues to theirlord, and performed definite services for him. Hitherto there had beenrelatively few farm hands who might be hired and who sought employmentanywhere that they could get it. The black death, by greatly decreasingthe number of laborers, raised wages and served to increase theimportance of the unattached laborer. Consequently he not only demandedhigher wages than ever before, but readily deserted one employer whenanother offered him more money. [Sidenote: The Statutes of Laborers issued in 1351 and following years. ] This appeared very shocking to those who were accustomed to thetraditional rates of payment; and the government undertook to keep downwages by prohibiting laborers from asking more than had been customaryduring the years that preceded the pestilence. Every laborer, whenoffered work at the established wages, was ordered to accept it on painof imprisonment. The first "Statute of Laborers"[184] was issued in1351; but apparently it was not obeyed and similar laws were enactedfrom time to time for a century. Nevertheless complaints continued thatserfs and laborers persisted in demanding "outrageous and excessivehire. " This seems to indicate that the efforts of Parliament tointerfere with the law of supply and demand were unsuccessful. [Sidenote: Breaking up of the mediæval manors in England. ] The old manor system was breaking up. Many of the laboring class in thecountry no longer held land as serfs but moved from place to place andmade a living by working for wages. The _villain_, as the serf wascalled in England, began to regard the dues which he had been accustomedto pay to his lord as unjust. A petition to Parliament in 1377 assertsthat the villains are refusing to pay their customary services to theirlords or to acknowledge the obligations which they owe as serfs. [Sidenote: Causes of discontent among the English peasants. ] [Sidenote: 'The Vision of Piers Ploughman. '] The discontent was becoming general. We see it reflected in a remarkablepoem of the time, "The Vision of Piers Ploughman, " in which theunfortunate position of the peasant is vividly portrayed. [185] This isonly the most notable example of a great number of pamphlets, some inprose and some in bad verse, which were calculated to make the peoplemore discontented than ever. The efforts to enforce the provisions ofthe Statutes of Laborers had undoubtedly produced much friction betweenthe landlords and their employees. A new form of taxation also causedmuch irritation. A general poll tax, which was to be paid by every oneabove sixteen years of age, was established in 1379 and another one inthe following year to meet the expenses of the hopeless French war whichwas now being conducted by incapable and highly unpopular ministers. [Sidenote: The peasant revolt of 1381. ] In 1381 rioting began among the peasants in Kent and Essex, and severalbodies of the insurgents determined to march upon London. As they passedalong the road their ranks were swelled by discontented villagers and bymany of the poorer workingmen from the towns. Soon the revolt spread allthrough southern and eastern England. The peasants burned some of thehouses of the gentry and of the rich ecclesiastics, and took particularpains to see that the lists for the collection of the hated poll taxwere destroyed, as well as the registers kept by the various lordsenumerating the obligations of their serfs. The gates of London wereopened to the insurgents by sympathizers within the walls, and severalof the king's officers were seized and put to death. Some of the simplepeople imagined that they might induce the boy king, Richard II, tobecome their leader. He had no idea of aiding them; he went out, however, to meet them and induced them to disperse by promising that hewould abolish serfdom. [Sidenote: Final disappearance of serfdom in England. ] Although the king did not keep his promise, serfdom decayed rapidly. Itbecame more and more common for the serf to pay his dues to the lord inmoney instead of working for him, and in this way he lost one of thechief characteristics of a serf. The landlord then either hired men tocultivate the fields which he reserved for his own use[186] or rentedthe land to tenants. These tenants were not in a position to force theirfellow-tenants on the manor to pay the full dues which had formerly beenexacted by the lord. Sixty or seventy years after the Peasants' War theEnglish rural population had in one way or another become free men, andserfs had practically disappeared. [Sidenote: Deposition of Richard II and accession of Henry IV ofLancaster, 1399-1413. ] [Sidenote: Henry V claims the French crown, 1414. ] 109. The war with France had, as we have seen, almost ceased for ageneration after the death of Edward III. The young son of the BlackPrince, Richard II, who succeeded his grandfather on the throne, wascontrolled by the great noblemen whose rivalries fill much space in theannals of England. He was finally forced to abdicate in 1399. Henry IV, of the powerful house of Lancaster, [187] was recognized as king in spiteof the fact that he had less claim than another descendant of EdwardIII, who was, however, a mere boy. Henry IV's uncertain title may havemade him less enterprising than Edward III; at any rate, it was left forhis son, Henry V (1413-1422), to continue the French war. The conditionsin France were such as to encourage the new claim which Henry V made tothe French crown in 1414. [Sidenote: Civil war in France between the houses of Burgundy andOrleans. ] The able French king, Charles V, who had delivered his country for atime from the English invaders, [188] had been followed in 1380 byCharles VI, who soon lost his mind. The right to govern Franceconsequently became a matter of dispute among the insane king's unclesand other relations. The country was divided between two great factions, one of which was headed by the powerful duke of Burgundy, who wasbuilding up a new state between France and Germany, and the other by theduke of Orleans. In 1407 the duke of Orleans was brutally murdered byorder of the duke of Burgundy, --a by no means uncommon way at that timeof disposing of one's enemies in both France and England. This led to aprolonged civil war between the two parties, and saved England from anattack which the duke of Orleans had been planning. [Sidenote: Position of Henry V. ] [Sidenote: Agincourt, 1415. ] Henry V had no real basis for his claim to the French crown. Edward IIIhad gone to war because France was encroaching upon Guienne and aidingScotland, and because he was encouraged by the Flemish towns. Henry V, on the other hand, was merely anxious to make himself and his housepopular by deeds of valor. Nevertheless his very first victory, thebattle of Agincourt, was as brilliant as that of Crécy or Poitiers. Oncemore the English bowmen slaughtered great numbers of French knights. TheEnglish then proceeded to conquer Normandy and march upon Paris. [Sidenote: Treaty of Troyes, 1420. ] Burgundians and Orleanists were upon the point of forgetting theiranimosities in their common fear of the English, when the duke ofBurgundy, as he was kneeling to kiss the hand of his future sovereign, the Dauphin, [189] was treacherously attacked and killed by a band of hisenemies. His son, the new duke of Burgundy, Philip the Good, immediatelyjoined the English against the Dauphin, whom he believed to beresponsible for his father's murder. Henry then forced the French tosign the treaty of Troyes (1420), which provided that he was to becomeking of France upon the death of the mad Charles VI. [Sidenote: Henry VI recognized as king in northern France. ] Both Henry V and Charles VI died two years later. Henry V's son, HenryVI, was but nine months old; nevertheless according to the terms of thetreaty of Troyes he succeeded to the throne in France as well as inEngland. The child was recognized only in a portion of northern France. Through the ability of his uncle, the duke of Bedford, his interestswere defended with such good effect that the English succeeded in a fewyears in conquering all of France north of the Loire, although the southcontinued to be held by Charles VII, the son of Charles VI. [Sidenote: Joan of Arc. ] Charles VII had not yet been crowned and so was still called the Dauphineven by his supporters. Weak and indolent, he did nothing to stem thetide of English victories or restore the courage and arouse thepatriotism of his distressed subjects. This great task was reserved fora young peasant girl from a remote village on the eastern border ofFrance. To her family and her companions Joan of Arc seemed only "a goodgirl, simple and pleasant in her ways, " but she brooded much over thedisasters that had overtaken her country, and a "great pity on the fairrealm of France" filled her heart. She saw visions and heard voices thatbade her go forth to the help of the king and lead him to Rheims to becrowned. [Sidenote: Relief of Orleans by Joan, 1429. ] It was with the greatest difficulty that she got anybody to believe inher mission or to help her to get an audience with the Dauphin. But herown firm faith in her divine guidance triumphed over all doubts andobstacles. She was at last accepted as a God-sent champion and placed atthe head of some troops despatched to the relief of Orleans. This city, which was the key to southern France, had been besieged by the Englishfor some months and was on the point of surrender. Joan, who rode onhorseback at the head of her troops, clothed in armor like a man, hadnow become the idol of the soldiers and of the people. Under theguidance and inspiration of her indomitable courage, sound sense, andburning enthusiasm, Orleans was relieved and the English completelyrouted. The Maid of Orleans, as she was henceforth called, was now freeto conduct the Dauphin to Rheims, where he was crowned in the cathedral(July 17, 1429). [Illustration: Possessions of the English King in France upon theAccession of Henry VI, 1424] [Sidenote: Execution of Joan, 1431. ] The Maid now felt that her mission was accomplished and beggedpermission to return to her home and her brothers and sisters. To thisthe king would not consent, and she continued to fight his battles withundiminished loyalty. But the other leaders were jealous of her, andeven her friends, the soldiers, were sensitive to the taunt of being ledby a woman. During the defense of Compiègne in May, 1430, she wasallowed to fall into the hands of the duke of Burgundy, who sold her tothe English. They were not satisfied with simply holding as prisonerthat strange maiden who had so discomfited them; they wished todiscredit everything that she had done, and so declared, and undoubtedlybelieved, that she was a witch who had been helped by the Evil One. Shewas tried by a court of ecclesiastics, found guilty of heresy, andburned at Rouen in 1431. Her bravery and noble constancy affected evenher executioners, and an English soldier who had come to triumph overher death was heard to exclaim: "We are lost--we have burned a saint. "The English cause in France was indeed lost, for her spirit and examplehad given new courage and vigor to the French armies. [190] [Sidenote: England loses her French possessions. ] [Sidenote: End of the Hundred Years' War, 1453. ] The English Parliament became more and more reluctant to grant fundswhen there were no more victories gained. Bedford, through whose abilitythe English cause had hitherto been maintained, died in 1435, and Philipthe Good, Duke of Burgundy, renounced his alliance with the English andjoined Charles VII. Owing to his acquisition of the Netherlands, thepossessions of Philip were now so great that he might well be regardedas a European potentate whose alliance with France rendered furtherefforts on England's part hopeless. From this time on the English lostground steadily. They were expelled from Normandy in 1450. Three yearslater, the last vestige of their long domination in southern Francepassed into the hands of the French king. The Hundred Years' War wasover, and although England still retained Calais, the great questionwhether she should extend her sway upon the continent was finallysettled. [Sidenote: The Wars of the Roses between the houses of Lancaster andYork, 1455-1485. ] 110. The close of the Hundred Years' War was followed in England by theWars of the Roses, between the rival houses which were struggling forthe crown. The badge of the house of Lancaster, to which Henry VIbelonged, was a red rose, and that of the duke of York, who proposed topush him off his throne, was a white one. Each party was supported by agroup of the wealthy and powerful nobles whose rivalries, conspiracies, treasons, murders, and executions fill the annals of England during theperiod which we have been discussing. Vast estates had come into thehands of the higher nobility by inheritance, and marriages with wealthyheiresses. Many of the dukes and earls were related to the royal familyand consequently were inevitably drawn into the dynastic struggles. [Sidenote: Retainers. ] The nobles no longer owed their power to vassals who were bound tofollow them to war. Like the king, they relied upon hired soldiers. Itwas easy to find plenty of restless fellows who were willing to becomethe retainers of a nobleman if he would agree to clothe them with hislivery and keep open house, where they might eat and drink their fill. Their master was to help them when they got into trouble, and they ontheir part were expected to intimidate, misuse, and even murder at needthose who opposed the interests of their chief. When the French war wasover, the unruly elements of society poured back across the Channel and, as retainers of the rival lords, became the terror of the country. Theybullied judges and juries, and helped the nobles to control theselection of those who were sent to Parliament. [Sidenote: Edward IV secures the crown. ] It is needless to speak of the several battles and the many skirmishesof the miserable Wars of the Roses. These lasted from 1455, when theduke of York set seriously to work to displace the weak-mindedLancastrian king, Henry VI, until the accession of Henry VII, of thehouse of Tudor, thirty years later. After several battles the Yorkistleader, Edward IV, assumed the crown in 1461 and was recognized byParliament, which declared Henry VI and the two preceding Lancastriankings usurpers. [191] Edward was a vigorous monarch and maintained hisown until his death in 1483. [Sidenote: Edward V, 1483; Richard III, 1483-1485. ] [Sidenote: Death of Richard in the battle of Bosworth Field. ] [Sidenote: Accession of Henry VII of the house of Tudor, 1485. ] [Sidenote: End of the Wars of the Roses. ] Edward's son, Edward V, was only a little boy, so that the governmentfell into the hands of the young king's uncle, Richard, Duke ofGloucester. The temptation to make himself king was too great to beresisted, and Richard soon seized the crown. Both the sons of Edward IVwere killed in the Tower of London, and with the knowledge of theiruncle, as it was commonly believed. This murder made Richard unpopulareven at a time when one could kill one's political rivals withoutincurring general opprobrium. A new aspirant to the throne organized aconspiracy. Richard III was defeated and slain in the battle of BosworthField in 1485, and the crown which had fallen from his head was placedupon that of the first Tudor king, Henry VII. The latter had noparticular right to it, although he was descended from Edward IIIthrough his mother. He hastened to procure the recognition ofParliament, and married Edward IV's daughter, thus blending the red andwhite roses in the Tudor badge. [192] [Illustration: FRANCE UNDER LOUIS XI] [Sidenote: The despotism of the Tudors. ] The Wars of the Roses had important results. Nearly all the powerfulfamilies of England had been drawn into the fierce struggles, and agreat part of the nobility, whom the kings had formerly feared, hadperished on the battlefield or lost their heads in the ruthlessexecutions carried out by each party after it gained a victory. Thisleft the king far more powerful than ever before. He could now dominateParliament, if he could not dispense with it. For a century and more theTudor kings enjoyed almost despotic power. England ceased for a time toenjoy the free government for which the foundations had been laid underthe Edwards and the Lancastrian kings, whose embarrassments at home andabroad had made them constantly dependent upon the aid of thenation. [193] [Sidenote: France establishes a standing army, 1439. ] 111. In France the closing years of the Hundred Years' War had witnesseda great increase of the king's power through the establishment of awell-organized standing army. The feudal army had long sincedisappeared. Even before the opening of the war the nobles had begun tobe paid for their military services and no longer furnished troops as acondition of holding fiefs. But the companies of soldiers, althoughnominally under the command of royal officers, were often reallyindependent of the king. They found their pay very uncertain, andplundered their countrymen as well as the enemy. As the war drew to aclose, the lawless troopers became a terrible scourge to the country andwere known as _flayers_, on account of the horrible way in which theytortured the peasants in the hope of extracting money from them. In 1439the Estates General approved a plan devised by the king, for putting anend to this evil. Thereafter no one was to raise a company without thepermission of the king, who was to name the captains and fix the numberof the soldiers and the character of their arms. [194] [Sidenote: The permanent tax fatal to the powers of the EstatesGeneral. ] The Estates agreed that the king should use a certain tax, called the_taille_, to support the troops necessary for the protection of thefrontier. This was a fatal concession, for the king now had an army andthe right to collect what he chose to consider a permanent tax, theamount of which he later greatly increased; he was not dependent, as wasthe English king, upon the grants made for brief periods by therepresentatives of the nation. [Sidenote: The new feudalism. ] Before the king of France could hope to establish a compact, well-organized state it was necessary for him to reduce the power of hisvassals, some of whom were almost his equals in strength. The olderfeudal dynasties, as we have seen, had many of them succumbed to theattacks and the diplomacy of the kings of the thirteenth century, especially of St. Louis. But he and his successors had raised up freshrivals by granting whole provinces, called _appanages_, [195] to theiryounger sons. In this way new and powerful lines of feudal nobles wereestablished, such, for example, as the houses of Orleans, Anjou, Bourbon, and, above all, of Burgundy. The accompanying map shows theregion immediately subject to the king--the royal domain--at the time ofthe expulsion of the English. It clearly indicates what still remainedto be done in order to free France from feudalism and make it a greatnation. The process of reducing the prerogatives of the nobles had beenbegun. They had been forbidden to coin money, to maintain armies, and totax their subjects, and the powers of the king's judges had beenextended over all the realm. But the task of consolidating France wasreserved for the son of Charles VII, the shrewd and treacherous Louis XI(1461-1483). [Sidenote: Extent of the Burgundian possessions in the fifteenthcentury. ] By far the most dangerous of Louis' vassals were Philip the Good, Dukeof Burgundy (1419-1467), and his impetuous son, Charles the Bold(1467-1477). Just a century before Louis XI came to the throne, the oldline of Burgundian dukes had died out, and in 1363 the same King Johnwhom the English captured and carried off to England, presented Burgundyto his younger son Philip. [196] By fortunate marriages and luckywindfalls the dukes of Burgundy had added a number of important fiefs totheir original possessions, and Philip the Good ruled overFranche-Comté, Luxembourg, Flanders, Artois, Brabant, and otherprovinces and towns which lie in what is now Holland and Belgium. [Illustration: Louis XI] [Sidenote: Ambition of Charles the Bold, 1467-1477. ] Charles the Bold busied himself for some years before his father's deathin forming alliances with the other powerful French vassals andconspiring against Louis. Upon becoming duke himself he set his heartupon two things. He resolved, first, to conquer Lorraine, which dividedhis territories into two parts and made it difficult to pass fromFranche-Comté to Luxembourg. In the second place, he proposed to havehimself crowned king of the territories which his forefathers hadaccumulated and in this way establish a strong new state between Franceand Germany. [Sidenote: Charles defeated by the Swiss at Granson and Murten, 1476. ] Naturally neither the king of France nor the emperor sympathized withCharles' ambitions. Louis taxed his exceptional ingenuity in frustratinghis aspiring vassal; and the emperor refused to crown Charles as kingwhen he appeared at Trier eager for the ceremony. The most humiliating, however, of the defeats which Charles encountered came from anunexpected quarter. He attempted to chastise his neighbors the Swiss forsiding with his enemies and was soundly beaten by that brave people intwo memorable battles. [Illustration: BRONZE STATUES OF PHILIP THE GOOD AND CHARLES THE BOLDAT INNSBRUCK] [Sidenote: Death of Charles, 1477. ] [Sidenote: Marriage of Mary of Burgundy to Maximilian of Austria. ] The next year Charles fell ingloriously in an attempt to take the townof Nancy. His lands went to his daughter Mary, who was immediatelymarried to the emperor's son, Maximilian, much to the disgust of Louis, who had already seized the duchy of Burgundy and hoped to gain stillmore. The great importance of this marriage, which resulted in bringingthe Netherlands into the hands of Austria, will be seen when we come toconsider Charles V (the grandson of Mary and Maximilian) and his vastempire. [197] [Sidenote: Work of Louis XI. ] Louis XI did far more for the French monarchy than check his chiefvassal and reclaim a part of the Burgundian territory. He had himselfmade heir to a number of provinces in central and southernFrance, --Anjou, Maine, Provence, etc. , --which by the death of theirpossessors came under the king's immediate control (1481). He humiliatedin various ways the vassals who in his early days had combined withCharles the Bold against him. The duke of Alençon he imprisoned; therebellious duke of Nemours he caused to be executed in the most cruelmanner. Louis' political aims were worthy, but his means were generallydespicable. It sometimes seemed as if he gloried in being the mostrascally among rascals, the most treacherous among the traitors whom heso artfully circumvented in the interests of the French monarchy. [198] [Sidenote: England and France establish strong national governments. ] Both England and France emerged from the troubles and desolations of theHundred Years' War stronger than ever before. In both countries thekings had overcome the menace of feudalism by destroying the power ofthe great families. The royal government was becoming constantly morepowerful. Commerce and industry increased the national wealth andsupplied the monarchs with the revenue necessary to maintain governmentofficials and a sufficient armed force to execute the laws and keeporder throughout their realms. They were no longer forced to rely uponthe uncertain pledges of their vassals. In short, the French and theEnglish were both becoming nations, each with a strong national feelingand a king whom every one, both high and low, recognized and obeyed asthe head of the government. [Sidenote: Influence of the development of modern states upon theposition of the mediæval Church. ] It is obvious that the strengthening of the royal power could hardlyfail to alter the position of the mediæval Church. This was, as we haveseen, not simply a religious institution but a sort of internationalstate which performed a number of important governmental duties. Wemust, therefore, now turn back and review the history of the Church fromthe time of Edward I and Philip the Fair to the opening of the sixteenthcentury. General Reading. --For the political history of this period, LODGE, _Close of the Middle Ages_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 75), is the best work, although rather dry and cumbered with names which might have been omitted. For the general history of France, see in addition to ADAMS, _Growth of the French Nation_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 25), DURUY, _A History of France_ (T. Y. Crowell, $2. 00). The economic history of England is to be found in the works mentioned at the end of Chapter XVIII. The following collections of documents furnish illustrative material in abundance: LEE, _Source-book of English History_ (Holt, $2. 00); COLBY, _Selections from the Sources of English History_, (Longmans, Green & Co. , $1. 50); ADAMS & STEPHENS, _Select Documents of English Constitutional History_ (The Macmillan Company, $2. 25); KENDALL, _Source Book of English History_ (The Macmillan Company, 80 cents). CHAPTER XXI THE POPES AND THE COUNCILS [Sidenote: The problem of the relation of church and state. ] 112. The influence which the Church and its head exercised over thecivil government in the Middle Ages was due largely to the absence ofstrong, efficient rulers who could count upon the support of a largebody of prosperous and loyal subjects. So long as the feudal anarchycontinued, the Church endeavored to supply the deficiencies of therestless and ignorant princes by striving to maintain order, administerjustice, protect the weak, and encourage learning. So soon, however, asthe modern state began to develop, difficulties arose. The clergynaturally clung to the powers and privileges which they had longenjoyed, and which they believed to be rightly theirs. On the otherhand, the state, so soon as it felt itself able to manage its ownaffairs, protect its subjects, and provide for their worldly interests, was less and less inclined to tolerate the interference of the clergyand their head, the pope. Educated laymen were becoming more and morecommon, and the king was no longer obliged to rely upon the assistanceof the clergy in conducting his government. It was natural that heshould look with disfavor upon their privileges, which put them upon adifferent footing from the great mass of his subjects, and upon theirwealth, which he would deem excessive and dangerous to his power. Thissituation raised the fundamental problem of the proper relation ofchurch and state, upon which Europe has been working ever since thefourteenth century and has not completely solved yet. [Sidenote: Edward I and Philip the Fair attempt to tax the clergy. ] The difficulty which the Church experienced in maintaining its poweragainst the kings is excellently shown by the famous struggle betweenPhilip the Fair, the grandson of St. Louis, and Boniface VIII, an oldman of boundless ambition and inexhaustible energy who came to the papalthrone in 1294. The first serious trouble arose over the habit intowhich the kings of England and France had fallen, of taxing the propertyof the churchmen like that of other subjects. It was natural after amonarch had squeezed all that he could out of the Jews and the towns, and had exacted every possible feudal due, that he should turn to therich estates of the clergy, in spite of their claim that their propertywas dedicated to God and owed the king nothing. The extensiveenterprises of Edward I led him in 1296 to demand one fifth of thepersonal property of the clergy. Philip the Fair exacted one hundredthand then one fiftieth of the possessions of clergy and laity alike. [Sidenote: The bull _Clericis laicos_ of Boniface VIII, 1296. ] Against this impartial system Boniface protested in the famous bull_Clericis laicos_ (1296). He claimed that the laity had always beenexceedingly hostile to the clergy, and that the rulers were nowexhibiting this hostility by imposing heavy burdens upon the Church, forgetting that they had no control over the clergy and theirpossessions. The pope, therefore, forbade all churchmen, including themonks, to pay, without his consent, to a king or ruler any part of theChurch's revenue or possessions upon any pretext whatsoever. He likewiseforbade the kings and princes under pain of excommunication to presumeto exact any such payments. [Sidenote: Boniface concedes a limited right to tax churchmen. ] It happened that just as the pope was prohibiting the clergy fromcontributing to the taxes, Philip the Fair had forbidden the exportationof all gold and silver from the country. In that way he cut off animportant source of the pope's revenue, for the church of France couldobviously no longer send anything to Rome. The pope was forced to giveup his extreme claims. He explained the following year that he had notmeant to interfere with the payment on the clergy's part of customaryfeudal dues nor with their loans of money to the king. [199] [Sidenote: The jubilee of 1300. ] In spite of this setback, the pope never seemed more completely therecognized head of the western world than during the first greatjubilee, in the year 1300, when Boniface called together all Christendomto celebrate the opening of the new century by a great religiousfestival at Rome. It is reported that two millions of people, comingfrom all parts of Europe, visited the churches of Rome, and that inspite of widening the streets many were crushed in the crowd. So greatwas the influx of money into the papal treasury that two assistants werekept busy with rakes collecting the offerings which were deposited atthe tomb of St. Peter. Boniface was, however, very soon to realize that even if Christendomregarded Rome as its religious center, the nations would not accept himas their political head. When he dispatched an obnoxious prelate toPhilip the Fair, ordering him to free the count of Flanders whom he washolding prisoner, the king declared the harsh language of the papalenvoy to be high treason and sent one of his lawyers to the pope todemand that the messenger be degraded and punished. [Sidenote: The Estates General of 1302. ] Philip was surrounded by a body of lawyers, and it would seem that they, rather than the king, were the real rulers of France. They had, throughtheir study of Roman law, learned to admire the absolute power exercisedby the Roman emperor. To them the civil government was supreme, and theyurged the king to punish what they regarded as the insolent conduct ofthe pope. Before taking any action against the head of the Church, Philip called together the representatives of his people, including notonly the clergy and the nobility but the people of the towns as well. The Estates General, after hearing a statement of the case from one ofPhilip's lawyers, agreed to support their monarch. [Sidenote: Nogaret insults Boniface VIII. ] [Sidenote: Death of Boniface, 1303. ] Nogaret, one of the chief legal advisers of the king, undertook to facethe pope. He collected a little troop of soldiers in Italy and marchedagainst Boniface, who was sojourning at Anagni, where his predecessorshad excommunicated two emperors, Frederick Barbarossa and Frederick II. As Boniface, in his turn, was preparing solemnly to proclaim the king ofFrance an outcast from the Church, Nogaret penetrated into the papalpalace with his soldiers and heaped insults upon the helpless butdefiant old man. The townspeople forced Nogaret to leave the next day, but Boniface's spirit was broken and he soon died at Rome. [Sidenote: Clement V, 1305-1314, and his subservience to Philip theFair. ] [Sidenote: The popes take up their residence at Avignon. ] King Philip now proposed to have no more trouble with popes. He arrangedin 1305 to have the Archbishop of Bordeaux chosen head of the Church, with the understanding that he should transfer the papacy to France. Thenew pope accordingly summoned the cardinals to meet him at Lyons, wherehe was crowned under the title of Clement V. He remained in Franceduring his whole pontificate, moving from one rich abbey to another. AtPhilip's command he reluctantly undertook a sort of trial of thedeceased Boniface VIII, who was accused by the king's lawyers of allsorts of abominable crimes. A great part of Boniface's decrees wererevoked, and those who had attacked him were exculpated. Then, to pleasethe king, Clement brought the Templars to trial; the order was abolishedand its possessions in France, for which the king had longed, wereconfiscated. Obviously it proved very advantageous to the king to have apope within his realm. Clement V died in 1314. His successors took uptheir residence in the town of Avignon, just outside the French frontierof those days. There they built a sumptuous palace in which successivepopes lived in great splendor for sixty years. [Sidenote: The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. ] 113. The prolonged exile of the popes from Rome, lasting from 1305 to1377, is commonly called the Babylonian Captivity[200] of the Church, onaccount of the woes attributed to it. The popes of this period were forthe most part good and earnest men; but they were all Frenchmen, and theproximity of their court to France led to the natural suspicion thatthey were controlled by the French kings. This, together with theirluxurious court, brought them into discredit with the othernations. [201] [Sidenote: The papal taxation. ] At Avignon the popes were naturally deprived of some of the revenuewhich they had enjoyed from their Italian possessions when they lived atRome. This deficiency had to be made up by increased taxation, especially as the expenses of the splendid papal court were very heavy. The papacy was, consequently, rendered still more unpopular by themethods employed to raise money, particularly by the granting ofbenefices throughout Europe to the pope's courtiers, by the heavycontributions which were demanded for dispensations, for theconfirmation of bishops, and for granting the pallium to archbishops, aswell as the high fees for the trial of law suits. [Sidenote: Pope's control of church benefices. ] Many of the church offices, such as those of the bishops and abbots, insured a more than ample revenue to their holders. It was natural, therefore, that the pope, in his endeavor to increase his income, shouldhave tried to bring as many of these appointments as he could into hisown hands. He did this by reserving to himself the filling of certainbenefices so soon as they should become vacant. He then chose some oneto whom he wished to do a favor and promised him the benefice upon thedeath of the one then holding it. Men appointed in this way were called_provisors_ and were extremely unpopular. They were very oftenforeigners, and it was suspected that they had obtained these positionsfrom the pope simply for the sake of the revenue, and had no intentionwhatever of performing the duties connected with them. [Sidenote: Statute of provisors, 1352. ] The papal exactions met with the greatest opposition in England becausethe popes were thought to favor France, with which country the Englishwere at war. A law was passed by Parliament in 1352 ordering that allwho procured appointments from the pope should be outlawed, that any onemight injure such offenders at will, and that the injured should have noredress, since they were enemies of the king and his realm. [202] Thisand similar laws failed, however, to prevent the pope from fillingEnglish benefices to the advantage of himself and his courtiers. TheEnglish king was unable to keep the money of his realm from flowing toAvignon on one pretext or another. It was declared by the GoodParliament, held in 1376, that the taxes levied by the pope in Englandwere five times those raised by the king. [Sidenote: John Wycliffe. ] The most famous and conspicuous critic of the pope and of the policy ofthe Roman Church at this time was John Wycliffe, a teacher at Oxford. Hewas born about 1320; but we know little of him before 1366, when Urban Vdemanded that England should pay the tribute promised by King John whenhe became the pope's vassal. [203] Parliament declared that John had noright to bind the people without their consent, and Wycliffe began hiscareer of opposition to the papacy by trying to prove that John'scompact was void. About ten years later we find the pope issuing bullsagainst the teachings of Wycliffe, who had begun to assert that thestate might appropriate the property of the Church if it was misused, and that the pope had no authority except as he acted according to theGospels. Soon Wycliffe went further and boldly attacked the papacyitself, as well as indulgences, pilgrimages, and the worship of thesaints; finally he even denied the truth of the doctrine oftransubstantiation. [Sidenote: Wycliffe's 'simple priests. '] He did not, however, confine his work to a denunciation of what heconsidered wrong in the teaching and conduct of the churchmen. Heestablished an order of "simple priests" who were to go about doing goodand reprove by their example the worldly habits of the general run ofpriests and monks. [Sidenote: Wycliffe the father of English prose. ] Wycliffe's anxiety to reach the people and foster a higher spirituallife among them led him to have the Bible translated into English. Healso prepared a great number of sermons and tracts in English. He is thefather of English prose, and it has been well said that "the exquisitepathos, the keen, delicate irony, and the manly passion of his short, nervous sentences, fairly overmaster the weakness of the unformedlanguage and give us English which cannot be read without a feeling ofits beauty to this hour. " [Sidenote: Influence of Wycliffe's teaching. ] Wycliffe and his "simple priests" were charged with fomenting thediscontent and disorder which culminated in the Peasants' War. Whetherthis charge was true or not, it caused many of his more aristocraticfollowers to fall away from him. But in spite of this and thedenunciations of the Church, Wycliffe was not seriously interfered withand died peaceably in 1384. While his followers appear to have yieldedpretty readily to the persecution which soon overtook them, hisdoctrines were spread abroad in Bohemia by another ardent reformer, JohnHuss, who was destined to give the Church a great deal of trouble. Wycliffe is remarkable as being the first distinguished scholar andreformer to repudiate the headship of the pope and those practices ofthe Church of Rome which a hundred and fifty years after his death wereattacked by Luther in his successful revolt against the mediævalChurch. [204] [Sidenote: The papal court moves back to Rome, 1377. ] 114. In 1377 Pope Gregory XI moved back again to Rome after the popeshad been exiles for seventy years, during which much had happened toundermine the papal power and supremacy. Yet the discredit into whichthe papacy had fallen during its stay at Avignon was as nothing comparedwith the disasters which befell it after the return to Rome. [Sidenote: Election of Urban VI, 1378. ] Gregory died the year after his return and the cardinals assembled tochoose his successor. A great part of them were French. They had foundRome in a sad state of ruin and disorder and heartily regretted the gaylife and the comforts and luxuries of Avignon. They determined thereforeto select a pope who would take them back to the banks of the Rhone. While they were deliberating, the Roman populace was yelling outside theconclave and demanding that a Roman be chosen, or at least an Italian. Asimple Italian monk was accordingly selected, Urban VI, who it wassupposed would agree to the wishes of the cardinals. [Sidenote: Election of an anti-pope, Clement VII. ] The new pope, however, soon showed that he had no idea of returning toAvignon. He treated the cardinals with harshness and proposed a sternreformation of their habits. The cardinals speedily wearied of thistreatment; they retired to the neighboring Anagni and declared that theyhad been frightened by the Roman mob into selecting the obnoxious Urban. They then elected a new pope, who took the title of Clement VII, returned to Avignon, and established his court there. Urban, althoughdeserted by his cardinals, had no intention of yielding and proceeded tocreate twenty-eight new cardinals. [Sidenote: The Great Schism. ] This double election was the beginning of the _Great Schism_, which wasto last for forty years and expose the papacy to new attacks on everyside. There had been many anti-popes in earlier centuries, set upusually by the emperors; but there had ordinarily been little questionas to who was really the legitimate pope. In the present case Europe wasseriously in doubt, for it was difficult to decide whether the electionof Urban had really been forced and was consequently invalid as thecardinals claimed. No one, therefore, could be perfectly sure which ofthe rival popes was the real successor of St. Peter. There were now twocolleges of cardinals whose very existence depended upon the exercise oftheir right of choosing the pope. It was natural that Italy shouldsupport Urban VI, while France as naturally obeyed Clement VII; England, hostile to France, accepted Urban; Scotland, hostile to England, supported Clement. [Sidenote: The Church divided within itself and the consequences. ] Each of two men, with seemingly equal right, now claimed to be Christ'svicar on earth; each proposed to enjoy to the full the vast prerogativesof the head of Christendom, and each denounced, and attempted to depose, the other. The schism in the headship of the Church naturally extendedto the bishoprics and abbeys, and everywhere there were rival prelates, each of whom could claim that he had been duly confirmed by one pope orthe other. All this produced an unprecedented scandal in the Church. Itemphasized all the abuses among the clergy and gave free rein to thosewho were inclined to denounce the many evils which had been pointed outby Wycliffe and his followers. The condition was, in fact, intolerableand gave rise to widespread discussion, not only of the means by whichthe schism might be healed, but of the nature and justification of thepapacy itself. The discussion which arose during these forty years ofuncertainty did much to prepare the mind of western Europe for theProtestant revolt in the sixteenth century. [Sidenote: Idea of the supremacy of a general council. ] The selfish and futile negotiations between the colleges of cardinalsand the popes justified the notion that there might perhaps be a powerin Christendom superior even to that of the pope. Might not a council, representing all Christendom, and inspired by the Holy Ghost, judge evena pope? Such councils had been held in the East during the later RomanEmpire, beginning with the first general or ecumenical council of Nicæaunder Constantine. They had established the teachings of the Church andhad legislated for all Christian people and clergy. [205] [Sidenote: Question whether the pope or a general council is the supremeauthority in the Church. ] As early as 1381 the University of Paris advocated the summoning of ageneral council which should adjust the claims of the rival popes andgive Christendom once more a single head. This raised the questionwhether a council was really superior to the pope or not. Those whobelieved that it was, maintained that the Church at large had deputedthe election of the pope to the cardinals and that it might, therefore, interfere when the cardinals had brought the papacy into disrepute; thata general assembly of all Christendom, speaking under the inspiration ofthe Holy Spirit, was a higher authority than even the successor of St. Peter. Others strenuously denied this. They claimed that the popereceived his authority over the Church immediately from Christ, and thathe had always possessed supreme power from the very first, although hehad not always exercised it and had permitted the earlier councils acertain freedom. No council, they urged, could be considered a generalone which was called against the will of the pope, because, without thebishop of the Roman or mother church, the council obviously could notlay claim to represent all Christendom. The defenders of the papal powermaintained, moreover, that the pope was the supreme legislator, that hemight change or annul the act of any council or of a previous pope, thathe might judge others but might not himself be judged by any one. [206] [Sidenote: The Council of Pisa, 1409 adds a third rival pope. ] After years of discussion and fruitless negotiations between the rivalpopes and their cardinals, members of both of the colleges decided in1409 to summon a council at Pisa, which should put an end to the schism. While large numbers of churchmen answered the summons and the variousmonarchs took an active interest in the council, its action was hastyand ill-advised. Gregory XII, the Roman pope, elected in 1406, andBenedict XIII, the Avignon pope, elected in 1394, were solemnly summonedfrom the doors of the cathedral at Pisa. As they failed to appear theywere condemned for contumacy and deposed. A new pope was then elected, and on his death a year later, he was succeeded by the notorious JohnXXIII, who had been a soldier of fortune in his earlier days. John wasselected on account of his supposed military prowess. This wasconsidered essential in order to guard the papal territory against theking of Naples, who had announced his intention of getting possession ofRome. Neither of the deposed popes yielded, and as they each continuedto enjoy a certain support, the Council of Pisa, instead of healing theschism, added a third person who claimed to be the supreme ruler ofChristendom. [207] [Sidenote: The Council of Constance meets, 1414. ] 115. The failure of the Council of Pisa made it necessary to summonanother congress of Christendom. Through the influence of the emperorSigismund, John XXIII reluctantly agreed that the council should be heldin Germany, in the imperial town of Constance. The Council of Constance, which began to assemble in the fall of 1414, is one of the mostnoteworthy international assemblies ever held. It lasted for over threeyears and excited the deepest interest throughout Europe. There were inattendance, besides the pope and the emperor-elect, twenty-threecardinals, thirty-three archbishops and bishops, one hundred and fiftyabbots, and one hundred dukes and earls, as well as hundreds of lesserpersons. [Sidenote: The three great objects of the Council of Constance. ] Three great tasks confronted the council: (1) the healing of the schism, which involved the disposal of the three existing popes and theselection of a single universally acknowledged head of the Church; (2)the extirpation of heresy, which, under the influence of Huss, wasthreatening the authority of the Church in Bohemia; (3) a generalreformation of the Church "in head and members. " [Sidenote: The healing of the schism. ] [Sidenote: The decree _Sacrosancta_, 1415. ] 1. The healing of the long schism was the most important of thecouncil's achievements. John XXIII was very uncomfortable in Constance. He feared not only that he would be forced to resign but that theremight be an investigation of his very dubious past. In March he fled indisguise from Constance, leaving his cardinals behind him. The councilwas dismayed at the pope's departure, as it feared that he woulddissolve it as soon as he was out of its control. It thereupon issued afamous decree (April 6, 1415) declaring its superiority to the pope. Itclaimed that a general council had its power immediately from Christ. Every one, even the pope, who should refuse to obey its decrees orinstructions should be suitably punished. A long list of terrible crimes of which John was suspected, was drawn upand he was formally deposed. He received but little encouragement inhis opposition to the council and soon surrendered unconditionally. Gregory XII, the Roman pope, showed himself amenable to reason andrelieved the perplexity of the council by resigning in July. The thirdpope, the obstinate Benedict XIII, flatly refused to resign. But thecouncil induced the Spaniards, who were his only remaining supporters, to desert him and send envoys to Constance. Benedict was then deposed(July, 1417) and in the following November the cardinals who were at thecouncil were permitted to elect a new pope, Martin V, and so the GreatSchism was brought to an end. [Sidenote: John Huss. ] 2. During the first year of its sessions the Council of Constance wasattempting to stamp out heresy as well as to heal the schism. Themarriage of an English king, Richard II, to a Bohemian princess shortlybefore Wycliffe's death, had encouraged some intercourse between Bohemiaand England and had brought the works of the English reformer to theattention of those in Bohemia who were intent upon the improvement ofthe Church. Among these the most conspicuous was John Huss (b. About1369), whose ardent devotion to the interests of the Bohemian nation andenthusiasm for reform secured for him great influence in the Universityof Prague, with which he was connected. Huss reached the conclusion that Christians should not be forced to obeythose who were living in mortal sin and were apparently destined neverto reach heaven themselves. This view was naturally denounced by theChurch as a most dangerous error, destructive of all order andauthority. As his opponents urged, the regularly appointed authoritiesmust be obeyed, not because they are good men but because they govern invirtue of the law. In short, Huss appeared not only to defend theheresies of Wycliffe, but at the same time to preach a doctrinedangerous alike to the power of the civil government and of the Church. [Sidenote: The 'safe-conduct. '] Huss felt confident that he could convince the council of the truth ofhis views and willingly appeared at Constance. He was provided with a"safe-conduct, " a document in which Emperor Sigismund ordered that noone should do him any violence and which permitted the bearer to leaveConstance whenever he wished. In spite of this he was speedily arrestedand imprisoned, in December, 1414. His treatment well illustrates themediæval attitude towards heresy. When Sigismund indignantly protestedagainst the violation of his safe-conduct, he was informed that the lawdid not recognize faith pledged to suspected heretics, for they were outof the king's jurisdiction. The council declared that no pledge whichwas prejudicial to the Catholic faith was to be observed. In judgingSigismund's failure to enforce his promise of protection to Huss it mustbe remembered that heresy was at that time considered a far moreterrible crime than murder, and that it was the opinion of the mostauthoritative body in Christendom that Sigismund would do a great wrongif he prevented the trial of Huss. [Sidenote: Trial of Huss. ] Huss was treated in what would seem to us a very harsh way; but from thestandpoint of the council he was given every advantage. By special favorhe was granted a public hearing. The council was anxious that Hussshould retract; but no form of retraction could be arranged to which hewould agree. The council, in accordance with the usages of the time, demanded that he should recognize the error of all the propositionswhich they had selected from his writings, that he should retract themand never again preach them, and that he should agree to preach thecontrary. The council did not consider it its business to decide whetherHuss was right or wrong, but simply whether his doctrines, which theygathered from his books, were in accordance with the traditional viewsof the Church. [Sidenote: Conviction and execution of Huss, July, 1415. ] Finally, the council condemned Huss as a convicted and impenitentheretic. On July 6, 1415, he was taken out before the gates of the cityand given one more chance to retract. As he refused, he was degradedfrom the priesthood and handed over to the civil government to beexecuted for heresy, which, as we have seen, the state regarded as acrime and undertook to punish. [208] The civil authorities made nofurther investigation but accepted the verdict of the council and burnedHuss upon the spot. His ashes were thrown into the Rhine lest theyshould become an object of veneration among his followers. [Sidenote: The Hussite wars, 1419-1431. ] The death of Huss rather promoted than checked the spread of heresy inBohemia. A few years later the Germans undertook a series of crusadesagainst the Bohemians. This embittered the national animosity betweenthe two races, which has even yet by no means died out. The hereticsproved valiant fighters and after several bloody wars succeeded inrepulsing the enemy and even invaded Germany. [Sidenote: Opportunity of the council to reform the church. ] 3. The third great task of the Council of Constance was the generalreformation of the Church. After John's flight it had claimed the right(in the decree _Sacrosancta_) to reform even the papacy. This was asplendid opportunity at least to mitigate the abuses in the Church. Thecouncil was a great representative body, and every one was looking to itto remedy the old evils which had become more pronounced than everduring the Great Schism. Many pamphlets were published at the time byearnest men denouncing the corrupt practices of the clergy. The evilswere of long standing and have all been described in earlierchapters. [209] [Sidenote: The failure of the council to effect any definite reforms. ] Although every one recognized the abuses, the council found itselfunable to remedy them or to accomplish the hoped-for reformation. Afterthree years of fruitless deliberations the members of the assemblybecame weary and hopeless. They finally contented themselves withpassing a decree (Oct. 9, 1417) declaring that the neglect to summongeneral councils in the past had fostered all the evils in the Churchand that thereafter councils should be regularly summoned at least everyten years. [210] In this way it was hoped that the absolute power of thepopes might be checked in somewhat the same way that the Parliament inEngland and the Estates General in France controlled the monarch. [Sidenote: Abuses enumerated by the council. ] After the passing of this decree the council drew up a list of abusesdemanding reform, which the new pope was to consider with certain of itsmembers after the main body of the council had returned home. Chiefamong the questions which the council enumerated for consideration werethe number, character, and nationality of the cardinals, the beneficesto which the pope had a right to appoint, what cases might be broughtbefore his court, for what reason and in what manner the pope might becorrected or deposed, how heresy might be extirpated, and the matter ofdispensations, indulgences, etc. Aside from the healing of the schism, the results of the Council ofConstance were slight. It had burned Huss but had by no means checkedheresy. It had considered for three years the reformation of the Churchbut had at last confessed its inability to carry it out. The pope laterissued a few reform decrees, but the state of the Church was notmaterially bettered. [Sidenote: Council of Basel, 1431-1449. ] 116. The sturdy resistance of the Bohemians to those who proposed tobring them back to the orthodox faith by arms finally attracted theattention of Europe and called forth considerable sympathy. In 1431 thelast of the crusades against them came to an ignominious end, and MartinV was forced to summon a new council in order to consider the policywhich should be adopted toward the heretics. The Council of Basel lastedfor no less than eighteen years. At first its prestige was sufficient toenable it to dominate the pope, and it reached its greatest authorityin 1434 after it had arranged a peace with the moderate party of theBohemian heretics. The council, however, continued its hostility towardsPope Eugene IV (elected in 1431), and in 1437 he declared the councildissolved and summoned a new one to meet at Ferrara. The Council ofBasel thereupon deposed Eugene and chose an anti-pope. This conduct didmuch to discredit the idea of a general council in the eyes of Europe. The assembly gradually dwindled away and finally in 1449 acknowledgedthe legitimate pope once more. [Sidenote: Council of Ferrara-Florence, 1438-1439. ] [Sidenote: Union of Eastern and Western Churches. ] Meanwhile the Council of Ferrara[211] had taken up the momentousquestion of consolidating the Eastern and Western Churches. The empireof the East was seriously threatened by the on-coming Ottoman Turks, whohad made conquests even west of Constantinople. The Eastern emperor'sadvisers urged that if a reconciliation could be arranged with theWestern Church, the pope might use his influence to supply arms andsoldiers to be used against the Mohammedans. When the representatives ofthe Eastern Church met with the Council of Ferrara the differences indoctrine were found to be few, but the question of the headship of theChurch was a most difficult one. A form of union was, nevertheless, agreed upon in which the Eastern Church accepted the headship of thepope, "saving the privileges and rights of the patriarchs of the East. " [Sidenote: Results of the Council of Ferrara. ] While Eugene received the credit for healing the breach between the Eastand the West, the Greek prelates, upon returning home, were hailed withindignation and branded as robbers and matricides for the concessionswhich they had made. The chief results of the council were (1) theadvantage gained by the pope in once more becoming the recognized headof Christendom in spite of the opposition of the Council of Basel, and(2) the fact that certain learned Greeks remained in Italy, and helpedto stimulate the growing enthusiasm for Greek literature. No more councils were held during the fifteenth century, and the popeswere left to the task of reorganizing their dominions in Italy. Theybegan to turn their attention very largely to their interests as Italianprinces, and some of them, beginning with Nicholas V (1447-1455), becamethe patrons of artists and men of letters. There is probably no periodin the history of the papacy when the head of the Church was morecompletely absorbed in forwarding his political interests and those ofhis relatives, and in decorating his capital, than in the seventy yearswhich elapsed between 1450 and the beginning of the German revoltagainst the Church. General Reading. --CREIGHTON, _History of the Papacy_ (Longmans, Green & Co. , 6 vols. , $2. 00 each), Vol. I, is perhaps the best treatment of the Great Schism and the Council of Constance. PASTOR, _History of the Popes_ (Herder, 6 vols. , $18. 00), Vol. I, Book 1, gives the most recent and scholarly account from the standpoint of a Roman Catholic. CHAPTER XXII THE ITALIAN CITIES AND THE RENAISSANCE [Sidenote: Italy the center of European culture in the fourteenth andfifteenth centuries. ] 117. While England and France were settling their differences in thewretched period of the Hundred Years' War, and the little Germanprincipalities, left without a leader, [212] were busied with their pettyconcerns, Italy was the center of European culture. Itscities, --Florence, Venice, Milan, and the rest, --reached a degree ofprosperity and refinement undreamed of beyond the Alps. Within theirwalls learning and art made such extraordinary progress that this periodhas received a special name, --the _Renaissance_, [213] or new birth. TheItalian towns, like those of ancient Greece, were really little states, each with its own peculiar life and institutions. Of these city-states aword must be said before considering the new enthusiasm for the works ofthe Romans and Greeks and the increasing skill which the Italian artistsdisplayed in painting, sculpture, and architecture. [Sidenote: Map of Italy in the fourteenth century. ] The map of Italy at the beginning of the fourteenth century was stilldivided into three zones, as it had been in the time of theHohenstaufens. To the south lay the kingdom of Naples. Then came thestates of the Church, extending diagonally across the peninsula. To thenorth and west lay the group of city-states to which we now turn ourattention. [Sidenote: Venice and its relations with the East. ] Of these none was more celebrated than Venice, which in the history ofEurope ranks in importance with Paris and London. This singular town wasbuilt upon a group of sandy islets lying in the Adriatic Sea about twomiles from the mainland. It was protected from the waves by a long, narrow sand bar, similar to those which fringe the Atlantic coast fromNew Jersey southward. Such a situation would not ordinarily have beendeliberately chosen as the site of a great city; but its very desolationand inaccessibility had recommended it to its first settlers, who, inthe middle of the fifth century, had fled from their homes on themainland to escape the savage Huns. [214] As time went on the locationproved to have its advantages commercially, and even before the CrusadesVenice had begun to engage in foreign trade. Its enterprises carried iteastward, and it early acquired possessions across the Adriatic and inthe Orient. [215] The influence of this intercourse with the East isplainly shown in the celebrated church of St. Mark, whose domes anddecorations suggest Constantinople rather than Italy. [Illustration: A Scene in Venice] [Illustration: St Mark's, Venice] [Sidenote: Venice extends her sway on the Italian mainland. ] [Sidenote: The aristocratic government of Venice. ] It was not until early in the fifteenth century that Venice found it toher interest to extend her sway upon the Italian mainland. She doubtlessbelieved it dangerous to permit her rival, Milan, to get possession ofthe Alpine passes through which her goods found their way north. It maybe, too, that she preferred to draw her food supplies from theneighborhood instead of transporting them across the Adriatic from hereastern possessions. Moreover, all the Italian cities except Venicealready controlled a larger or smaller area of country about them. Although Venice was called a republic, there was a strong tendencytoward a government of the few. About the year 1300 all the townsmenexcept the members of certain noble families were excluded from theGrand Council, which was supposed to represent the people at large. In 1311 the famous Council of Ten was created, whose members wereelected by the Grand Council for one year. The whole government, domestic and foreign, was placed in the hands of this smaller council, in conjunction with the doge (i. E. , duke), the nominal head of therepublic; but they were both held strictly accountable to the GrandCouncil for all that they did. The government was thus concentrated inthe hands of a very few. Its proceedings were carried on with greatsecrecy, so that public discussion, such as prevailed in Florence andled to innumerable revolutions there, was unheard of in Venice. TheVenetian merchant was a busy person who was quite willing that the stateshould exercise its functions without his interference. In spite of thearistocratic measures of the council, there was little tendency torebellion, so common in the other Italian towns. The republic of Venicemaintained pretty much the same form of government from 1300 until itsdestruction by Napoleon in 1797. [Sidenote: Milan and the despotically governed towns of northern Italy. ] 118. Milan was the most conspicuous example of the large class ofItalian cities which were governed by an absolute and despotic ruler, who secured control of a town either by force or guile, and then managedits affairs for his own personal advantage. At the opening of thefourteenth century a great part of the towns which had leaguedthemselves against Frederick Barbarossa[216] had become littledespotisms. Their rulers were constantly fighting among themselves, conquering, or being conquered by, their neighbors. The practices of theVisconti, the family who seized the government of Milan, offer a fairexample of the policy of the Italian tyrants. The power of the Visconti was first established by the archbishop ofMilan. He imprisoned (1277) in three iron cages the leading members ofthe family who were in control of the city government at the moment, andhad his nephew, Matteo Visconti, appointed by the emperor as theimperial representative. Before long Matteo was generally recognized asthe ruler of Milan, and was followed by his son. For over a century anda half some one of the family always showed himself skillful enough tohold his precarious position. [Illustration: Tomb of Gian Galeazzo Visconti] [Sidenote: Gian Galeazzo Visconti, 1385-1402. ] The most distinguished of the Visconti despots was Gian Galeazzo. Hebegan his reign by capturing and poisoning his uncle, who was rulingover a portion of the already extensive territory of the Visconti. [217]It seemed for a time that he might conquer all of northern Italy; buthis progress was checked by the republic of Florence and then cut shortby premature death. Gian Galeazzo exhibited all the characteristictraits of the Italian despots. He showed himself a skillful andsuccessful ruler, able to organize his government admirably. He gatheredliterary men about him; and the beautiful buildings which were begun byhim indicate his enthusiasm for art. Yet he was utterly unprincipled, and resorted to the most hideous methods in order to gain possession ofcoveted towns which he could not conquer or buy outright. [Sidenote: Position and character of the Italian despots. ] There are many stories of the incredible ferocity exhibited by theItalian despots. [218] It must be remembered that they were very rarelylegitimate rulers, but usurpers, who could only hope to retain theirpower so long as they could keep their subjects in check and defendthemselves against equally illegitimate usurpers in the neighboringcities. This situation developed a high degree of sagacity, and many ofthe despots found it to their interest to govern well and even to givedignity to their rule by patronizing artists and men of letters. But thedespot usually made many bitter enemies and was almost necessarilysuspicious of treason on the part of those about him. He was everconscious that at any moment he might fall a victim to the dagger or thepoison cup. [Sidenote: The _condottieri_. ] The Italian towns carried on their wars among themselves largely bymeans of hired troops. When a military expedition was proposed, abargain was made with one of the leaders (_condottieri_), who providedthe necessary force. As the soldiers had no more interest in theconflict than did those whom they opposed, who were likewise hired forthe occasion, the fight was not usually very bloody; for the object ofeach side was to capture the other without unnecessarily roughtreatment. It sometimes happened that the leader who had conquered a town for hisemployer appropriated the fruits of the victory for himself. Thisoccurred in the case of Milan in 1450. The Visconti family having diedout, the citizens hired a certain captain, named Francesco Sforza, toassist them in a war against Venice, whose possessions now extendedalmost to those of Milan. When Sforza had repelled the Venetians, theMilanese found it impossible to get rid of him, and he and hissuccessors became rulers over the town. [Sidenote: Machiavelli's _Prince_. ] An excellent notion of the position and policy of the Italian despotsmay be derived from a little treatise called _The Prince_, written bythe distinguished Florentine historian, Machiavelli. The writer appearsto have intended his book as a practical manual for the despots of histime. It is a cold-blooded discussion of the ways in which a usurper maybest retain his control over a town after he has once got possession ofit. The author even takes up the questions as to how far princes shouldconsider their promises when it is inconvenient to keep them, and howmany of the inhabitants the despot may wisely kill. Machiavelliconcludes that the Italian princes who have not observed theirengagements over-scrupulously, and who have boldly put their politicaladversaries out of the way, have fared better than their moreconscientious rivals. [Sidenote: Florence. ] 119. The history of Florence, perhaps the most important of the Italiancities, differs in many ways from that of Venice and of the despotismsof which Milan is an example. In Florence all classes claimed the rightto interest themselves in the government. This led to constant changesin the constitution and to frequent struggles between the differentpolitical parties. When one party got the upper hand it generallyexpelled its chief opponents from the city. Exile was a terriblepunishment to a Florentine, for Florence was not merely his nativecity, --it was his _country_, and loved and honored as such. [Sidenote: The Medici. ] [Sidenote: Lorenzo the Magnificent. ] By the middle of the fifteenth century Florence had come under thecontrol of the great family of the Medici, whose members played therôle of very enlightened political bosses. By quietly watching theelections and secretly controlling the selection of city officials, theygoverned without letting it be suspected that the people had lost theirpower. The most distinguished member of the house of Medici was Lorenzothe Magnificent (d. 1492); under his rule Florence reached the height ofits glory in art and literature. [Illustration: The Palace of the Medici in Florence] [Sidenote: Character of Florentine culture. ] As one wanders about Florence to-day, he is impressed with thecontradictions of the Renaissance period. The streets are lined with thepalaces of the noble families to whose rivalries much of the continualdisturbance was due. The lower stories of these buildings areconstructed of great stones, like fortresses, and their windows arebarred like those of a prison; yet within they were often furnished withthe greatest taste and luxury. For in spite of the disorder, againstwhich the rich protected themselves by making their houses halfstrongholds, the beautiful churches, noble public buildings, and worksof art which now fill the museums indicate that mankind has never, perhaps, reached a higher degree of perfection in the arts of peace thanamidst the turmoil of this restless town. "Florence was essentially the city of intelligence in modern times. Other nations have surpassed the Italians in their genius.... Butnowhere else except at Athens has the whole population of a city been sopermeated with ideas, so highly intellectual by nature, so keen inperception, so witty and so subtle, as at Florence. The fine anddelicate spirit of the Italians existed in quintessence among theFlorentines. And of this superiority not only they, but the inhabitantsalso of Rome and Lombardy and Naples were conscious.... The primacy ofthe Florentines in literature, the fine arts, law, scholarship, philosophy, and science was acknowledged throughout Italy" (Symonds). [Sidenote: The Renaissance, or _new birth_. ] 120. The thirteenth century had been, as we have seen, a period of greatenthusiasm for learning. The new universities attracted students fromall parts of Europe, and famous thinkers like Albertus Magnus, ThomasAquinas, and Roger Bacon wrote great treatises on religion, science, andphilosophy. The public delighted in the songs and romances composed andrecited in the language of the people. The builders contrived a new andbeautiful style of architecture, and, with the aid of the sculptors, produced buildings which have never since been surpassed and rarelyequaled. Why, then, are the two succeeding centuries called the periodof the _new birth_, --the Renaissance, --as if there was a suddenreawakening after a long sleep, as if Europe first began in thefourteenth century to turn to books and art? The word _renaissance_ was originally used by writers who had verylittle appreciation of the achievements of the thirteenth century. Theyimagined that there could have been no high degree of culture during aperiod when the Latin and Greek classics, which seemed so all-importantto them, were not carefully studied. But it is now coming to begenerally recognized that the thirteenth century had worthy intellectualand artistic ambitions, although they were different both from those ofGreece and Rome and from our own. We cannot, therefore, conceive the "new birth" of the fourteenth andfifteenth centuries quite as it was viewed by writers of a century ago, who failed to do justice to the preceding period. Nevertheless, aboutthe middle of the fourteenth century, a very great and fundamentalchange did begin in thought and taste, in books, buildings, andpictures, and this change we may very well continue to call the_Renaissance_. We can best judge of its nature by considering the workof the two greatest men of the fourteenth century, Dante and Petrarch. [Sidenote: Dante, 1264-1321. ] Dante was first and foremost a poet, and is often ranked with Homer, Virgil, and Shakespeare. He is, however, interesting to the historianfor other things than his flights of fancy and the music of his verse. He had mastered all the learning of his day; he was a scientist and ascholar as well as a poet. His writings show us how the world appearedabout the year 1300 to a very acute mind, and what was the range ofknowledge available to the most thoughtful men of that day. [Sidenote: Dante's use of Italian. ] Dante was not a churchman, as were all the scholars whom we havehitherto considered. He was the first literary layman of renown sinceBoethius, [219] and he was interested in helping other laymen who knewonly their mother tongue to the knowledge heretofore open only to thosewho could read Latin. In spite of his ability to write Latin, he chosethe mother tongue for his great poem, _The Divine Comedy_. Italian wasthe last of the important modern languages to develop, perhaps becausein Italy Latin remained longest intelligible to the mass of the people. But Dante believed that the exclusive use of Latin for literarypurposes had already in his time become an affectation. He was confidentthat there were many people, both men and women, who knew only Italian, who would gladly read not only his verses but his treatise onscience, --_The Banquet_, [220] as he poetically calls it. [Sidenote: Extent of Dante's knowledge. ] Dante's writings indicate that mediæval scholars were by no means soignorant of the universe as they are popularly supposed to have been. Although they believed, like the ancients, that the earth was the centeraround which the sun and stars revolved, they were familiar with someimportant astronomical phenomena. They knew that the earth was a sphereand guessed very nearly its real size. They knew that everything thathad weight was attracted towards its center, and that there would be nodanger of falling off should one get on the opposite side of the globe;they realized also that when it was day on one side of the earth it wasnight on the other. [Sidenote: Dante's veneration for the ancient writers. ] While Dante shows a keen interest in the theological studies so popularin his time and still speaks of Aristotle as "the Philosopher, " heexhibits a profound admiration for the other great authors of Rome andGreece. When in a vision he visits the lower world, Virgil is his guide. He is permitted to behold the region inhabited by the spirits ofvirtuous pagans, and there he finds Horace and Ovid, and Homer, thesovereign poet. As he reclines upon the green turf he sees a goodlycompany of ancient worthies, --Socrates, Plato, and other Greekphilosophers, Cæsar, Cicero, Livy, Seneca, and many others. He is soovercome by the honor of sitting among such great men that he finds nowords to report what passed between them. He feels no horror for theirpaganism, and while he believes that they are not admitted to thebeatific joys of heaven, he assigns them a comfortable abode, where theyhold dignified converse with "faces neither sad nor glad. "[221] [Sidenote: Petrarch, 1304-1374. ] 121. The veneration for the ancient writers felt by Dante becomes aburning enthusiasm with Petrarch, who has been well called "the firstmodern man. " He was the first scholar and man of letters to desertentirely the mediæval learning and lead his contemporaries back to arealization of the beauty and value of Greek and Roman literature. Inthe mediæval universities, logic, theology, and the interpretation ofAristotle were the chief subjects of study. While scholars in thetwelfth and thirteenth centuries possessed and read most of the Latinwriters who have come down to us, they failed to appreciate their beautyand would never have dreamed of making them the basis of a liberaleducation. [222] [Illustration: Petrarch] Petrarch declares that when a boy he delighted in the sonorous languageof Cicero even before he could understand its meaning. As the years wenton he became convinced that he could have no higher aim in life thanthat of collecting copies of all the Latin classics upon which he couldlay hands. He was not only an indefatigable scholar himself, but hepossessed the power of stimulating, by his example, the intellectualambition of those with whom he came in contact. He rendered the study ofthe Latin classics popular among cultivated persons; and by his ownuntiring efforts to discover the lost or forgotten works of the greatwriters of antiquity he roused a new enthusiasm for the formation oflibraries. [223] [Sidenote: Obstacles to the study of the classics. ] It is hard for us to imagine the obstacles which confronted Petrarch andthe scholars of the early Renaissance. They possessed no good editionsof the Roman and Greek authors, in which the correct wording had beendetermined by a careful comparison of all the known ancient copies. Theyconsidered themselves fortunate to secure a single manuscript of eventhe best known authors, and they could have no assurance that it was notfull of mistakes. Indeed, the texts were so corrupted by thecarelessness of the copyists that Petrarch declares that if Cicero orLivy should return and stumblingly read his own writings, he wouldpromptly pronounce them the work of another, perhaps a barbarian. [Sidenote: Petrarch's European reputation and influence. ] Petrarch enjoyed an unrivaled influence throughout western Europe, akinto that of Erasmus and Voltaire in later times. He was in constantcommunication with scholars, not only in Italy, but in the countriesbeyond the Alps. From his numerous letters which have been preserved, agreat deal may be learned of the intellectual life of the time. [224] [Sidenote: Petrarch has no sympathy with the popular studies of histime. ] It is clear that he not only promoted the new study of the Romanwriters, but that he also did much to discredit the learning which waspopular in the universities. He refused to include the works of thegreat scholastic writers of the thirteenth century in his library. LikeRoger Bacon he was disgusted by the reverence in which the badtranslations of Aristotle were held. As for the popular study of logic, Petrarch declared that it was good enough for boys, but that nothingirritated him more than to find a person of mature years devotinghimself to the subject. [Sidenote: Contrast between Petrarch's and Dante's attitude toward theirmother tongue. ] While Petrarch is far better known for his beautiful Italian verses thanfor his long Latin poems, histories, and essays, he did not shareDante's confidence in the dignity of their mother tongue. He evendepreciates his Italian sonnets as mere popular trifles written in hisyouth. It was not unnatural that he and those in whom he aroused anenthusiasm for Latin literature should look scornfully upon Italian. Itseemed to them a crude form of speech, good enough perhaps for thecommon people and for the transaction of the daily business of life, butimmeasurably inferior to the language in which their predecessors, theRoman poets and prose writers, had written. The Italians, it must beremembered, felt the same pride in Latin literature that we feel in theworks of Chaucer and Shakespeare. The Italian scholars of the fourteenthand fifteenth centuries merely turned back to their own earlier nationalliterature for their models, and tried their best to imitate thelanguage and style of its masters. [Sidenote: The humanists. ] 122. Those who devoted themselves to the study and imitation first ofRoman, and later of Greek literature, are commonly called _humanists_, aname derived from the Latin word _humanitas_; that is, culture, especially in the sense of literary appreciation. They no longer paidmuch attention to Peter Lombard's _Sentences_. They had, indeed, littletaste for theology, but looked to Cicero for all those accomplishmentswhich go to the making of a man of refinement. [Sidenote: Reason for the enthusiastic study of the classics. ] The _humanities_, as Greek and Latin are still called, became almost anew religion among the Italian scholars during the century followingPetrarch's death. In order to understand their exclusive attention toancient literature we must remember that they did not have a great manyof the books that we prize most highly nowadays. Now, every nation ofEurope has an extensive literature in its own particular tongue, whichall can read. Besides admirable translations of all the works ofantiquity, there are innumerable masterpieces, like those ofShakespeare, Voltaire, and Goethe, which were unheard of four centuriesago. Consequently we can now acquaint ourselves with a great part of thebest that has been written in all ages without knowing either Latin orGreek. The Middle Ages enjoyed no such advantage. So when men began totire of theology, logic, and Aristotle's scientific treatises, theynaturally turned back with single-hearted enthusiasm to the age ofAugustus, and, later, to that of Pericles, for their models of literarystyle and for their ideals of life and conduct. [Sidenote: Pagan tendencies of the Italian humanists. ] A sympathetic study of the pagan authors led many of the humanists toreject the mediæval view of the relation of this life to the next. [225]They reverted to the teachings of Horace and ridiculed theself-sacrifice of the monk. They declared that it was right to make themost of life's pleasures and needless to worry about the world to come. In some cases the humanists openly attacked the teachings of the Church, but generally they remained outwardly loyal to it and many of them evenfound positions among the officers of the papal curia. [Sidenote: The classics become the basis of a liberal education. ] Humanism produced a revolution in the idea of a liberal education. Inthe sixteenth century, through the influence of those who visited Italy, the schools of Germany, England, and France began to make Latin andGreek literature, rather than logic and other mediæval subjects, thebasis of their college course. It is only within the last generationthat Latin and Greek have begun to be replaced in our colleges by avariety of scientific and historical studies; and many would stillmaintain, with the humanists of the fifteenth century, that Latin andGreek are better worth studying than any other subjects. [Sidenote: Ignorance of Greek in the Middle Ages. ] The humanists of the fourteenth century ordinarily knew no Greek. Someknowledge of that language lingered in the West all through the MiddleAges, but we hear of no one attempting to read Plato, Demosthenes, Æschylus, or even Homer, and these authors were scarcely ever found inthe libraries. Petrarch and his followers were naturally much interestedin the constant references to Greek literature which occur in Cicero andHorace, both of whom freely recognized their debt to Athens. Shortlyafter Petrarch's death the city of Florence called to its university aprofessor of Greek, Chrysoloras from Constantinople. [Sidenote: Revival of Greek studies in Italy. ] [Sidenote: Chrysoloras in Florence. ] A young Florentine law student, Leonardo Bruni, tells us of a dialoguewhich he had with himself when he heard of the coming of Chrysoloras. "Art thou not neglecting thy best interests if thou failest now to getan insight into Homer, Plato, Demosthenes, and the other great poets, philosophers, and orators of whom they are telling such wonderfulthings? Thou, too, mightest commune with them and imbue thyself withtheir wisdom. Wouldst thou let the golden opportunity slip? For sevenhundred years no one in Italy has known Greek literature, and yet weagree that all language comes from the Greeks. How greatly wouldfamiliarity with that language advantage thee in promoting thy knowledgeand in the mere increase of thy pleasure? There are teachers of Romanlaw to be found everywhere, and thou wilt never want an opportunity tocontinue that study, but there is but one teacher of Greek, and if heescapes thee there will be no one from whom thou canst learn. " [Sidenote: The knowledge of Greek becomes common in Europe. ] Many students took advantage of the opportunity to study Greek, andChrysoloras prepared the first modern Greek grammar for their use. Before long the Greek classics became as well known as the Latin. Italians even went to Constantinople to learn the language; and thediplomatic negotiations which the Eastern Church carried on with theWestern, with the hope of gaining help against the Turks, brought someGreek scholars to Italy. In 1423 an Italian scholar arrived at Venicewith no less than two hundred and thirty-eight Greek books, thustransplanting a whole literature to a new and fruitful soil. [226] Greekas well as Latin books were carefully copied and edited, and beautifullibraries were established by the Medici, the duke of Urbino, and PopeNicholas V, who founded the great library of the Vatican, [227] still oneof the most important collections of books in the world. [Sidenote: Advantages of printing with movable types. ] 123. It was the glory of the Italian humanists to revive the knowledgeand appreciation of the ancient literatures, but it remained for patientexperimenters in Germany and Holland to perfect a system by which bookscould be multiplied rapidly and cheaply. The laborious copying of booksby hand[228] had several serious disadvantages. The best copyists were, it is true, incredibly dexterous with their quills, and made theirletters as clear and small as if they had been printed. But the work wasnecessarily very slow. When Cosimo, the father of Lorenzo theMagnificent, wished to form a library, he applied to a book contractor, who procured forty-five copyists. By working hard for nearly two yearsthese men were able to produce only two hundred volumes. Moreover, it was impossible before the invention of printing to have twobooks exactly alike. Even with the greatest care a scribe could not hopeto avoid all mistakes, and a careless copyist was sure to make a greatmany. The universities required their students to report immediately anymistakes discovered in their text-books, in order that the error mightbe promptly rectified and not lead to a misunderstanding of the author. With the invention of printing it became possible to produce in a shorttime a great many copies of a given book which were exactly alike. Consequently, if great care were taken to see that the types wereproperly set, the whole edition, not simply a single copy, might berelied upon as correct. [Illustration: Closing Lines of the Psalter of 1459 (much reduced)[229]] [Sidenote: The earliest printed books. ] [Sidenote: Black letter. ] [Sidenote: Roman letters. ] [Sidenote: Italics. ] The earliest book of any considerable size to be printed was the Bible, which appears to have been completed at Mayence in the year 1456. A yearlater the famous Mayence Psalter was finished, the first dated book. There are, however, earlier examples of little books printed withengraved blocks and even with movable types. In the German towns, wherethe art spread rapidly, the printers adhered to the style of letterswhich the scribe had found it convenient to make with his quill--theso-called _Gothic_, or black letter. [230] In Italy, where the firstprinting press was set up in 1466, a type was soon adopted whichresembled the letters used in ancient Roman inscriptions. This was quitesimilar to the style of letter commonly used to-day. The Italians alsoinvented the compressed _italic_ type, which enabled them to get a greatmany words on a page. The early printers generally did their workconscientiously, and the very first book printed is in most respects aswell done as any later book. [Sidenote: Importance of Italian art in the Renaissance period. ] 124. The stimulus of the antique ideals of beauty and the renewedinterest in man and nature is nowhere more apparent than in the art ofthe Renaissance period in Italy. The bonds of tradition, which hadhampered mediæval art, [231] were broken. The painters and sculptorscontinued, it is true, to depict the same religious subjects which theirmediæval predecessors had chosen. But in the fourteenth century theItalian artists began to draw their inspiration from the fragments ofantique art which they found about them and from the world full of lifeand beauty in which they lived. Above all, they gave freer rein to theirown imagination. The tastes and ideals of the individual artist were nolonger repressed but became the dominant element in his work. Thehistory of art becomes, during the Renaissance, a history of artists. [Sidenote: Italian architecture. ] [Sidenote: Italy inherits the art of Greece and Rome. ] The Gothic style in architecture had never taken root in Italy. TheItalians had continued to build their churches in a more or lessmodified Romanesque[232] form. While the soaring arches and delicatetracery of the Gothic cathedral had become the ideal of the North, inItaly the curving lines and harmonious proportions of the dome inspiredthe best efforts of the Renaissance builders. They borrowed many finedetails, such as capitals and cornices, from the antique, and also--whatwas far more important--the simplicity and beauty of proportion whichcharacterized classical architecture. Just as Italy had inherited, in aspecial sense, the traditions of classical literature, so it was naturalthat it should be more directly affected than the rest of Europe by theremains of Greek and Roman art. It is in harmony of proportion andbeauty of detail that the great charm of the best Renaissance buildingsconsists. [Sidenote: Niccola of Pisa, 1206-1280. ] It is, perhaps, in sculpture that the influence of the antique modelswas earliest and most obviously shown. The sculptor, Niccola of Pisa(Niccola Pisano), stands out as the first distinguished leader in theforward movement. It is evident that he studied certain fragments ofantique sculpture--a sarcophagus and a marble vase that had been foundin Pisa--with the greatest care and enthusiasm. He frankly copied fromthem many details, and even several whole figures, in the reliefs on hismost famous work, the pulpit in the baptistery at Pisa. [233] But whilesculpture was the first of the arts to feel the new impetus, itsprogress was slow; it was not until the fifteenth century that it began, in Italy, to develop on wholly independent and original lines. [Sidenote: Frescoes and easel pictures. ] The paintings of the period of the early Renaissance were usuallyfrescoes; that is, they were painted directly upon the plaster walls ofchurches and sometimes of palaces. A few pictures, chiefly altar pieces, were executed on wooden panels, but it was not until the sixteenthcentury that easel paintings, that is, detached pictures on canvas, wood, or other material, became common. [Illustration: Relief by Niccola of Pisa from Pulpit at Pisa, showingInfluence of Antique Models] [Sidenote: Giotto, 1266(?)-1337. ] In the fourteenth century there was an extraordinary development in theart of painting under the guidance and inspiration of the first greatItalian painter, Giotto. Before his time the frescoes, like theilluminations in the manuscripts of which we have spoken in a previouschapter, were exceedingly stiff and unlifelike. With Giotto there comesa change. Antique art did not furnish him with any models to copy, forwhatever the ancients had accomplished in painting had beendestroyed. [234] He had therefore to deal with the problems of his artunaided, and of course he could only begin their solution. His trees andlandscapes look like caricatures, his faces are all much alike, thegarments hang in stiff straight folds. But he aimed to do what theearlier painters apparently did not dream of doing--that is, paintliving, thinking, feeling men and women. He was not even satisfied toconfine himself to the old biblical subjects. Among his most famousfrescoes are the scenes from the life of St. Francis, [235] a theme whichappealed very strongly to the imagination of people and artists alikeall through the fourteenth century. [Sidenote: Renaissance artists often practiced several arts. ] Giotto's dominating influence upon the art of his century is due partlyto the fact that he was a builder as well as a painter, and alsodesigned reliefs for sculpture. This practicing of several differentarts by the same artist was one of the striking features of theRenaissance period. [Sidenote: Italian art in the fifteenth century. ] 125. During the fifteenth century, which is known as the period of theEarly Renaissance, art in Italy developed and progressed steadily, surely, and with comparative rapidity, toward the glorious heights ofachievement which it reached in the following century. The traditions ofthe Middle Ages were wholly thrown aside, the lessons of ancient artthoroughly learned. As the artists became more complete masters of theirtools and of all the technical processes of their art, they foundthemselves ever freer to express in their work what they saw and felt. [Sidenote: Florence the art center of Italy. ] Florence was the great center of artistic activity during the fifteenthcentury. The greatest sculptors and almost all of the most famouspainters and architects of the time either were natives of Florence ordid their best work there. During the first half of the centurysculpture again took the lead. The bronze doors of the baptistery atFlorence by Ghiberti, which were completed about 1450, are among thevery best products of Renaissance sculpture. Michael Angelo declaredthem worthy to be the doors of paradise. A comparison of them with thedoors of the cathedral of Pisa, which date from the end of the twelfthcentury, furnishes a striking illustration of the change that had takenplace. A contemporary of Ghiberti, Luca della Robbia (1400-1482), iscelebrated for his beautiful reliefs in glazed baked clay and in marble, of which many may be seen in Florence. [Illustration: BRONZE DOORS OF THE CATHEDRAL AT PISA (TWELFTH CENTURY)] [Illustration: GHIBERTI'S DOORS AT FLORENCE] [Illustration: Relief by Luca della Robbia] One of the best known painters of the first half of the fifteenthcentury, Fra[236] Angelico, was a monk. His frescoes on the walls of themonastery of San Marco (and elsewhere) reflect a love of beauty and acheerful piety, in striking contrast to the fiery zeal ofSavonarola, [237] who, later in the century, went forth from this samemonastery to denounce the vanities of the art-loving Florentines. [238] [Sidenote: Rome becomes the center of artistic activity. ] 126. Florence reached the height of its preëminence as an art centerduring the reign of Lorenzo the Magnificent, who was an ardent patron ofall the arts. With his death (1492), and the subsequent brief butoverwhelming influence of Savonarola, this preëminence passed to Rome, which was fast becoming one of the great capitals of Europe. Theart-loving popes, Julius II and Leo X, [239] took pains to secure theservices of the most distinguished artists and architects of the time inthe building and adornment of St. Peter's and the Vatican, i. E. , thepapal church and palace. [Sidenote: The church of St. Peter. ] The idea of the dome as the central feature of a church, which appealedso strongly to the architects of the Renaissance, reached its highestrealization in rebuilding the ancient church of St. Peter. The task wasbegun in the fifteenth century; in 1506 it was taken up by Pope JuliusII with his usual energy, and it was continued all through the sixteenthcentury and well into the seventeenth, under the direction of asuccession of the most famous artist-architects of the time, includingRaphael and Michael Angelo. The plan was changed repeatedly, but in itsfinal form the building is a Latin cross surmounted by a great dome, onehundred and thirty-eight feet in diameter. The dimensions andproportions of this greatest of all churches never fail to impress thebeholder with something like awe. [Sidenote: Height of Renaissance art. ] [Sidenote: Da Vinci, Michael Angelo, Raphael. ] During the sixteenth century the art of the Renaissance reached itshighest development. Among all the great artists of this period threestand out in heroic proportions--Leonardo da Vinci, Michael Angelo, andRaphael. The first two not only practiced, but achieved almost equaldistinction in, the three arts of architecture, sculpture, andpainting. [240] It is impossible to give in a few lines any idea of thebeauty and significance of the work of these great geniuses. BothRaphael and Michael Angelo left behind them so many and such magnificentfrescoes and paintings, and in the case of Michael Angelo statues aswell, that it is easy to appreciate their importance. Leonardo, on theother hand, left but little completed work. His influence on the art ofhis time, which was probably greater than that of either of the others, came from his many-sidedness, his originality, and his unflagginginterest in the discovery and application of new methods. He was almostmore experimenter than artist. [Illustration: St. Peter's and the Vatican, Rome] [Sidenote: The Venetian school. ] [Sidenote: Titian, 1477-1576. ] While Florence could no longer boast of being the art center of Italy, it still produced great artists, among whom Andrea del Sarto may beespecially mentioned. [241] But the most important center of artisticactivity outside of Rome in the sixteenth century was Venice. Thedistinguishing characteristic of the Venetian pictures is their glowingcolor. This is strikingly exemplified in the paintings of Titian, themost famous of all the Venetian painters. [Sidenote: Painting in northern Europe. ] [Sidenote: Dürer, 1471-1528. ] It was natural that artists from the northern countries should beattracted by the renown of the Italian masters and, after learning allthat Italy could teach them, should return home to practice their art intheir own particular fashion. About a century after Giotto's time twoFlemish brothers, Van Eyck by name, showed that they were not only ableto paint quite as excellent pictures as the Italians of their day, butthey also discovered a new way of mixing their colors superior to thatemployed in Italy. Later, when painting had reached its height in Italy, Albrecht Dürer and Hans Holbein the Younger[242] in Germany vied witheven Raphael and Michael Angelo in the mastery of their art. Dürer isespecially celebrated for his wonderful woodcuts and copperplateengravings, in which field he has perhaps never been excelled. [243] [Sidenote: Rubens, 1577-1640, and Rembrandt, 1607-1669. ] [Sidenote: Van Dyck, 1599-1641, and his portraits. ] [Sidenote: Velasquez. ] When, in the seventeenth century, painting had declined south of theAlps, Dutch and Flemish masters, --above all, Rubens andRembrandt, --developed a new and admirable school of painting. To VanDyck, another Flemish master, we owe many noble portraits ofhistorically important persons. [244] Spain gave to the world in theseventeenth century a painter whom some would rank higher than even thegreatest artists of Italy, namely, Velasquez (1599-1660). His genius, like that of Van Dyck, is especially conspicuous in his marvellousportraits. [Illustration: GIOTTO'S MADONNA] [Illustration: HOLY FAMILY BY ANDREA DEL SARTO] [Sidenote: Geographical knowledge in the Middle Ages. ] [Sidenote: Marco Polo. ] 127. Shortly after the invention of printing, which promised so much forthe diffusion of knowledge, the horizon of western Europe was furtherenlarged by a series of remarkable sea voyages which led to theexploration of the whole globe. The Greeks and Romans knew little aboutthe world beyond southern Europe, northern Africa, and western Asia; andmuch that they knew was forgotten during the Middle Ages. The Crusadestook many Europeans as far east as Egypt and Syria. As early as Dante'stime two Venetian merchants, the Polo brothers, visited China and werekindly received at Pekin by the emperor of the Mongols. On a secondjourney they were accompanied by Marco Polo, the son of one of thebrothers. When they got safely back to Venice in 1295, after a journeyof twenty years, Marco gave an account of his experiences which filledhis readers with wonder. Nothing stimulated the interest of the Westmore than his fabulous description of the golden island of Zipangu(Japan) and of the spice markets of the Moluccas and Ceylon. [245] [Sidenote: The discoveries of the Portuguese in the fourteenth andfifteenth centuries. ] About the year 1318 Venice and Genoa opened up direct communication bysea with the towns of the Netherlands. [246] Their fleets, which touchedat the port of Lisbon, aroused the commercial enterprise of thePortuguese, who soon began to undertake extended maritime expeditions. By the middle of the fourteenth century they had discovered the CanaryIslands, Madeira, and the Azores. Before this time no one had venturedalong the coast of Africa beyond the arid region of Sahara. The countrywas forbidding, there were no ports, and mariners were, moreover, hindered in their progress by the general belief that the torrid regionwas uninhabitable. In 1445, however, some adventurous sailors camewithin sight of a headland beyond the desert and, struck by itsluxuriant growth of tropical trees, they called it Cape Verde (the greencape). Its discovery put an end once for all to the idea that there wereonly parched deserts to the south. For a generation longer the Portuguese continued to venture farther andfarther along the coast, in the hope of finding it coming to an end, sothat they might make their way by sea to India. At last, in 1486, Diazrounded the Cape of Good Hope. Twelve years later (1498) Vasco da Gama, spurred on by Columbus' great discovery, after sailing around the Capeof Good Hope and northward beyond Zanzibar, steered straight across theIndian Ocean and reached Calicut, in Hindustan, by sea. [Sidenote: The spice trade. ] These adventurers were looked upon with natural suspicion by theMohammedan spice merchants, who knew very well that their object was toestablish a direct trade between the spice islands and western Europe. Hitherto the Mohammedans had had the monopoly of the spice trade betweenthe Moluccas and the eastern ports of the Mediterranean, where theproducts were handed over to Italian merchants. The Mohammedans wereunable, however, to prevent the Portuguese from concluding treaties withthe Indian princes and establishing trading stations at Goa andelsewhere. In 1512 a successor of Vasco da Gama reached Java and theMoluccas, where the Portuguese speedily built a fortress. By 1515Portugal had become the greatest among maritime powers; and spicesreached Lisbon regularly without the intervention of the Italian towns, which were mortally afflicted by the change. [Sidenote: Importance of spices in encouraging navigation. ] There is no doubt that the desire to obtain spices was the main reasonfor the exploration of the globe. This motive led European navigators totry in succession every possible way to reach the East--by going aroundAfrica, by sailing west in the hope of reaching the Indies, before theyknew of the existence of America; then, after America was discovered, bysailing around it to the north or south, and even sailing around Europeto the north. It is hard for us to understand this enthusiasm forspices, for which we care much less nowadays. One former use of spiceswas to preserve food, which could not then as now be carried rapidly, while still fresh, from place to place; nor did our conveniences thenexist for keeping it by the use of ice. Moreover, spice served to makeeven spoiled food more palatable than it would otherwise have been. [Illustration: The Voyages of Discovery] [Sidenote: Idea of reaching the spice islands by sailing westward. ] It inevitably occurred to thoughtful men that the East Indies could bereached by sailing westward. The chief authority upon the form and sizeof the earth was still the ancient astronomer, Ptolemy, who lived aboutA. D. 150. He had reckoned the earth to be about one sixth smaller thanit is; and as Marco Polo had given an exaggerated idea of the distancewhich he and his companions had traveled eastward, it was supposed thatit could not be a very long journey from Europe across the Atlantic toJapan. [Sidenote: Columbus discovers America, 1492. ] The first plan for sailing west was, perhaps, submitted to thePortuguese king in 1474, by Toscanelli, a Florentine physician. In 1492, as we all know, a Genoese navigator, Columbus (b. 1451), who had hadmuch experience on the sea, got together three little ships andundertook the journey westward to Zipangu, which he hoped to reach infive weeks. After thirty-two days from the time he left the CanaryIslands he came upon land, the island of San Salvador, and believedhimself to be in the East Indies. Going on from there he discovered theisland of Cuba, which he believed to be the mainland of Asia, and thenHaiti, which he mistook for the longed-for Zipangu. Although he madethree later expeditions and sailed down the coast of South America asfar as the Orinoco, he died without realizing that he had not beenexploring the coast of Asia. [247] [Sidenote: Magellan's expedition around the world. ] After the bold enterprises of Vasco da Gama and Columbus, an expeditionheaded by Magellan succeeded in circumnavigating the globe. There wasnow no reason why the new lands should not become more and more familiarto the European nations. The coast of North America was exploredprincipally by English navigators, who for over a century pressed north, still in the vain hope of finding a northwest passage to the spiceislands. [Sidenote: The Spanish conquests in America. ] Cortez began the Spanish conquests in the western world by undertakingthe subjugation of the Aztec empire in Mexico in 1519. A few years laterPizarro established the Spanish power in Peru. It is hardly necessary tosay that Europeans exhibited an utter disregard for the rights of thepeople with whom they came in contact, and treated them withcontemptuous cruelty. Spain now superseded Portugal as a maritime powerand her importance in the sixteenth century is to be attributed largelyto the wealth which came to her from her possessions in the New World. [Sidenote: The Spanish main. ] By the end of the century the Spanish main--i. E. , the northern coast ofSouth America--was much frequented by adventurous seamen, who combinedin about equal parts the occupations of merchant, slaver, and pirate. Many of these hailed from English ports, and it is to them that Englandowes the beginning of her commercial greatness. [248] [Sidenote: Copernicus (1473-1543) discovers that the earth is not thecenter of the universe. ] 128. While Columbus and the Portuguese navigators were bringing hithertounknown regions of the earth to the knowledge of Europe, a Polishastronomer, Kopernik (commonly known by his Latinized name, Copernicus), was reaching the conclusion that the ancient writers had been misled insupposing that the earth was the center of the universe. He discoveredthat, with the other planets, the earth revolved about the sun. Thisopened the way to an entirely new conception of the heavenly bodies andtheir motions, which has formed the basis of modern astronomy. It was naturally a great shock to men to have it suggested that theirdwelling place, instead of being God's greatest work to which He hadsubordinated everything, was but a tiny speck in comparison to the wholeuniverse, and its sun but one of an innumerable host of similar bodies, each of which might have its particular family of planets revolvingabout it. Theologians, both Protestant and Catholic, declared thestatements of Copernicus foolish and wicked and contrary to theteachings of the Bible. He was prudent enough to defer the publicationof his great work until just before his death; he thus escaped anypersecution to which his discovery might have subjected him. [Sidenote: Miscellaneous inventions. ] In addition to the various forms of progress of which we have spoken, the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries witnessed the invention or wideapplication of a considerable number of practical devices which wereunknown to the Greeks and Romans. Examples of these are, besidesprinting, the compass, gunpowder, spectacles, and a method of not merelysoftening but of thoroughly melting iron so that it could be cast. [Sidenote: The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries not merely a period ofrevival. ] The period of which we have been speaking was, in short, by no meansmerely distinguished for the revival of classical learning. It was notsimply a re-birth of the ancient knowledge and art, but a time duringwhich Europe laid the foundations for a development essentiallydifferent from that of the ancient world and for achievements undreamedof by Aristotle or Pliny. General Reading. --The culture of Italy during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries is best treated by BURCKHARDT, _The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy_ (The Macmillan Company, $4. 00). This is especially adapted for the rather advanced student. The towns are interestingly described in SYMONDS, _Age of Despots_ (Scribner's Sons, $2. 00). For Florence and the Medici, see ARMSTRONG, _Lorenzo de' Medici and Florence in the Fifteenth Century_ (G. P. Putnam's Sons, $1. 50). MACHIAVELLI'S _Prince_ may be had in translation (Clarendon Press, $1. 10). The best prose translation of DANTE'S _Divine Comedy_ is that of Charles Eliot Norton (Houghton, Mifflin & Co. , 3 vols. , $4. 50). In ROBINSON and ROLFE, _Petrarch the First Modern Scholar and Man of Letters_ (G. P. Putnam's Sons, $2. 00), the reader will find much material to illustrate the beginnings of humanism. The volume consists mainly of Petrarch's own letters to his friends. The introduction gives a much fuller account of his work than it was possible to include in the present volume. For similar material from other writers of the time, see WHITCOMB, _A Literary Source Book of the Italian Renaissance_ (Philadelphia, $1. 00). The autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini is a very amusing and instructive book by one of the well-known artists of the sixteenth century. Roscoe's translation in the Bohn series (The Macmillan Company, $1. 00) is to be recommended for school libraries. The greatest of the sources for the lives of the artists is VASARI, _Lives of Seventy of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects_. This may be had in the Temple Classics (The Macmillan Company, 8 vols. , 50 cents each) or a selection of the more important lives admirably edited in Blashfield and Hopkins' carefully annotated edition (Scribner's Sons, 4 vols. , $8. 00). Vasari was a contemporary of Michael Angelo and Cellini, and writes in a simple and charming style. The outlines of the history of the various branches of art, with ample bibliographies, are given in the "College Histories of Art, " edited by John C. Van Dyke; viz. , VAN DYKE, _The History of Painting_, HAMLIN, _The History of Architecture_, and MARQUAND and FROTHINGHAM, _The History of Sculpture_ (Longmans, Green & Co. , each $2. 00). Larger works with more illustrations, which might be found in any good town library are: FERGUSSON, _History of Modern Architecture_, LÜBKE, _History of Sculpture_, WOLTMANN and WOERMANN, _History of Painting_, and FLETCHER, _A History of Architecture_. Two companies publish very inexpensive reproductions of works of art: the so-called Perry pictures at a cent apiece, and the still better Cosmos pictures (Cosmos Picture Company, New York), costing somewhat more. For the invention of printing see DE VINNE, _The Invention of Printing_, unfortunately out of print, and BLADES, _Pentateuch of Printing_ (London, $4. 75). Also PUTNAM, _Books and their Makers during the Middle Ages_, Vol. I (G. P. Putnam's Sons, $2. 50). CHAPTER XXIII EUROPE AT THE OPENING OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 129. Two events took place in the early sixteenth century whichfundamentally influenced the history of Europe. (1) By a series of royalmarriages a great part of western Europe was brought under the controlof a single ruler, Emperor Charles V. He inherited Burgundy, Spain, portions of Italy, and the Austrian territories; and, in 1519, he waschosen emperor. There had been no such dominion as his in Europe sincethe time of Charlemagne. Within its bounds lay Vienna, Brussels, Madrid, Palermo, Naples, Milan, even the city of Mexico. Its creation and thestruggles which accompanied its dissolution form one of the mostimportant chapters in the history of modern Europe. (2) Just at the timethat Charles was assuming the responsibilities that his vast domainsbrought with them, the first successful revolt against the mediævalChurch was beginning. This was to result in the disruption of the Churchand the establishment of two great religious parties, the Catholic andthe Protestant, which have endured down to the present time. The purposeof the present chapter is to describe the origin, extent, and characterof the empire of Charles V, and to prepare the reader to grasp the_political_ import of the Protestant revolt. Before mentioning the family alliances which led to the consolidation ofsuch tremendous political power in the hands of one person, it will benecessary, first, to note the rise of the house of Hapsburg to whichCharles belonged, and secondly, to account for the appearance inEuropean affairs of Spain, which has hitherto scarcely come into ourstory. [Sidenote: Reasons why the German kings failed to establish a strongstate. ] The German kings had failed to create a strong kingdom such as thoseover which Louis XI of France and Henry VII of England ruled. Their finetitle of "emperor" had made them a great deal of trouble, as we haveseen. [249] Their attempts to keep Italy as well as Germany under theirrule, and the alliance of the mighty Bishop of Rome with their enemieshad well-nigh ruined them. Their position was further weakened by theirfailure to render their office strictly hereditary. Although theemperors were often succeeded by their sons, each new emperor had to be_elected_, and those great vassals who controlled the election naturallytook care to bind the candidate by solemn promises not to interfere withtheir privileges and independence. The result was that, after thedownfall of the Hohenstaufens, Germany fell apart into a great number ofpractically independent states, of which none were very large and somewere extremely small. [Sidenote: Rudolf of Hapsburg gets possession of Austria. ] After an interregnum, Rudolf of Hapsburg had been chosen emperor in1273. [250] The original seat of the Hapsburgs, who were destined to playa great part in European affairs, was in northern Switzerland, where thevestiges of their original castle may still be seen. Rudolf was thefirst prominent member of the family; he established its position andinfluence by seizing the duchies of Austria and Styria, which were tobecome, under his successors, the nucleus of the extensive Austrianpossessions. [Sidenote: The imperial title becomes practically hereditary in thehouse of Austria. ] About a century and a half after the death of Rudolf the electors beganregularly to choose as emperor the ruler of the Austrian possessions, sothat the imperial title became, to all intents and purposes, hereditaryin the Hapsburg line. [251] The Hapsburgs were, however, far moreinterested in adding to their family domains than in advancing theinterests of the now almost defunct Holy Roman Empire. This, in thememorable words of Voltaire, had ceased to be either holy, or Roman, oran empire. [Sidenote: Maximilian I, 1493-1519, extends the power of the Hapsburgsover the Netherlands and Spain. ] Maximilian I, who was emperor at the opening of the sixteenth century, was absorbed in his foreign enterprises rather than in the improvementof the German government. Like so many of his predecessors, he wasespecially anxious to get possession of northern Italy. By his marriagewith the daughter of Charles the Bold he brought the Netherlands intowhat proved a fateful union with Austria. [252] Still more important wasthe extension of the power of the Hapsburgs over Spain, a country whichhad hitherto had almost no connection with Germany. [Sidenote: Arab civilization in Spain. ] 130. The Mohammedan conquest served to make the history of Spain verydifferent from that of the other states of Europe. One of its first andmost important results was the conversion of a great part of theinhabitants to Mohammedanism. [253] During the tenth century, which wasso dark a period in the rest of Europe, the Arab civilization in Spainreached its highest development. The various elements in the population, Roman, Gothic, Arab, and Berber, appear to have been thoroughlyamalgamated. Agriculture, industry, commerce, art, and the sciences maderapid progress. Cordova, with its half million of inhabitants, itsstately palaces, its university, its three thousand mosques and threehundred public baths, was perhaps unrivaled at that period in the wholeworld. There were thousands of students at the university of Cordova ata time when, in the North, only clergymen had mastered even the simplearts of reading and writing. This brilliant civilization lasted, however, for hardly more than a hundred years. By the middle of theeleventh century the caliphate of Cordova had fallen to pieces, andshortly afterwards the country was overrun by new invaders from Africa. [Sidenote: The rise of new Christian kingdoms in Spain. ] Meanwhile the vestiges of the earlier Christian rule continued to existin the mountain fastnesses of northern Spain. Even as early as the year1000, [254] several small Christian kingdoms--Castile, Aragon, andNavarre--had come into existence. Castile, in particular, began to pushback the demoralized Arabs and, in 1085, reconquered Toledo from them. Aragon also widened its bounds by incorporating Barcelona and conqueringthe territory watered by the Ebro. By 1250, the long war of theChristians against the Mohammedans, which fills the mediæval annals ofSpain, had been so successfully prosecuted that Castile extended to thesouth coast and included the great towns of Cordova and Seville. Thekingdom of Portugal was already as large as it is to-day. [Sidenote: Granada and Castile. ] The Moors, as the Spanish Mohammedans were called, maintained themselvesfor two centuries more in the mountainous kingdom of Granada, in thesouthern part of the peninsula. During this period, Castile, which wasthe largest of the Spanish kingdoms and embraced all the central part ofthe peninsula, was too much occupied by internal feuds and strugglesover the crown to wage successful war against the Moorish kingdom to thesouth. [Sidenote: Marriage of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon. ] [Sidenote: Granada, the last Moorish stronghold, falls. ] The first Spanish monarch whose name need be mentioned here was QueenIsabella of Castile, who, in 1469, concluded an all-important marriagewith Ferdinand, the heir of the crown of Aragon. It is with theresulting union of Castile and Aragon that the great importance of Spainin European history begins. For the next hundred years Spain was toenjoy more military power than any other European state. Ferdinand andIsabella undertook to complete the conquest of the peninsula, and in1492, after a long siege, the city of Granada fell into their hands, andtherewith the last vestige of Moorish domination disappeared. [255] [Illustration: EUROPE IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY] [Sidenote: Spain's income from the New World enables her to become aEuropean power. ] In the same year that the conquest of the peninsula was completed, thediscoveries of Columbus, made under the auspices of Queen Isabella, opened up the sources of undreamed-of wealth beyond the seas. Thetransient greatness of Spain in the sixteenth century is largely to beattributed to the riches which poured in from her American possessions. The shameless and cruel looting of the Mexican and Peruvian cities byCortez and Pizarro, and the products of the silver mines of the NewWorld, enabled Spain to assume, for a time, a position in Europe whichher internal strength and normal resources would never have permitted. [Sidenote: Persecution of the Jews and Moors. ] [Sidenote: The revival of the Inquisition. ] Unfortunately, the most industrious, skillful, and thrifty among theinhabitants of Spain, i. E. , the Moors and the Jews, who well-nighsupported the whole kingdom with the products of their toil, werebitterly persecuted by the Christians. So anxious was Isabella to ridher kingdom of the infidels that she revived the court of theInquisition. [256] For several decades its tribunals arrested andcondemned innumerable persons who were suspected of heresy, andthousands were burned at the stake during this period. These wholesaleexecutions have served to associate Spain especially with the horrors ofthe Inquisition. Finally, in 1609, the Moors were driven out of thecountry altogether. The persecution diminished or disheartened the mostuseful and enterprising portion of the Spanish people, and speedily andpermanently crippled a country which in the sixteenth century wasgranted an unrivaled opportunity to become a flourishing and powerfulmonarchy. [Sidenote: Heritage of Charles V. ] Maximilian, the German emperor, was not satisfied with securing Burgundyfor his house by his marriage with the daughter of Charles the Bold. Healso arranged a marriage between their son, Philip, and Joanna, thedaughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. Philip died in 1506, and his poorwife, Joanna, became insane with grief and was thus incapacitated forruling. So their eldest son, Charles, could look forward to anunprecedented accumulation of glorious titles as soon as hisgrand-fathers, Maximilian and Ferdinand, should pass away. [257] He wassoon to be duke of Brabant, margrave of Antwerp, count of Holland, archduke of Austria, count of Tyrol, king of Castile, Aragon, andNaples, and of the vast Spanish possessions in America, --to mention afew of his more important titles. [Sidenote: Charles and his Spanish possessions. ] Ferdinand died in 1516, and Charles, now a lad of sixteen, who had beenborn and reared in the Netherlands, was much bewildered when he landedin his Spanish dominions. His Flemish advisers were distasteful to thehaughty Spaniards; suspicion and opposition awaited him in each of hisseveral Spanish kingdoms, for he found by no means a united Spain. Eachkingdom demanded special recognition of its rights and suggestedimportant reforms before it would acknowledge Charles as its king. [Sidenote: Charles elected emperor, 1519. ] It seemed as if the boy would have his hands full in asserting hisauthority as "king of Spain"; nevertheless, a still more imposing titleand still more perplexing responsibilities were to fall upon hisshoulders before he was twenty years old. It had long been Maximilian'sambition that his grandson should succeed him upon the imperial throne. After his death in 1519 the electors finally chose Charles instead ofthe rival candidate, Francis I of France. By this election the king ofSpain, who had not yet been in Germany and who never learned itslanguage, became its ruler at a critical juncture, when the teachings ofLuther were producing unprecedented dissension and politicaldistraction. We shall hereafter refer to him by his imperial title ofCharles V. [Illustration: Charles V] 131. In order to understand the Europe of Charles V and the constantwars which occupied him all his life, we must turn back and review thequestions which had been engaging the attention of his fellow-kingsbefore he came to the throne. It is particularly necessary to seeclearly how Italy had suddenly become the center of commotion, --thebattlefield for Spain, France, and Germany. [Sidenote: Charles VIII of France invades Italy. ] Charles VIII of France (1483-1498) possessed little of the practicalsagacity of his father, Louis XI. He dreamed of a mighty expeditionagainst the Turks and of the conquest of Constantinople. As the firststep he determined to lead an army into Italy and assert his claim, inherited from his father, to the kingdom of Naples, which was in thehands of the house of Aragon. [258] While Italy had everything to lose bypermitting a powerful monarch to get a foothold in the South, there wasno probability that the various little states into which the peninsulawas divided would lay aside their perpetual animosities and combineagainst the invader. On the contrary, Charles VIII was urged by some ofthe Italians themselves to come. [Sidenote: Savonarola and Charles VIII. ] Had Lorenzo the Magnificent still been alive, he might have organized aleague to oppose the French king, but he had died in 1492, two yearsbefore Charles started. Lorenzo's sons failed to maintain the influenceover the people of Florence which their father had enjoyed; and theleadership of the city fell into the hands of the Dominican friar, Savonarola, whose fervid preaching attracted and held for a time theattention of the fickle Florentine populace. He believed himself to be aprophet, and proclaimed that God was about to scourge Italy for itsiniquities, and that men should flee before His wrath by renouncingtheir lives of sin and pleasure. When Savonarola heard of the French invasion, it appeared to him thatthis was indeed the looked-for scourge of God, which might afflict, butwould also purify, the Church. His prophecies seemed to be fulfilled, and his listeners were stricken with terror. As Charles approachedFlorence, the people rose in revolt against the Medici, sacked theirpalaces, and drove out the three sons of Lorenzo. Savonarola became thechief figure in the new republic which was established. Charles wasadmitted into Florence, but his ugly, insignificant figure disappointedthe Florentines. They soon made it clear to him that they would notregard him in any sense as a conqueror, and would oppose a prolongedoccupation by the French. Savonarola said to him: "The people areafflicted by your stay in Florence, and you waste your time. God hascalled you to renew His Church. Go forth to your high calling lest Godvisit you in His wrath and choose another instrument in your stead tocarry out His designs. " So, after a week's stay, the French army leftFlorence and proceeded on its southward journey. [Sidenote: The popes since the Great Schism. ] The next power with which Charles VIII had to deal was represented by aperson in every way the opposite of the Dominican monk--Pope AlexanderVI. After the troubles of the Great Schism and the councils, the popeshad set to work to organize their possessions in central Italy into acompact principality. For a time they seemed to be little more thanItalian princes. But they did not make rapid progress in their politicalenterprises because, in the first place, they were usually advanced inyears before they came to power and so had little time to carry outtheir projects; and, in the second place, they showed too much anxietyto promote the interests of their relatives. The selfish, unscrupulousmeans employed by these worldly prelates naturally brought greatdiscredit upon the Church. [Sidenote: Pope Alexander VI and Cæsar Borgia. ] There was probably never a more openly profligate Italian despot thanAlexander VI (1493-1503) of the notorious Spanish house of Borgia. Hefrankly set to work to advance the interests of his children, as if hewere merely a secular ruler. For one of his sons, Cæsar Borgia, heproposed to form a duchy east of Florence. Cæsar outdid his father incrime. He not only entrapped and mercilessly slaughtered his enemies, but had his brother assassinated and thrown into the Tiber. Both he andhis father were accused of constant recourse to poisoning, in which artthey were popularly supposed to have gained extraordinary proficiency. It is noteworthy that when Machiavelli prepared his _Prince_, [259] hechose for his hero Cæsar Borgia, as possessing in the highest degreethose qualities which went to make up a successful Italian ruler. The pope was greatly perturbed by the French invasion, and in spite ofthe fact that he was the head of Christendom, he entered intonegotiations with the Turkish sultan in the hope of gaining aid againstthe French king. He could not, however, prevent Charles from enteringRome and later continuing on his way to Naples. [Sidenote: Charles VIII leaves Italy unconquered. ] The success of the French king seemed marvelous, for even Naplesspeedily fell into his hands. But he and his troops were demoralized bythe wines and other pleasures of the South, and meanwhile his enemies atlast began to form a combination against him. Ferdinand of Aragon wasfearful lest he might lose Sicily, and Maximilian objected to having theFrench control Italy. Charles' situation became so precarious that hemay well have thought himself fortunate, at the close of 1495, toescape, with the loss of only a single battle, from the country he hadhoped to conquer. [Sidenote: Results of Charles' expedition. ] The results of Charles' expedition appear at first sight trivial; inreality they were momentous. In the first place, it was now clear toEurope that the Italians had no real national feeling, however much theymight despise the "barbarians" who lived north of the Alps. From thistime down to the latter half of the nineteenth century, Italy wasdominated by foreign nations, especially Spain and Austria. In thesecond place, the French learned to admire the art and culture of Italy. The nobles began to change their feudal castles, which since theinvention of gunpowder were no longer impregnable, into luxuriouscountry houses. The new scholarship of Italy took root and flourishednot only in France, but in England and Germany as well. Consequently, just as Italy was becoming, politically, the victim of foreignaggressions, it was also losing, never to regain, that intellectualpreëminence which it had enjoyed since the revival of interest inclassical literature. [Sidenote: Savonarola's reforms in Florence. ] After Charles VIII's departure, Savonarola continued his reformationwith the hope of making Florence a model state which should lead to theregeneration of the world. At first he carried all before him, and atthe Carnival of 1496 there were no more of the gorgeous exhibitions andreckless gayety which had pleased the people under Lorenzo theMagnificent. The next year the people were induced to make a greatbonfire, in the spacious square before the City Hall, of all the"vanities" which stood in the way of a godly life--frivolous and immoralbooks, pictures, jewels, and trinkets. [Sidenote: Savonarola condemned and executed, 1498. ] Savonarola had enemies, however, even in his own Dominican order, whilethe Franciscans were naturally jealous of his renown and maintained thathe was no real prophet. What was more serious, Alexander VI was bitterlyhostile to the reforming friar because he urged the Florentines toremain in alliance with France. Before long even the people began tolose confidence in him. He was arrested by the pope's order in 1497 andcondemned as a heretic and despiser of the Holy See. He was hanged, andhis body burned, in the same square where the "vanities" had beensacrificed hardly more than a twelvemonth before. [Sidenote: Louis XII's Italian policy. ] In the same year (1498), the romantic Charles VIII died without leavingany male heirs and was succeeded by a distant relative, Louis XII, whorenewed the Italian adventures of his predecessor. As his grandmotherwas a member of the Milanese house of the Visconti, Louis laid claim toMilan as well as to Naples. He quickly conquered Milan, and thenarranged a secret treaty with Ferdinand of Aragon (1500) for thedivision of the kingdom of Naples between them. It was not hard for thecombined French and Spanish troops to conquer the country, but the twoallies soon disagreed, and four years later Louis sold his title toNaples for a large sum to Ferdinand. [Sidenote: Pope Julius II. ] 132. Pope Julius II, who succeeded the unspeakable Alexander VI (1503), was hardly more spiritual than his predecessor. He was a warlike andintrepid old man, who did not hesitate on at least one occasion to puton a soldier's armor and lead his troops in person. Julius was aGenoese, and harbored an inveterate hatred against Genoa's greatcommercial rival, Venice. The Venetians especially enraged the pope bytaking possession of some of the towns on the northern border of hisdominions, and he threatened to reduce their city to a fishing village. The Venetian ambassador replied, "As for you, Holy Father, if you arenot more reasonable, we shall reduce you to a village priest. " [Sidenote: League of Cambray against Venice, 1508. ] With the pope's encouragement, the League of Cambray was formed in 1508for the express purpose of destroying one of the most important Italianstates. The Empire, France, Spain, and the pope were to divide amongthem Venice's possessions on the mainland. Maximilian was anxious togain the districts bordering upon Austria, Louis XII to extend theboundaries of his new duchy of Milan, while the pope and Ferdinand werealso to have their appropriate shares. Venice was quickly reduced to a few remnants of its Italian domains, butthe Venetians hastened to make their peace with the pope, who, afterreceiving their humble submission, gave them his forgiveness. In spiteof his previous pledges to his allies, the pope now swore to exterminatethe "barbarians" whom he had so recklessly called in. He formed analliance with Venice and induced the new king of England, Henry VIII, toattack the French king. As for Maximilian, the pope declared him as"harmless as a newborn babe. " This "Holy League" against the French ledto their loss of Milan and their expulsion from the Italian peninsula in1512, but it in no way put an end to the troubles in Italy. [Sidenote: Pope Leo X, 1513-1521. ] The bellicose Julius was followed in 1513 by Leo X, a son of Lorenzo theMagnificent. Like his father, he loved art and literature, but he wasapparently utterly without religious feelings. He was willing that thewar should continue, in the hope that he might be able to gain a coupleof duchies for his nephews. [Sidenote: Francis I of France, 1515-1547. ] Louis XII died and left his brilliant cousin and successor, Francis I, to attempt once more to regain Milan. The new king was but twenty yearsold, gracious in manner, and chivalrous in his ideals of conduct. Hisproudest title was "the gentleman king. " Like his contemporaries, Leo X, and Henry VIII of England, he patronized the arts, and literatureflourished during his reign. He was not, however, a wise statesman; hewas unable to pursue a consistent policy, but, as Voltaire says, "dideverything by fits and starts. " [Sidenote: Francis I in Italy. ] [Sidenote: The republic of Florence becomes the grand duchy of Tuscany. ] He opened his reign by a very astonishing victory. He led his troopsinto Italy over a pass which had hitherto been regarded as impracticablefor cavalry, and defeated the Swiss--who were in the pope's pay--atMarignano. He then occupied Milan and opened negotiations with Leo X, who was glad to make terms with the victorious young king. The popeagreed that Francis should retain Milan, and Francis on his part accededto Leo's plan for turning over Florence once more to the Medici. Thiswas done, and some years later this wonderful republic became the grandduchy of Tuscany, governed by a line of petty princes under whom itsformer glories were never renewed. [260] [Sidenote: Sources of discord between France and the Hapsburgs. ] Friendly relations existed at first between the two young sovereigns, Francis I and Charles V, but there were several circumstances which ledto an almost incessant series of wars between them. France was clampedin between the northern and southern possessions of Charles, and had atthat time no natural boundaries. Moreover, there was a standing disputeover portions of the Burgundian realms, for both Charles and Francisclaimed the _duchy_ of Burgundy and the neighboring _county_ ofBurgundy--commonly called Franche-Comté. Charles also believed that, through his grandfather, Maximilian, he was entitled to Milan, which theFrench kings had set their hearts upon acquiring. For a generation therivals fought over these and other matters, and the wars between Charlesand Francis were but the prelude to a conflict lasting over twocenturies between France and the overgrown power of the house ofHapsburg. [Sidenote: Henry VIII of England, 1509-1547. ] In the impending struggle it was natural that both monarchs should tryto gain the aid of the king of England, whose friendship was of thegreatest importance to each of them, and who was by no means loath totake a hand in European affairs. Henry VIII had succeeded his father(Henry VII) in 1509 at the age of eighteen. Like Francis, he wasgood-looking and graceful, and in his early years made a very happyimpression upon those who came in contact with him. He gained muchpopularity by condemning to death the two men who had been most activein extorting the "benevolences" which his father had been wont torequire of unwilling givers. With a small but important class, hislearning brought him credit. He married, for his first wife, an aunt ofCharles V, Catherine of Aragon, and chose as his chief adviser ThomasWolsey, whose career and sudden downfall were to be strangely associatedwith the fate of the unfortunate Spanish princess. [261] [Sidenote: Charles V goes to Germany. ] In 1520 Charles V started for Germany to receive the imperial crown atAix-la-Chapelle. On his way he landed in England with the purpose ofkeeping Henry from forming an alliance with Francis. He judged the bestmeans to be that of freely bribing Wolsey, who had been made a cardinalby Leo X, and who was all-powerful with Henry. Charles thereforebestowed on the cardinal a large annuity in addition to one which he hadgranted him somewhat earlier. He then set sail for the Netherlands, where he was duly crowned king of the Romans. From there he proceeded, for the first time, to Germany, where he summoned his first diet atWorms. The most important business of the assembly proved to be theconsideration of the case of a university professor, Martin Luther, whowas accused of writing heretical books, and who had in reality begunwhat proved to be the first successful revolt against the seeminglyall-powerful mediæval Church. General Reading. --For the Italian wars of Charles VIII and Louis XII, _Cambridge Modern History_ (The Macmillan Company, $3. 75 per vol. ), Vol. I, Chapter IV; JOHNSON, _Europe in the Sixteenth Century_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 75), Chapter I; DYER and HASSALL, _Modern Europe_ (The Macmillan Company, 6 vols. , $2. 00 each), Vol. I; CREIGHTON, _History of the Papacy_ (see above, p. 320), Vols. IV, V. For Savonarola, _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. I, Chapter V; CREIGHTON, Vol. IV, Chapter VIII; LEA, _History of the Inquisition_ (see above, p. 232), Vol. III, pp. 209-237; SYMONDS, _Age of Despots_ (see above, p. 352), Chapter IX; PASTOR, _History of the Popes_ (see above, p. 320), Vol. V. For Spain, _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. I, Chapter XI. CHAPTER XXIV GERMANY BEFORE THE PROTESTANT REVOLT [Sidenote: Two unsuccessful revolts preceded the Protestant revolution. ] 133. By far the most important event in the sixteenth century and one ofthe most momentous in the history of the western world, was the revoltof a considerable portion of northern and western Europe from themediæval Church. There had been but two serious rebellions earlier. Thefirst of these was that of the Albigenses in southern France in thethirteenth century; this had been fearfully punished, and theInquisition had been established to ferret out and bring to trial thosewho were disloyal to the Church. Then, some two centuries later, theBohemians, under the inspiration of Wycliffe's writings, had attemptedto introduce customs different from those which prevailed elsewhere inthe Church. They, too, had been forced, after a terrific series ofconflicts, once more to accept the old system. [Sidenote: Luther secedes from the Church, 1520. ] Finally, however, in spite of the great strength and the wonderfulorganization of the Church, it became apparent that it was no longerpossible to keep all of western Europe under the sway of the pope. Inthe autumn of 1520, Professor Martin Luther called together the studentsof the University of Wittenberg, led them outside the town walls, andthere burned the constitution and statutes of the mediæval Church, i. E. , the canon law. In this way he publicly proclaimed and illustrated hispurpose to repudiate the existing Church with many of its doctrines andpractices. Its head he defied by destroying the papal bull directedagainst his teachings. [Sidenote: Origin of the two great religious parties in westernEurope, --the Catholics and Protestants. ] Other leaders, in Germany, Switzerland, England, and elsewhere, organized separate revolts; rulers decided to accept the teachings ofthe reformers, and used their power to promote the establishment ofchurches independent of the pope. In this way western Europe came to bedivided into two great religious parties. The majority of its peoplecontinued to regard the pope as their religious head and to accept theinstitutions under which their forefathers had lived since the times ofTheodosius. In general, those regions (except England) which had formeda part of the Roman empire remained Roman Catholic in their belief. Onthe other hand, northern Germany, a part of Switzerland, England, Scotland, and the Scandinavian countries sooner or later rejected theheadship of the pope and many of the institutions and doctrines of themediæval Church, and organized new religious institutions. TheProtestants, as those who seceded from the Church of Rome were called, by no means agreed among themselves what particular system shouldreplace the old one. They were at one, however, in ceasing to obey thepope and in proposing to revert to the early Church as their model andaccepting the Bible as their sole guide. [262] [Sidenote: Revolt against the mediæval Church implied a generalrevolution. ] To revolt against the Church was to inaugurate a fundamental revolutionin many of the habits and customs of the people. It was not merely achange of religious belief, for the Church permeated every occupationand dominated every social interest. For centuries it had directed andlargely controlled education, high and low. Each and every important actin the home, in the guild, in the town, was accompanied by religiousceremonies. The clergy of the Roman Catholic Church had hitherto writtenmost of the books; they sat in the government assemblies, acted as therulers' most trusted ministers, constituted, in short, outside of Italy, the only really educated class. Their rôle and the rôle of the Churchwere incomparably more important than that of any church which existsto-day. [Sidenote: The wars of religion. ] Just as the mediæval Church was by no means an exclusively religiousinstitution, so the Protestant revolt was by no means simply a religiouschange, but a social and political one as well. The conflicts which theattempt to overthrow this institution, or rather social order, broughtabout were necessarily terrific. They lasted for more than two centuriesand left no interest, public or private, social or individual, earthlyor heavenly, unaffected. Nation rose against nation, kingdom againstkingdom; households were divided among themselves; wars and commotion, wrath and desolation, treachery and cruelty filled the states of westernEurope. Our present object is to learn how this successful revolt came about, what was its real nature, and why the results were what they were. Inorder to do this, it is necessary to turn to the Germany in which Lutherlived and see how the nation had been prepared to sympathize with hisattack on the Church. [Sidenote: Germany of to-day. ] 134. To us to-day, Germany means the German Empire, one of the three orfour best organized and most powerful of the European states. It is acompact federation, somewhat like that of the United States, made up oftwenty-two monarchies and three little city republics. Each member ofthe union manages its local affairs, but leaves all questions ofnational importance to be settled by the central government at Berlin. This federation is, however, of very recent date, being scarcely morethan thirty years old. [Sidenote: The 'Germanies' of the sixteenth century. ] In the time of Charles V there was no such Germany as this, but onlywhat the French called "the Germanies"; i. E. , two or three hundredstates, which differed greatly from one another in size and character. One had a duke, another a count at its head, while some were ruled overby archbishops, bishops, or abbots. There were many cities, likeNuremberg, Augsburg, Frankfort, and Cologne, which were just asindependent as the great duchies of Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Saxony. Lastly there were the knights, whose possessions might consist of nomore than a single strong castle with a wretched village lying at itsfoot. Their trifling territories must, however, be called states; forsome of the knights were at that time as sovereign and independent asthe elector of Brandenburg, who was one day to become the king ofPrussia, and long after, the emperor of Germany. [Illustration: GERMANY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY] [Sidenote: The seven electors and the other greater German princes. ] As for the emperor, he no longer had any power to control his vassals. He could boast of unlimited pretensions and a great past, but he hadneither money nor soldiers. At the time of Luther's birth thepoverty-stricken Frederick III might have been seen picking up a freemeal at a monastery, or riding behind a slow but economical ox team. Thereal power in Germany lay in the hands of the more important vassals. First and foremost among these were the seven electors, so calledbecause, since the thirteenth century, they had enjoyed the right toelect the emperor. Three of them were archbishops--kings in all but nameof considerable territories on the Rhine, namely, of the electorates ofMayence, Treves, and Cologne. [263] Near them, to the south, was theregion ruled over by the elector of the Palatinate; to the northeastwere the territories of the electors of Brandenburg and of Saxony; theking of Bohemia made the seventh of the group. Beside these states, thedominions of other rulers scarcely less important than the electorsappear on the map. Some of these territories, like Würtemberg, Bavaria, Hesse, and Baden, are familiar to us to-day as members of the presentGerman empire, but all of them have been much enlarged since thesixteenth century by the absorption of the little states that formerlylay within and about them. [264] [Sidenote: The towns. ] The towns, which had grown up since the great economic revolution thathad brought in commerce and the use of money in the thirteenth century, were centers of culture in the north of Europe, just as those of Italywere in the south. Nuremberg, the most beautiful of the German cities, still possesses a great part of the extraordinary buildings and works ofart which it produced in the sixteenth century. Some of the towns helddirectly of the emperor, and were consequently independent of theparticular prince within whose territory they were situated. These werecalled _free_, or _imperial_, cities and must be reckoned among thestates of Germany. [Illustration: Wall of the formerly Free Town of Rothenburg] [Sidenote: The knights. ] The knights, who ruled over the smallest of the German territories, hadonce formed an important military class, but the invention of gunpowderand of new methods of fighting had made their individual prowess oflittle avail. As their tiny realms were often too small to support them, they frequently turned to out-and-out robbery for a living. They hatedthe cities because the prosperous burghers were able to live in aluxurious comfort which the poor knights envied but could not imitate. They hated the princes because these were anxious to incorporate intotheir own territories the inconvenient little districts controlled bythe knights, many of whom, like the free cities, held directly of theemperor, and were consequently practically independent. [Sidenote: Complexity of the map of Germany. ] It would be no easy task to make a map of Germany in the time of CharlesV sufficiently detailed to show all the states and scattered fragmentsof states. If, for example, the accompanying map were much larger andindicated all the divisions, it would be seen that the territory of thecity of Ulm completely surrounded the microscopic possessions of acertain knight, the lord of Eybach, and two districts belonging to theabbot of Elchingen. On its borders lay the territories of fourknights, --the lords of Rechberg, Stotzingen, Erbach, andWiesensteig, --and of the abbots of Söflingen and Wiblingen, besidesportions of Würtemberg and outlying Austrian possessions. The main causeof this bewildering subdivision of Germany was the habit of dealing witha principality as if it were merely private property which might bedivided up among several children, or disposed of piecemeal, quiteregardless of the wishes of the inhabitants. [Sidenote: No central power to maintain order. ] [Sidenote: Neighborhood war. ] It is clear that these states, little and big, all tangled up with oneanother, would be sure to have disputes among themselves which wouldhave to be settled in some way. It would appear to have been absolutelynecessary under the circumstances that there should be some superiorcourt or judge to adjust differences between the many members of theempire, as well as a military or police force to carry out the will ofthe tribunal, should one of the parties concerned resist its decrees. But although there was an imperial court, it followed the emperor aboutand was therefore hard to get at. Moreover, even if a decision wasobtained from it, there was no way for the aggrieved party to securethe execution of the judgment, for the emperor had no force sufficientto coerce the larger states. The natural result was a resort toself-help. Neighborhood war was permitted by law if only some courteouspreliminaries were observed. For instance, a prince or town was requiredto give warning three days in advance before attacking another member ofthe empire. [265] [Sidenote: The German diet. ] [Sidenote: Effort to better the German government. ] Toward the end of the fifteenth century the terrible disorder anduncertainty which resulted from the absence of a strong centralgovernment led to serious efforts upon the part of the _diet_, ornational assembly, to remedy the evils. It was proposed to establish acourt to settle all disputes which should arise among the rulers of thevarious states. This was to be held permanently in some convenientplace. The empire was also to be divided into districts, or "circles, "in each of which a military force was to be organized and maintained tocarry out the law and the decisions of the court. Little wasaccomplished, however, for some years, although the diet met morefrequently and regularly, and this gave an opportunity to discuss publicquestions. The towns began to send delegates to the diet in 1487, butthe restless knights and some of the other minor nobles had no part inthe deliberations and did not always feel that the decisions of theassembly were binding upon them. Of the diets which met almost everyyear during the Lutheran period in some one of the great German cities, we shall hear more later. [Sidenote: Contradiction between Catholic and Protestant writers. ] 135. It is natural that Protestant and Catholic writers should differ intheir views of Germany at this period. Among Protestants there hasalways been a tendency to see the dark side of affairs, for this exaltedthe work of Luther and made him appear the savior of his people. On theother hand, the Catholic historians have devoted years of research to anattempt to prove that conditions were, on the whole, happy and sereneand full of hope for the future before Luther and the otherrevolutionary leaders brought division and ruin upon the fatherland byattacking the Church. [Sidenote: Corresponding contradictions in the conditions in Germany. ] As a matter of fact, the life and thought of Germany during the fiftyyears preceding the opening of the Protestant revolt present all sortsof contradictions and anomalies. The period was one of marked progress. The people were eager to learn, and they rejoiced in the recentinvention of printing which brought them the new learning from Italy andhints of another world beyond the seas. Foreigners who visited Germanywere astonished at the prosperity, wealth, and luxury of the richmerchants, who often spent their money in the encouragement of art andliterature and in the founding of schools and libraries. On the other hand, there was great ill feeling between the variousclasses--the petty princes, the townspeople, the knights, and thepeasants. It was generally believed by the other classes that the wealthof the merchants could only be accounted for by deceit, usury, and sharpdealing. Never was begging more prevalent, superstition more rife, vulgarity and coarseness more apparent. Attempts to reform thegovernment and stop neighborhood war met with little success. Moreover, the Turks were advancing steadily upon Christendom. The people werecommanded by the pope to send up a prayer each day as the noon bellrang, that God might deliver them from the on-coming infidel. Yet we need not be astonished by these contradictions, for historyteaches that all periods of progress are full of them. Any newspaperwill show how true this is to-day: we are, as a nation, good and bad, rich and poor, peaceful and warlike, learned and ignorant, satisfied anddiscontented, civilized and barbarous, all at once. [Sidenote: Four important characteristics of the time which serve toexplain the Protestant revolt. ] In considering the condition of the Church and of religion in Germany, four things are particularly important as explaining the origin andcharacter of the Protestant revolt. First, there was an extraordinaryenthusiasm for all the pomp and ceremony of the old religion, and agreat confidence in pilgrimages, relics, miracles, and all those thingswhich the Protestants were soon to discard. Secondly, there was atendency to read the Bible and to dwell upon the attitude of the sinnertoward God, rather than upon the external acts of religion. Thirdly, there was a conviction, especially among scholars, that the theologianshad made religion needlessly complicated with their fine-spun logicaldistinctions. And lastly, there was the old and very general belief thatthe Italian prelates, including the pope, were always inventing newplans for getting money out of the Germans, whom they regarded as astupid people, easily hoodwinked. These four matters we shall considerin turn. [Sidenote: Enthusiasm for religious ceremonies and observances. ] 136. Never had the many ceremonies and observances of the mediævalChurch attracted more attention or been carried out on a more prodigiousscale than during the latter part of the fifteenth, and the openingyears of the sixteenth century. It seemed as if all Germany agreed tojoin in one last celebration of the old religion, unprecedented inmagnificence, before its people parted into two irreconcilable parties. Great numbers of new churches were erected, and adorned with the richestproductions of German art. Tens of thousands of pilgrims flocked to thevarious sacred places, and gorgeous ecclesiastical processions movedthrough the streets of the prosperous imperial towns. [Sidenote: Relics. ] The princes rivaled each other in collecting the relics of saints, whichwere venerated as an aid to salvation. The elector of Saxony, Frederickthe Wise, who was later to become Luther's protector, had accumulated noless than five thousand of these sacred objects. In a catalogue of themwe find the rod of Moses, a bit of the burning bush, thread spun by theVirgin, etc. The elector of Mayence possessed even a larger collection, which included forty-two whole bodies of saints and some of the earthfrom a field near Damascus out of which God was supposed to have createdman. [Sidenote: The treasury of 'good works. '] It was the teaching of the Church that prayers, fasts, masses, pilgrimages, and other "good works" might be accumulated and form atreasury of spiritual goods. Those who were wanting in good deeds might, therefore, have their deficiencies offset by the inexhaustible surplusof righteous deeds which had been created by Christ and the saints. [Sidenote: Popular reliance upon outward religious acts. ] The idea was certainly a beautiful one, that Christians should thus beable to help one another by their good works, and that the strong andfaithful worshiper could aid the weak and indifferent. Yet thethoughtful teachers in the Church realized that the doctrine of thetreasury of good works might be gravely misunderstood; and there wascertainly a strong inclination among the people to believe that Godmight be propitiated by various outward acts--attendance at churchceremonies, giving of alms, the veneration of relics, the making ofpilgrimages, etc. It was clear that the hope of profiting by the goodworks of others might lead to the neglect of the true welfare of thesoul. [Sidenote: Demand for more spiritual religion. ] 137. In spite, however, of the popular confidence in outward acts andceremonies, from which the heart was often absent, there were many signsof a general longing for deeper and more spiritual religion than that ofwhich we have been speaking. The new art of printing was used toincrease the number of religious manuals. These all emphasized theuselessness of outward acts without true contrition and sorrow for sin, and urged the sinner to rely upon the love and forgiveness of God. [Sidenote: The Bible in German before Luther. ] All good Christians were urged, moreover, to read the Bible, of whichthere were a number of editions in German, besides little books in whichportions of the New Testament were given. There are many indicationsthat the Bible was commonly read before Luther's time. [266] It was natural, therefore, that the German people should take a greatinterest in the new and better translation of the Scriptures whichLuther prepared. Preaching had also become common--as common perhaps asit is now--before the Protestants appeared. Some towns even engagedspecial preachers of known eloquence to address their citizensregularly. These facts would seem to justify the conclusion that there were manybefore Luther appeared who were approaching the ideas of religion whichlater appealed especially to the Protestants. The insistence of theProtestants upon salvation through faith alone in God, their suspicionof ceremonies and "good works, " their reliance upon the Bible, and thestress they laid upon preaching, --all these were to be found in Germanyand elsewhere before Luther began to preach. [Sidenote: The German humanists. ] [Sidenote: Rudolph Agricola, 1442-1485. ] 138. Among the critics of the churchmen, monks, and theologians, nonewere more conspicuous than the humanists. The Renaissance in Italy, which may be said to have begun with Petrarch and his library, hasalready been described. The Petrarch of Germany was Rudolph Agricola, who, while not absolutely the first German to dedicate himself toclassical studies, was the first who by his charming personality andvaried accomplishments stimulated others, as Petrarch had done, to carryon the pursuits which he himself so much enjoyed. Unlike most of theItalian humanists, however, Agricola and his followers were interestedin the language of the people as well as in Latin and Greek; andproposed that the works of antiquity should be translated into German. Moreover, the German humanists were generally far more serious anddevout than the Italian scholars. [Sidenote: The humanists desire to reform the German universities. ] As the humanists increased in numbers and confidence they began tocriticise the excessive attention given in the German universities[267]to logic and the scholastic theology. These studies had lost theirearlier vitality[268] and had degenerated into fruitless disputations. The bad Latin which the professors used themselves and taught theirstudents, and the preference still given to Aristotle over all otherancient writers, disgusted the humanists. They therefore undertook toprepare new and better text-books, and proposed that the study of theGreek and Roman poets and orators should be introduced into the schoolsand colleges. Some of the classical scholars were for doing away withtheology altogether, as a vain, monkish study which only obscured thegreat truths of religion. The old-fashioned professors, on their part, naturally denounced the new learning, which they declared made pagans ofthose who became enamored of it. Sometimes the humanists were permittedto teach their favorite subjects in the universities, but as time wenton it became clear that the old and the new teachers could not workamicably side by side. [Sidenote: The humanist satire on the monks and theologians, theso-called _Letters of Obscure Men_. ] At last, a little before Luther's public appearance, a conflict occurredbetween the "poets, " as the humanists were fond of calling themselves, and the "barbarians, " as they called the theologians and monkishwriters. An eminent Hebrew scholar, Reuchlin, had become involved in abitter controversy with the Dominican professors of the University ofCologne. His cause was championed by the humanists, who prepared anextraordinary satire upon their opponents. They wrote a series ofletters, which were addressed to one of the Cologne professors andpurported to be from his former students and admirers. In these lettersthe writers take pains to exhibit the most shocking ignorance andstupidity. They narrate their scandalous doings with the ostensiblepurpose of obtaining advice as to the best way to get out of theirscrapes. They vituperate the humanists in comically bad Latin, which isperhaps the best part of the joke. [269] In this way those who lateropposed Luther and his reforms were held up to ridicule in these lettersand their opposition to progress seemed clearly made out. [Sidenote: Erasmus of Rotterdam, 1467?-1536. ] 139. The acknowledged prince of the humanists was Erasmus. No other manof letters, unless it be Voltaire, has ever enjoyed such a Europeanreputation during his lifetime. He was venerated by scholars far andwide, even in Spain and Italy. Although he was born in Rotterdam he wasnot a Dutchman, but a citizen of the world; he is, in fact, claimed byEngland, France, and Germany. He lived in each of these countries for aconsiderable period and in each he left his mark on the thought of thetime. Erasmus, like most of the northern humanists, was deeplyinterested in religious reform, and he aspired to give the world ahigher conception of religion and the Church than that which generallyprevailed. He clearly perceived, as did all the other intelligent peopleof the time, the vices of the prelates, priests, and especially of themonks. Against the latter he had a personal grudge, for he had beenforced into a monastery when he was a boy, and always looked back to thelife there with disgust. Erasmus reached the height of his fame justbefore the public appearance of Luther; consequently his writings affordan admirable means of determining how he and his innumerable admirersfelt about the Church and the clergy before the opening of the greatrevolt. [Sidenote: Erasmus' edition of the New Testament. ] Erasmus spent some time in England between the years 1498 and 1506, andmade friends of the scholars there. He was especially fond of Sir ThomasMore, who wrote the famous _Utopia_, and of a young man, John Colet, whowas lecturing at Oxford upon the Epistles of St. Paul. [270] Colet'senthusiasm for Paul appears to have led Erasmus to direct his vastknowledge of the ancient languages to the explanation of the NewTestament. This was only known in the common Latin version (theVulgate), into which many mistakes and misapprehensions had crept. Erasmus felt that the first thing to do, in order to promote higherideas of Christianity, was to purify the sources of the faith bypreparing a correct edition of the New Testament. Accordingly, in 1516, he published the original Greek text with a new Latin translation andexplanations which mercilessly exposed the mistakes of the great body oftheologians. [Illustration: Portrait of Erasmus by Holbein] Erasmus would have had the Bible in the hands of every one. In theintroduction to his edition of the New Testament he says that womenshould read the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul as well as the men. The peasant in the field, the artisan in his shop, and the traveler onthe highroad should while away the time with passages from the Bible. [Sidenote: Erasmus' idea of true religion. ] Erasmus believed that the two arch enemies of true religion were (1)paganism, --into which many of the more enthusiastic Italian humanistsfell in their admiration for the ancient literatures, --and (2) thepopular confidence in mere outward acts and ceremonies, like visitingthe graves of saints, the mechanical repetition of prayers, and soforth. He claimed that the Church had become careless and had permittedthe simple teachings of Christ to be buried under myriads of dogmasintroduced by the theologians. "The essence of our religion, " he says, "is peace and harmony. These can only exist where there are few dogmasand each individual is left to form his own opinion upon many matters. " [Sidenote: In his _Praise of Folly_ Erasmus attacks the evils in theChurch. ] In his celebrated _Praise of Folly_, [271] Erasmus has much to say of theweaknesses of the monks and theologians, and of the foolish people whothought that religion consisted simply in pilgrimages, the worship ofrelics, and the procuring of indulgences. Scarcely one of the abuseswhich Luther later attacked escaped Erasmus' satirical pen. The book isa mixture of the lightest humor and the bitterest earnestness. As oneturns its pages one is sometimes tempted to think Luther half right whenhe declared Erasmus "a regular jester who makes sport of everything, even of religion and Christ himself. " Yet there was in this humorist adeep seriousness that cannot be ignored. Erasmus was really directinghis extraordinary industry, knowledge, and insight, not toward a revivalof classical literature, but to _a renaissance of Christianity_. Hebelieved, however, that revolt from the pope and the Church wouldproduce a great disturbance and result in more harm than good. Hepreferred to trust in the slower but surer effects of enlightenment andknowledge. Popular superstitions and any undue regard for the outwardforms of religion would, he argued, be outgrown and quietly disappear asmankind became more cultivated. To Erasmus and his many sympathizers, culture, promoted especially byclassical studies, should be the chief agency in religious reform. Nevertheless, just as Erasmus thought that his dreams of a peacefulreform were to be realized, as he saw the friends and patrons ofliterature, --Maximilian, Henry VIII, Francis I, --on the thrones ofEurope, and a humanist pope, Leo X, at the head of the Church, a verydifferent revolution from that which he had planned, had begun and wasto embitter his declining years. [Sidenote: Sources of discontent in Germany with the policy of the papalcourt. ] 140. The grudge of Germany against the papal court never found a moreeloquent expression than in the verses of its greatest minnesinger, Walther von der Vogelweide. Three hundred years before Luther's time hedeclared that the pope was making merry over the stupid Germans. "Alltheir goods will be mine, their silver is flowing into my far-awaychest; their priests are living on poultry and wine and leaving thesilly layman to fast. " Similar sentiments may be found in the Germanwriters of all the following generations. Every one of the sources ofdiscontent with the financial administration of the Church which thecouncils had tried to correct[272] was particularly apparent in Germany. The great German prelates, like the archbishops of Mayence, Treves, Cologne, and Salzburg, were each required to contribute no less than tenthousand gold guldens to the papal treasury upon having their electionduly confirmed by the pope; and many thousands more were expected fromthem when they received the pallium. [273] The pope enjoyed the right tofill many important benefices in Germany, and frequently appointedItalians, who drew the revenue without dreaming of performing any of theduties attached to the office. A single person frequently held severalchurch offices. For example, early in the sixteenth century, theArchbishop of Mayence was at the same time Archbishop of Magdeburg andBishop of Halberstadt. In some instances a single person had accumulatedover a score of benefices. It is impossible to exaggerate the impression of deep and widespreaddiscontent with the condition of the Church which one meets in thewritings of the early sixteenth century. The whole German people, fromthe rulers down to the humblest tiller of the fields, felt themselvesunjustly used. The clergy were denounced as both immoral andinefficient. One devout writer exclaims that young men are consideredquite good enough to be priests to whom one would not intrust the careof a cow. While the begging friars--the Franciscans, Dominicans, andAugustinians[274]--were scorned by many, they, rather than the secularclergy, appear to have carried on the real religious work. It was anAugustinian monk, we shall find, who preached the new gospel ofjustification by faith. Very few indeed thought of withdrawing from the Church or of attemptingto destroy the power of the pope. All that most of the Germans wishedwas that the money which, on one pretense or another, flowed toward Romeshould be kept at home, and that the clergy should be upright, earnestmen who should conscientiously perform their religious duties. Onepatriotic writer, however, Ulrich von Hutten, was preaching somethingvery like revolution at the same time that Luther began his attack onthe pope. [Sidenote: Ulrich von Hutten, 1488-1523. ] Hutten was the son of a poor knight, but early tired of the monotonouslife of the castle and determined to seek the universities and acquainthimself with the ancient literatures, of which so much was being said. In order to carry on his studies he visited Italy and there formed amost unfavorable impression of the papal court and of the Italianchurchmen, whom he believed to be oppressing his beloved fatherland. When the _Letters of Obscure Men_ appeared, he was so delighted withthem that he prepared a supplementary series in which he freelysatirized the theologians. Soon he began to write in German as well asin Latin, in order the more readily to reach the ears of the people. Inone of his pamphlets attacking the popes he explains that he has himselfseen how Leo X spends the money which the Germans send him. A part goesto his relatives, a part to maintain the luxurious papal court, and apart to worthless companions and attendants, whose lives would shock anyhonest Christian. In Germany, of all the countries of Europe, conditions were such thatLuther's appearance wrought like an electric shock throughout thenation, leaving no class unaffected. Throughout the land there wasdiscontent and a yearning for betterment. Very various, to be sure, werethe particular longings of the prince and the scholar, of knight, burgher, and peasant; but almost all were ready to consider, at least, the teachings of one who presented to them a new conception of salvationwhich made the old Church superfluous. General Reading. --The most complete account of the conditions in Germany before Luther is to be found in JANSSEN, _History of the German People_ (Herder, Vols. I and II, $6. 25). _Cambridge Modern History_ (The Macmillan Company, $3. 75 per vol. ), Vol. I, Chapters IX and XIX; CREIGHTON, _History of the Papacy_ (see Vol. I, p. 320), Vol. VI, Chapters I and II; and BEARD, _Martin Luther_ (P. Green, London, $1. 60), Chapters I and III, are excellent treatments of the subject. For Erasmus, see EMERTON'S charming _Desiderius Erasmus_ (G. P. Putnam's Sons, $1. 50), which gives a considerable number of his letters. CHAPTER XXV MARTIN LUTHER AND HIS REVOLT AGAINST THE CHURCH [Sidenote: Luther's birth and education. ] 141. Martin Luther was of peasant origin. His father was very poor, andwas trying his fortune as a miner near the Harz Mountains when hiseldest son, Martin, was born in 1483. Martin sometimes spoke, in laterlife, of the poverty and superstition which surrounded him in hischildhood; of how his mother carried on her back the wood for thehousehold and told him stories of a witch who had made away with thevillage priest. The boy was sent early to school, for his father wasdetermined that his eldest son should be a lawyer. At eighteen, Martinentered the greatest of the north-German universities, at Erfurt, wherehe spent four years. There he became acquainted with some of the younghumanists, for example, the one who is supposed to have written a greatpart of the _Letters of Obscure Men_. He was interested in the variousclassical writers, but devoted the usual attention to logic andAristotle. [Sidenote: Luther decides to become a monk. ] Suddenly, when he had completed his college course and was ready toenter the law school, he called his friends together for one last hourof pleasure, and the next morning he led them to the gate of anAugustinian monastery, where he bade them farewell and turning his backon the world became a mendicant friar. That day, July 17, 1505, when theyoung master of arts, regardless of his father's anger anddisappointment, sought salvation within the walls of a monastery, wasthe beginning of a religious experiment which had momentous consequencesfor the world. [Sidenote: Luther's disappointment in the monastery. ] Luther later declared that "if ever a monk got to heaven throughmonkery, " he was assuredly among those who merited salvation. So greatwas his ardor, so nervously anxious was he to save his soul by thecommonly recognized means of fasts, vigils, prolonged prayers, and aconstant disregard of the usual rules of health, that he soon could nolonger sleep. He fell into despondency, and finally into despair. Theordinary observance of the rules of the monastery, which satisfied mostof the monks, failed to give him peace. He felt that even if heoutwardly did right he could never purify all his thoughts and desires. His experience led him to conclude that neither the Church nor themonastery provided any device which enabled him to keep his affectionsalways centered on what he knew to be holy and right. Therefore theyseemed to him to fail and to leave him, at heart, a hopelessly corruptsinner, justly under God's condemnation. [Sidenote: Justification by faith, not through 'good works. '] Gradually a new view of Christianity came to him. The head of themonastery bade him trust in God's goodness and mercy and not to relyupon his own "good works. " He began to study the writings of St. Pauland of Augustine, and from them was led to conclude that man wasincapable, in the sight of God, of any good works whatsoever, and couldonly be saved by faith in God's promises. This gave him much comfort, but it took him years to clarify his ideas and to reach the conclusionthat the existing Church was opposed to the idea of justification byfaith, because it fostered what seemed to him a delusive confidence in"good works. " He was thirty-seven years old before he finally becameconvinced that it was his duty to become the leader in the destructionof the old order. [Sidenote: Luther becomes a teacher in the University of Wittenberg, 1508. ] It was no new thing for a young monk, suddenly cut off from the sunshineand hoping for speedy spiritual peace, to suffer disappointment and fallinto gloomy forebodings, as did Brother Martin. He, however, havingfought the battle through to victory, was soon placed in a position tobring comfort to others similarly afflicted with doubts as to theirpower to please God. In 1508 he was called to the new university whichFrederick the Wise, elector of Saxony, had established at Wittenberg. Weknow little of his early years as a professor, but he soon began tolecture on the epistles of Paul and to teach his students the doctrineof justification by faith. [Illustration: Luther] [Sidenote: Luther's visit to Rome. ] Luther had as yet no idea of attacking the Church. When, about 1511, hejourneyed to Rome on business of his order, he devoutly visited all theholy places for the good of his soul, and was almost tempted to wishthat his father and mother were dead, so that he might free them frompurgatory by his pious observances. Yet he was shocked by the impiety ofthe Italian churchmen and the scandalous stories about popes AlexanderVI and Julius II, the latter of whom was just then engaged in hiswarlike expeditions into northern Italy. The evidences of immorality onthe part of the popes may well have made it easier for him later toreach the conclusion that the head of the Church was the chief enemy ofreligion. [Sidenote: Luther teaches a new kind of theology. ] Before long he began to encourage his students to defend his favoritebeliefs in the debates in which they took part. For instance, one of thecandidates for a degree, under Luther's inspiration, attacked the oldtheology against which the humanists had been fighting. "It is anerror, " he says, "to declare that no one can become a theologian withoutAristotle; on the contrary, no one can become a theologian except it bewithout him. " Luther desired the students to rely upon the Bible, Paul's writings above all, and upon the church fathers, especiallyAugustine. [275] [Sidenote: Luther's theses on indulgences. ] 142. In October, 1517, Tetzel, a Dominican monk, began grantingindulgences in the neighborhood of Wittenberg, and making claims forthem which appeared to Luther wholly irreconcilable with the deepesttruths of Christianity as he understood and taught them. He therefore, in accordance with the custom of the time, wrote out a series ofninety-five statements in regard to indulgences. These he posted on thechurch door and invited any one interested in the matter to enter into adiscussion with him on the subject, which he believed was very illunderstood. In posting these _theses_, as they were called, Luther didnot intend to attack the Church, and had no expectation of creating asensation. The theses were in Latin and addressed only to scholars. Itturned out, however, that every one, high and low, learned andunlearned, was ready to discuss the perplexing theme of the nature ofindulgences. The theses were promptly translated into German, printed, and scattered throughout the land. [Sidenote: The nature of indulgences. ] In order to understand the indulgence, it must be remembered that thepriest had the right to forgive the sin of the truly contrite sinner whohad duly confessed his evil deeds. [276] Absolution freed the sinner fromthe deadly guilt which would otherwise have dragged him down to hell, but it did not free him from the penalties which God, or hisrepresentative, the priest, might choose to impose upon him. Seriouspenances had earlier been imposed by the Church for wrongdoing, but inLuther's time the sinner who had been absolved was chiefly afraid of thesufferings reserved for him in purgatory. It was there that his soulwould be purified by suffering and prepared for heaven. The indulgencewas a pardon, usually granted by the pope, through which the contritesinner escaped a part, or all, of the punishment which remained evenafter he had been absolved. The pardon did not therefore forgive theguilt of the sinner, for that had necessarily to be removed before theindulgence was granted; it only removed or mitigated the penalties whicheven the forgiven sinner would, without the indulgence, have expected toundergo in purgatory. [277] The first indulgences for the _dead_ had been granted shortly before thetime of Luther's birth. By securing one of these, the relatives orfriends of those in purgatory might reduce the period of torment whichthe sufferers had to undergo before they could be admitted to heaven. Those who were in purgatory had, of course, been duly absolved of theguilt of their sins before their death; otherwise their souls would havebeen lost and the indulgence could not advantage them in any way. [Sidenote: Leo X issues indulgences in connection with the rebuilding ofSt. Peter's. ] With a view of obtaining funds from the Germans to continue thereconstruction of the great church of St. Peter, [278] Leo X had arrangedfor the extensive grant of indulgences, both for the living and for thedead. The contribution for them varied greatly; the rich were requiredto pay a considerable sum, while the _very_ poor were to receive thesepardons gratis. The representatives of the pope were naturally anxiousto collect all the money possible, and did their best to induce everyone to secure an indulgence, either for himself or for his deceasedfriends in purgatory. In their zeal they made many reckless claims forthe indulgences, to which no thoughtful churchman or even layman couldlisten without misgivings. [Sidenote: Contents of Luther's theses. ] Luther was not the first to criticise the current notions ofindulgences, but his theses, owing to the vigor of their language andthe existing irritation of the Germans against the administration of theChurch, first brought the subject into prominence. He declared that theindulgence was very unimportant and that the poor man would better spendhis money for the needs of his household. The truly repentant, heargued, do not flee punishment, but bear it willingly in sign of theirsorrow. Faith in God, not the procuring of pardons, brings forgiveness, and every Christian who feels true contrition for his sins will receivefull remission of the punishment as well as of the guilt. Could the popeknow how his agents misled the people, he would rather have St. Peter'sburn to ashes than build it up with money gained under false pretenses. Then, Luther adds, there is danger that the common man will ask awkwardquestions. For example, "If the pope releases souls from purgatory formoney, why not for charity's sake?" or, "Since the pope is rich asCrœsus, why does he not build St. Peter's with his own money, insteadof taking that of the poor man?"[279] [Sidenote: Luther summoned to Rome. ] 143. The theses were soon forwarded to Rome, and a few months after theywere posted Luther received a summons to appear at the papal court toanswer for his heretical assertions. Luther still respected the pope asthe head of the Church, but he had no wish to risk his safety by goingto Rome. As Leo X was anxious not to offend so important a person as theelector of Saxony, who intervened for Luther, he did not press thematter, and agreed that Luther should confer with the papal emissariesin Germany. [Sidenote: The discussion continues. ] Brother Martin was induced to keep silence for a time, but was arousedagain by a great debate arranged at Leipsic in the summer of 1519. HereEck, a German theologian noted for his devotion to the pope and hisgreat skill in debate, challenged one of Luther's colleagues, Carlstadt, to discuss publicly some of the matters in which Luther himself wasespecially interested. Luther therefore asked to be permitted to takepart. [Sidenote: The debate at Leipsic, 1519. ] The discussion turned upon the powers of the pope. Luther, who had beenreading church history, declared that the pope had not enjoyed hissupremacy for more than four hundred years. This statement wasinaccurate, but, nevertheless, he had hit upon an argument against thecustoms of the Roman Catholic Church which has ever since beenconstantly urged by Protestants. They assert that the mediæval Churchand the papacy developed slowly, and that the apostles knew nothing ofmasses, indulgences, purgatory, and the headship of the Bishop of Rome. [Sidenote: Eck forces Luther to admit that the Council of Constance waswrong and Huss right. ] Eck promptly pointed out that Luther's views resembled those of Wycliffeand Huss, which had been condemned by the Council of Constance. Lutherwas forced reluctantly to admit that the council had condemned somethoroughly Christian teachings. This was a decisive admission. Likeother Germans, Luther had been accustomed to abhor Huss and theBohemians, and to regard with pride the great general Council ofConstance, which had been held in Germany and under the auspices of itsemperor. He now admitted that even a general council could err, and wassoon convinced "that we are all Hussites, without knowing it; yes, Pauland St. Augustine were good Hussites. " Luther's public encounter with adisputant of European reputation, and the startling admissions which hewas compelled to make, first made him realize that he might become theleader in an attack on the Church. He began to see that a great changeand upheaval was unavoidable. [Sidenote: Luther and the humanists natural allies. ] 144. As Luther became a confessed revolutionist he began to find friendsamong other revolutionists and reformers. He had some ardent admirerseven before the disputation at Leipsic, especially at Wittenberg and inthe great city of Nuremberg. To the humanists, Luther seemed a naturalally. They might not understand his religious beliefs, but they clearlysaw that he was beginning to attack a class of people that theydisliked, particularly the old-fashioned theologians who veneratedAristotle. He felt, moreover, as they did in regard to the many vices inthe Church, and was becoming suspicious of the begging monks, althoughhe was himself at the head of the Wittenberg monastery. So those who haddefended Reuchlin were now ready to support Luther, to whom they wroteencouraging letters. Luther's works were published by Erasmus' printerat Basel, and sent to Italy, France, England, and Spain. [Sidenote: Erasmus' attitude toward the Lutheran movement. ] But Erasmus, the mighty sovereign of the men of letters, refused to takesides in the controversy. He asserted that he had not read more than adozen pages of Luther's writings. Although he admitted that "themonarchy of the Roman high priest was, in its existing condition, thepest of Christendom, " he believed that a direct attack upon it would dono good. Luther, he urged, would better be discreet and trust thatmankind would become more intelligent and outgrow their false ideas. [Sidenote: Contrast between Luther and Erasmus. ] To Erasmus, man was capable of progress; cultivate him and extend hisknowledge, and he would grow better and better. He was a free agent, with, on the whole, upright tendencies. To Luther, on the other hand, man was utterly corrupt, and incapable of a single righteous wish ordeed. His will was enslaved to evil, and his only hope lay in therecognition of his absolute inability to better himself, and in a humblereliance upon God's mercy. By faith only, not by conduct, could he besaved. Erasmus was willing to wait until every one agreed that theChurch should be reformed. Luther had no patience with an institutionwhich seemed to him to be leading souls to destruction by inducing mento rely upon their good works. Both men realized that they could notagree. For a time they expressed respect for each other, but at lastthey became involved in a bitter controversy in which they gave up allpretense to friendship. Erasmus declared that Luther, by scorning goodworks and declaring that no one could do right, had made his followersindifferent to their conduct, and that those who accepted Luther'steachings straightway became pert, rude fellows, who would not take offtheir hats to him on the street. [Sidenote: Ulrich von Hutten espouses Luther's cause. ] Ulrich von Hutten, on the other hand, warmly espoused Luther's cause asthat of a German patriot and an opponent of Roman tyranny, intrigue, andoppression. "Let us defend our freedom, " he wrote, "and liberate thelong enslaved fatherland. We have God on our side, and if God be withus, who can be against us?" Hutten enlisted the interest of some of theother knights, who offered to defend Luther should the churchmen attackhim, and invited him to take refuge in their castles. [Sidenote: Luther begins to use violent language. ] 145. Thus encouraged, Luther, who gave way at times to his naturallyviolent disposition, became threatening, and suggested that the civilpower should punish the churchmen and force them to reform theirconduct. "We punish thieves with the gallows, bandits with the sword, heretics with fire; why should we not, with far greater propriety, attack with every kind of weapon these very masters of perdition, thecardinals, popes, and the whole mob in the Roman Sodom?" "The die iscast, " he writes to a friend; "I despise Rome's wrath as I do her favor;I will have no reconciliation or intercourse with her in all time tocome. Let her condemn and burn my writings. I will, if fire can befound, publicly condemn and burn the whole papal law. " [Sidenote: Luther's and Hutten's appeal to the German people. ] [Sidenote: Luther's _Address to the German Nobility_. ] Hutten and Luther vied with one another during the year 1520 inattacking the pope and his representatives. They both possessed a finecommand of the German language, and they were fired by a common hatredof Rome. Hutten had little or none of Luther's religious fervor, but hecould not find colors too dark in which to picture to his countrymenthe greed of the papal curia, which he described as a vast den, to whicheverything was dragged which could be filched from the Germans. OfLuther's popular pamphlets, the first really famous one was his _Addressto the German Nobility_, in which he calls upon the rulers of Germany, especially the knights, to reform the abuses themselves, since hebelieved that it was vain to wait for the Church to do so. He explains that there are three walls behind which the papacy had beenwont to take refuge when any one proposed to remedy its abuses. Therewas, first, the claim that the clergy formed a separate class, superioreven to the civil rulers, who might not punish a churchman, no matterhow bad he was. Secondly, the pope claimed to be superior to a council, so that even the representatives of the Church might not correct him. And, lastly, the pope assumed the sole right to interpret the meaning ofthe Scriptures; consequently he could not be refuted by arguments fromthe Bible. Thus the pope had stolen the three rods with which he mighthave been punished. Luther claimed to cast down these defenses bydenying, to begin with, that there was anything especially sacred abouta clergyman except the duties which he had been designated to perform. If he did not attend to his work he might be deprived of his office atany moment, just as one would turn off an incompetent tailor or farmer, and in that case he became a simple layman again. Luther claimed that itwas the right and duty of the civil government to punish a churchman whodoes wrong just as if he were the humblest layman. When this first wallwas destroyed the others would fall easily enough, for the dominantposition of the clergy was the very corner stone of the mediævalChurch. [280] [Sidenote: Luther advocates social as well as religious reforms. ] The pamphlet closes with a long list of evils which must be done awaywith before Germany can become prosperous. Luther saw that his view ofreligion really implied a social revolution. He advocated reducing themonasteries to a tenth of their number and permitting those who weredisappointed in the good they got from living in them freely to leave. He would not have them prisons, but hospitals and refuges for thesoul-sick. He points out the evils of pilgrimages and of the numerouschurch holidays, which interfere with daily work. The clergy, he urged, should be permitted to marry and have families like other citizens. Theuniversities should be reformed, and "the accursed heathen, Aristotle, "should be cast out from them. It should be noted that Luther appeals to the authorities not in thename of religion chiefly, but in that of public order and prosperity. Hesays that the money of the Germans flies feather-light over the Alps toItaly, but it suddenly becomes like lead when there is a question of itscoming back. He showed himself a master of vigorous language, and hisdenunciations of the clergy and the Church resounded like a trumpet callin the ears of his countrymen. [Sidenote: Luther attacks the sacramental system in his _BabylonianCaptivity of the Church_, 1520. ] Luther had said little of the doctrines of the Church in his _Address tothe German Nobility_, but within three or four months he issued a secondwork, in which he sought to overthrow the whole system of thesacraments, as it had been taught by Peter Lombard and the theologiansof the thirteenth century. [281] Four of the sevensacraments--ordination, marriage, confirmation, and extreme unction--herejected altogether. He completely revised the conception of the Mass, or the Lord's Supper. He stripped the priest of his singular powers bydenying that he performed the miracle of transubstantiation or offereda sacrifice for the living and the dead when he officiated at the Lord'sSupper. The priest was, in his eyes, only a minister, in the Protestantsense of the word, one of whose chief functions was preaching. [Sidenote: Luther excommunicated. ] 146. Luther had long expected to be excommunicated. But it was not untillate in 1520 that his adversary, Eck, arrived in Germany with a papalbull condemning many of Luther's assertions as heretical and giving himsixty days in which to recant. Should he fail to come to himself withinthat time, he and all who adhered to or favored him were to beexcommunicated, and any place which harbored him should fall under theinterdict. Now, since the highest power in Christendom had pronouncedLuther a heretic, he should unhesitatingly have been delivered up by theGerman authorities. But no one thought of arresting him. [Sidenote: The German authorities reluctant to publish the bull againstLuther. ] The bull irritated the German princes; whether they liked Luther or not, they decidedly disliked to have the pope issuing commands to them. Thenit appeared to them very unfair that Luther's personal enemy should havebeen intrusted with the publication of the bull. Even the princes anduniversities that were most friendly to the pope published the bull withgreat reluctance. The students of Erfurt and Leipsic pursued Eck withpointed allusions to Pharisees and devil's emissaries. In many cases thebull was ignored altogether. Luther's own sovereign, the elector ofSaxony, while no convert to the new views, was anxious that Luther'scase should be fairly considered, and continued to protect him. Onemighty prince, however, the young emperor Charles V, promptly andwillingly published the bull; not, however, as emperor, but as ruler ofthe Austrian dominions and of the Netherlands. Luther's works wereburned at Louvain, Mayence, and Cologne, the strongholds of the oldtheology. [Sidenote: Luther defies pope and emperor. ] "Hard it is, " Luther exclaimed, "to be forced to contradict all theprelates and princes, but there is no other way to escape hell andGod's anger. " Never had one man so unreservedly declared war upon prettymuch the whole consecrated order of things. As one power arrayed againstan equal, the Wittenberg professor opposed himself to pope and emperor, giving back curse for curse and fagot for fagot. His students weresummoned to witness "the pious, religious spectacle, " when he cast Leo'sbull on the fire, along with the canon law and one of the books ofscholastic theology which he most disliked. [Sidenote: Hutten's plan for an immediate destruction of the oldChurch. ] Never was the temptation so great for Luther to encourage a violentdemolition of the old structure of the Church as at this time. Huttenwas bent upon the speedy carrying out of the revolution which both heand Luther were forwarding by their powerful writings. Hutten had takenrefuge in the castle of the leader of the German knights, Franz vonSickingen, who he believed would be an admirable military commander inthe coming contest for truth and liberty. Hutten frankly proposed to theyoung emperor that the papacy should be abolished, that the property ofthe Church should be confiscated, and that ninety-nine out of a hundredof the clergy should be dispensed with as superfluous. In this wayGermany would be freed, he argued, from the control of the "parsons" andfrom their corruption. From the vast proceeds of the confiscation thestate might be strengthened and an army of knights might be maintainedfor the defense of the empire. [Sidenote: Views of the papal representative on public opinion inGermany. ] Public opinion appeared ready for a revolution. "I am pretty familiarwith the history of this German nation, " Leo's representative, Aleander, remarked; "I know their past heresies, councils, and schisms, but neverwere affairs so serious before. Compared with present conditions, thestruggle between Henry IV and Gregory VII was as violets and roses.... These mad dogs are now well equipped with knowledge and arms; they boastthat they are no longer ignorant brutes like their predecessors; theyclaim that Italy has lost the monopoly of the sciences and that theTiber now flows into the Rhine. " "Nine-tenths of the Germans, " hecalculated, "are shouting 'Luther, ' and the other tenth goes so far atleast as 'Death to the Roman curia. '" [Sidenote: Luther's attitude toward a violent realization of hisreforms. ] Luther was too frequently reckless and violent in his writings. He oftensaid that bloodshed could not be avoided when it should please God tovisit his judgments upon the stiff-necked and perverse generation of"Romanists, " as the Germans contemptuously called the supporters of thepope. Yet he always discouraged precipitate reform. He was reluctant tomake changes, except in belief. He held that so long as an institutiondid not mislead, it did no harm. He was, in short, no fanatic at heart. The pope had established himself without force, so would he be crushedby God's word without force. This, we may assume, was Luther's mostprofound conviction, even in the first period of enthusiasm andconfidence. He perhaps never fully realized how different Hutten's ideaswere from his own, for the poet knight died while still a young man. Andas for Franz von Sickingen, Luther soon learned to execrate theruthless, worldly soldier who brought discredit by his violence upon thecause of reform. [Sidenote: Charles V's want of sympathy with the German reformers. ] 147. Among the enemies of the German reformers none was more importantthan the young emperor. It was toward the end of the year 1520 thatCharles came to Germany for the first time. After being crowned king ofthe Romans at Aix-la-Chapelle, he assumed, with the pope's consent, thetitle of emperor elect, as his grandfather Maximilian had done. He thenmoved on to the town of Worms, where he was to hold his first diet andface the German situation. Although scarcely more than a boy in years, Charles had already begun totake life very seriously. He had decided that Spain, not Germany, was tobe the bulwark and citadel of all his realms. Like the more enlightenedof his Spanish subjects, he realized the need of reforming the Church, but he had no sympathy whatever with any change of doctrine. Heproposed to live and die a devout Catholic of the old type, such as hisorthodox ancestors had been. He felt, moreover, that he must maintainthe same religion in all parts of his heterogeneous dominions. If heshould permit the Germans to declare their independence of the Church, the next step would be for them to claim that they had a right toregulate their government regardless of their emperor. [Sidenote: Luther summoned to the diet at Worms. ] Upon arriving at Worms the case of Luther was at once forced uponCharles' attention by the assiduous papal representative, Aleander, whowas indefatigable in urging him to outlaw the heretic without furtherdelay. While Charles seemed convinced of Luther's guilt, he could notproceed against him without serious danger. The monk had become anational hero and had the support of the powerful elector of Saxony. Other princes, who had ordinarily no wish to protect a heretic, feltthat Luther's denunciation of the evils in the Church and of the actionsof the pope was very gratifying. After much discussion it was finallyarranged, to the great disgust of the zealous Aleander, that Luthershould be summoned to Worms and be given an opportunity to face theGerman nation and the emperor, and to declare plainly whether he was theauthor of the heretical books ascribed to him, and whether he stilladhered to the doctrines which the pope had declared wrong. The emperor accordingly wrote the "honorable and respected" Luther avery polite letter, ordering him to appear at Worms and granting him asafe-conduct thither. Luther said, on receiving the summons, that if hewas going to Worms merely to retract, he might better stay inWittenberg, where he could, if he would, abjure his errors quite as wellas on the Rhine. If, on the other hand, the emperor wished him to cometo Worms in order that he might be put to death, he was quite ready togo, "for, with Christ's help, I will not flee and leave the Word in thelurch. My revocation will be in this wise: 'Earlier I said that thepope was God's vicar; now I revoke and say, the pope is Christ's enemyand an envoy of the devil. '" 148. Luther accordingly set out for Worms accompanied by the imperialherald. He enjoyed a triumphal progress through the various places onhis way and preached repeatedly, in spite of the fact that he was anexcommunicated heretic. He found the diet in a great state of commotion. The papal representative was the object of daily insults, and Hutten andSickingen talked of scattering Luther's enemies by a sally from theneighboring castle of Ebernburg. [Sidenote: Luther before the diet. ] It was not proposed to give Luther an opportunity to defend his beliefsbefore the diet. When he appeared before "emperor and empire, " he wassimply asked if a pile of his Latin and German works were really his, and, if so, whether he revoked what he had said in them. To the firstquestion the monk replied in a low voice that he had written these andmore. As to the second question, which involved the welfare of the souland the Word of God, he asked that he might have a little while toconsider. The following day, in a Latin address which he repeated in German, headmitted that he had been overviolent in his attacks upon his opponents;but he said that no one could deny that, through the popes' decrees, theconsciences of faithful Christians had been miserably ensnared andtormented, and their goods and possessions, especially in Germany, devoured. Should he recant those things which he had said against thepope's conduct he would only strengthen the papal tyranny and give anopportunity for new usurpations. If, however, adequate arguments againsthis position could be found in the Scriptures, he would gladly andwillingly recant. He could not, however, accept the decision either ofpope or of council, since both, he believed, had made mistakes andcontradicted themselves. "I must, " he concluded, "allow my conscienceto be controlled by God's Word. Recant I can not and will not, for it ishazardous and dishonorable to act against one's conscience. " [Sidenote: The emperor forced by the law to outlaw Luther. ] There was now nothing for the emperor to do but to outlaw Luther, whohad denied the binding character of the commands of the head of theChurch and of the highest Christian tribunal, a general council. Hisargument that the Scriptures sustained him in his revolt could not beconsidered by the diet. [282] [Sidenote: The Edict of Worms, 1521. ] Aleander was accordingly assigned the agreeable duty of drafting thefamous Edict of Worms. This document declared Luther an outlaw on thefollowing grounds: that he disturbed the recognized number andcelebration of the sacraments, impeached the regulations in regard tomarriage, scorned and vilified the pope, despised the priesthood andstirred up the laity to dip their hands in the blood of the clergy, denied free will, taught licentiousness, despised authority, advocated abrutish existence, and was a menace to Church and State alike. Every onewas forbidden to give the heretic food, drink, or shelter, and requiredto seize him and deliver him to the emperor. Moreover, the decree provides that "no one shall dare to buy, sell, read, preserve, copy, print, or cause to be copied or printed any booksof the aforesaid Martin Luther, condemned by our holy father the pope, as aforesaid, or any other writings in German or Latin hitherto composedby him, since they are foul, noxious, suspected, and published by anotorious and stiff-necked heretic. Neither shall any one dare to affirmhis opinions, or proclaim, defend, or advance them in any other waythat human ingenuity can invent, --notwithstanding that he may have putsome good into his writings in order to deceive the simple man. "[283] For the last time the empire had recognized its obligation to carry outthe decrees of the Bishop of Rome. "I am becoming ashamed of myfatherland, " Hutten cried. So general was the disapproval of the edictthat few were willing to pay any attention to it. Charles immediatelyleft Germany, and for nearly ten years was occupied outside it with thegovernment of Spain and a succession of wars. General Reading. --BEARD, _Martin Luther_ (see above, p. 386), is probably the best account in English of Luther before his retirement to the Wartburg; KÖSTLIN, _Life of Luther_ (Scribner's Sons, $2. 50), is excellent. An account of Luther and Hutten by a learned Roman Catholic writer may be found in JANSSEN, _History of the German People_ (see above, p. 386), Vol. III; CREIGHTON, _History of the Papacy_ (see above, p. 320), Vol. VI; Chapters III and V are devoted to Luther and the diet of Worms. CHAPTER XXVI COURSE OF THE PROTESTANT REVOLT IN GERMANY 1521-1555 [Sidenote: Luther begins a new translation of the Bible in theWartburg. ] 149. As Luther neared Eisenach upon his way home from Worms he wasseized by a band of men and conducted to the Wartburg, a castlebelonging to the elector of Saxony. Here he was concealed until anydanger from the action of the emperor or diet should pass by. His chiefoccupation during several months of hiding was to begin a newtranslation of the Bible into German. He had finished the New Testamentbefore he left the Wartburg in March, 1522. Up to this time, German editions of the Scriptures, while not uncommon, were poor and obscure. Luther's task was a difficult one. He said withtruth that "translation is not an art to be practiced by every one; itdemands a right pious, true, industrious, reverent, Christian, scholarly, experienced, and well-trained mind. " He had studied Greek foronly two or three years, and he knew far less Hebrew than Greek. Moreover, there was no generally accepted form of the German language ofwhich he could make use. Each region had its peculiar dialect whichseemed outlandish to the neighboring district. [Sidenote: Luther's Bible the first important book in modern German. ] He was anxious above all that the Bible should be put into language thatwould seem perfectly clear and natural to the common folk. So he wentabout asking the mothers and children and the laborers questions whichmight draw out the expression that he was looking for. It sometimes tookhim two or three weeks to find the right word. But so well did he dohis work that his Bible may be regarded as a great landmark in thehistory of the German language. It was the first book of any importancewritten in modern German, and it has furnished an imperishable standardfor the language. [Sidenote: General discussion of public questions in pamphlets andsatires. ] Previous to 1518 there had been very few books or pamphlets printed inGerman. The translation of the Bible into language so simple that eventhe unlearned might profit by it was only one of the signs of a generaleffort to awaken the minds of the common people. Luther's friends andenemies also commenced to write for the great German public in its ownlanguage. The common man began to raise his voice, to the scandal of thelearned. Hundreds of pamphlets, satires, and pictorial caricatures have come downto us which indicate that the religious and other questions of the daywere often treated in somewhat the same spirit in which our comic papersdeal with political problems and discussions now. We find, for instance, a correspondence between Leo X and the devil, and a witty dialoguebetween Franz von Sickingen and St. Peter at the gate of heaven. In thelatter Peter confesses that he has never heard of the right "to looseand to bind, " of which his successors say so much. He refuses to discussmilitary matters with Sickingen, but calls in St. George, who issupposed to be conversant with the art of war. In another satire, avacation visit of St. Peter to the earth is described. He is roughlytreated, especially by the soldiers at an inn, and hastens back toheaven with a sad tale of the evil plight of Germany, of how badlychildren are brought up, and how unreliable the servants are. [284] [Sidenote: Divergent notions of how the Church should actually bereformed. ] 150. Hitherto there had been a great deal of talk of reform, but as yetnothing had actually been done. There was no sharp line drawn betweenthe different classes of reformers. All agreed that something should bedone to better the Church, few realized how divergent were the real endsin view. The princes listened to Luther because they hoped to controlthe churchmen and their property and check the outflow of money to Rome. The knights, under Sickingen, hated the princes, of whose increasingpower they were jealous. Their idea of "righteousness" involved thedestruction of the existing rulers and the exaltation of their ownclass. The peasants heard Luther gladly because he seemed to furnish newproofs of the injustice of the dues which they paid to their lords. Thehigher clergy were bent upon escaping the papal control, and the lowerclergy wished to have their marriages sanctioned. It is clear thatreligious motives must have been often subordinated to other interests. Disappointment and chagrin awaited Luther when each of the variousparties began to carry out its particular notions of reform. Hisdoctrines were misunderstood, distorted, and dishonored. He sometimeswas driven to doubt if his belief in justification by faith were notafter all a terrible mistake. His first shock came from Wittenberg. [Sidenote: Carlstadt advocates breaking up the monasteries. ] While Luther was still at the Wartburg, Carlstadt, one of his colleaguesin the university, became convinced that the monks and nuns ought toleave their cloisters and marry like other people. This was a seriousproposition for two reasons. In the first place, those who deserted thecloister were violating an oath which they had voluntarily taken; in thesecond place, if the monasteries were broken up the problem wouldpresent itself of the disposal of the property, which had been given tothem by pious persons for the good of their souls, and with theexpectation that the monks would give the donors the benefit of theirprayers. Nevertheless, the monks began to leave Luther's own monastery, and the students and citizens to tear down the images of the saints inthe churches. The Lord's Supper was no longer celebrated in the form ofthe Mass, since that was declared to be an idolatrous worshiping of thebread and wine. Then Carlstadt reached the conclusion that all learningwas superfluous, for the Scriptures said plainly that God had concealedhimself from the wise and revealed the truth unto babes. He astonishedthe tradespeople by consulting them in regard to obscure passages in theBible. The school at Wittenberg was turned into a bake-shop. Thestudents, who had been attracted to the university from all parts ofGermany, began to return home, and the professors prepared to emigrate. [Sidenote: Luther returns to Wittenberg and explains his plan of reform, 1522. ] When the news of these events reached Luther, he left his concealment, regardless of the danger, and returned to Wittenberg. Here he preached aseries of vigorous sermons in which he pleaded for moderation andreason. With some of the changes advocated by Carlstadt he sympathized. He would, for instance, have done away with the adoration of the hostand the celebration of private masses. On the other hand, he disapprovedof the disorderly breaking up of the monasteries, although he held thatthose who had accepted the doctrine of justification by faith might layaside their cowls, since they had taken their vows when they were underthe misapprehension that they could save themselves by good works. Thosewho remained in the monasteries were not, moreover, to beg any longer, but should earn an honest livelihood. [Sidenote: Luther advocates patience and moderation. ] Luther felt that all changes in religious practices should be made bythe government; it should not be left to "Mr. Everybody" (_Herr Omnes_)to determine what should be rejected and what retained. If theauthorities refused to act, then there was nothing to do but to bepatient and use one's influence for good. "Teach, speak, write, andpreach that the ordinances of man are naught. Advise that no one shallany more become a priest, monk, or nun, and that those who occupy suchpositions shall leave them. Give no more money for papal privileges, candles, bells, votive tablets, and churches, but say that a Christianlife consists in faith and love. Let us keep this up for two years andyou will see where pope, bishop, monks, nuns, and all the hocus-pocusof the papal government will be; it will vanish away like smoke. " God, Luther urged, has left us free to choose whether we shall marry, becomemonks, fast, confess, or place images in the churches. These things arenot vital to salvation, and each may do what seems to him to be helpfulin his particular case. [Sidenote: Impossibility of peaceful reform. ] Luther's plan of moderation was, however, wholly impracticable. Theenthusiasm of those who rejected the old views led to a whole-heartedrepudiation of everything which suggested their former beliefs. Fewcould look with forbearance upon the symbols and practices of a form ofreligion which they had learned to despise. Moreover, many who had nodeep religious feelings delighted in joining in the destruction of thepaintings, stained glass, and statues in the churches, simply from alove of disorder. [Sidenote: Franz von Sickingen attacks the Archbishop of Treves. ] 151. Luther was soon to realize that a peaceful revolution was out ofthe question. His knightly adherents, Hutten and Franz von Sickingen, were the first to bring discredit upon the religious movement by theirviolence. In the autumn of 1522 Sickingen declared war upon hisneighbor, the Archbishop of Treves, in order to make a beginning in theknights' proposed attack upon the princes in general. He promised thepeople of Treves "to free them from the heavy, unchristian yoke of theparsons and to lead them into evangelical liberty. " He had alreadyabolished the Mass in his castle and given shelter to some of Luther'sfollowers. But Franz, in undertaking to put the gospel, as he understoodit, in practice by arms, had other than religious motives. Hisadmiration of Luther probably had but little to do with his anxiety toput down a hated ecclesiastical prince and seize his property. [Sidenote: Confederation of knights broken up by the princes. ] [Sidenote: Death of Franz von Sickingen and Hutten. ] The Archbishop of Treves proved himself a sagacious military commanderand gained the support of his subjects. Franz was forced to retire tohis castle, where he was besieged by the neighboring elector of thePalatinate and the landgrave of Hesse, a friend of Luther's. The wallsof the stronghold were battered down by the "unchristian cannonading, "and the "executor of righteousness, " as Franz was called, was fatallyinjured by a falling beam. A few months later, Hutten died, a miserablefugitive in Switzerland. A confederation of the knights, of whichSickingen had been the head, aroused the apprehension of the princes, who gathered sufficient forces to destroy more than twenty of theknights' castles. So Hutten's great plan for restoring the knights totheir former influence came to a sad and sudden end. It is clear thatthese men had little in common with Luther; yet they talked much ofevangelical reform, and he was naturally blamed for their misdeeds. Those who adhered to the old Church now felt that they had conclusiveproof that heresy led to anarchy; and since it threatened the civilgovernment as well as the Church, they urged that it should be put downwith fire and sword. [Sidenote: Hadrian VI confesses the evil deeds of the papacy. ] 152. While Luther was in the Wartburg, the cultured and worldly Leo Xhad died and had been succeeded by a devout professor of theology, whohad once been Charles V's tutor. The new pope, Hadrian VI, was honestand simple, and a well-known advocate of reform without change ofbelief. He believed that the German revolt was a divine judgment calleddown by the wickedness of men, especially of the priests and prelates. He freely confessed, through his legate, in a meeting of the German dietat Nuremberg, that the popes had been perhaps the most conspicuoussinners. "We well know that for many years the most scandalous thingshave happened in this holy see [of Rome], --abuses in spiritual matters, violations of the canons, --that, in short, everything has been just theopposite of what it should have been. What wonder, then, if the diseasehas spread from the head to the members, from the popes to the lowerclergy. We clergymen have all strayed from the right path, and for along time there has been no one of us righteous, no, not one. " [Sidenote: Hadrian's denunciation of Luther. ] In spite of this honest confession, Hadrian was unwilling to listen tothe grievances of the Germans until they had put down Luther and hisheresies. He was, the pope declared, a worse foe to Christendom than theTurk. There could be nothing fouler or more disgraceful than Luther'steachings. He sought to overthrow the very basis of religion andmorality. He was like Mohammed, but worse, for he would have theconsecrated monks and nuns marry. Nothing would be securely establishedamong men if every presumptuous upstart should insist that he had theright to overturn everything which had been firmly established forcenturies and by saints and sages. [Sidenote: The action of the diet of Nuremberg, 1522. ] The diet was much gratified by the pope's frank avowal of the sins ofhis predecessors, in which it heartily concurred. It was glad that thepope was going to begin his reform at home, but it strenuously refusedto order the enforcement of the Edict of Worms for fear of stirring upnew troubles. The Germans were too generally convinced that they weresuffering from the oppression of the Roman curia to permit Luther to beinjured. His arrest would seem an attack upon the freedom of gospelteaching and a defence of the old system; it might even lead to civilwar. So the diet advised that a Christian council be summoned in Germanyto be made up of laymen as well as clergymen, who should be charged tospeak their opinions freely and say, not what was pleasant, but what wastrue. In the meantime, only the pure gospel should be preached accordingto the teaching of the Christian Church. As to the complaint of the popethat the monks had deserted their monasteries and the priests takenwives, these were not matters with which the civil authority hadanything to do. As the elector of Saxony observed, he paid no attentionto the monks when they ran into the monastery, and he saw no reason fornoticing when they ran out. Luther's books were, however, to be nolonger published, and learned men were to admonish the erring preachers. Luther, himself, was to hold his peace. This doubtless gives a fairidea of public opinion in Germany. It is noteworthy that Luther did notseem to the diet to be a very discreet person and it showed noparticular respect for him. [Sidenote: Accession of Pope Clement VII. ] 153. Poor Hadrian speedily died, worn out with the vain effort tocorrect the abuses close at home. He was followed by Clement VII, amember of the house of Medici, less gifted but not less worldly than LeoX. A new diet, called in 1524, adhered to the policy of its predecessor. It was far from approving of Luther, but it placed no effective barrierin the way of his work. [Sidenote: The formation of a Catholic party at Regensburg. ] The papal legate, realizing the hopelessness of inducing all the membersof the diet to coöperate with him in bringing the country once moreunder the pope's control, called together at Regensburg a certain numberof rulers whom he believed to be rather more favorably disposed towardthe pope than their fellows. Among these were Charles V's brother, Ferdinand, Duke of Austria, the two dukes of Bavaria, the archbishops ofSalzburg and of Trent, and the bishops of Bamberg, Speyer, Strasburg, etc. By means of certain concessions on the part of the pope, he inducedall these to unite in opposing the Lutheran heresy. The chief concessionwas a reform decree which provided that only authorized preachers shouldbe tolerated, and that these should base their teaching on the works ofthe four great church fathers, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregorythe Great. The clergy were to be subjected to careful discipline; therewas to be no more financial oppression and no unseemly payments demandedfor performing the church services. Abuses arising from the granting ofindulgences were to be remedied and the excessive number of holidaysreduced. [Sidenote: Religious division of Germany. ] [Sidenote: Beginning of a reform within the Catholic Church. ] This agreement of Regensburg is of great importance, for it served toseparate Germany into two camps. Austria, Bavaria, and the greatecclesiastical states in the south definitely took sides with the popeagainst Luther, and to this day they still remain Catholic countries. In the north, on the other hand, it became more and more apparent thatthe princes proposed to secede from the Catholic Church. Moreover, theskillful diplomacy of the papal legate was really the beginning of areformation of the old Church in Germany. Many of the abuses were doneaway with, and the demand for reform, without revolution in doctrine andinstitutions, was thereby gratified. [285] A German Bible for Catholicreaders was soon issued, and a new religious literature grew up designedto prove the truth of the beliefs sanctioned by the Roman CatholicChurch and to spiritualize its institutions and rites. [Sidenote: Luther's rash talk about the princes and nobles serves toencourage the revolt of the peasants. ] 154. In 1525 the conservative party, who were frankly afraid of Luther, received a new and terrible proof, as it seemed to them, of the noxiousinfluence of his teachings. The peasants rose, in the name of "God'sjustice, " to avenge their wrongs and establish their rights. Luther wasnot responsible for the civil war which ensued, but he had certainlyhelped to stir up discontent. He had asserted that, owing to the habitof foreclosing small mortgages, "any one with a hundred guldens couldgobble up a peasant a year. " The German feudal lords he had declared tobe hangmen, who knew only how to swindle the poor man. "Such fellowswere formerly called rascals, but now must we call them 'Christian andrevered princes. '" Wise rulers are rare indeed: "they are usually eithergreat fools or the worst rogues on earth. " Yet in spite of his harshtalk about the princes, Luther really relied upon them to forward hismovement, and he justly claimed that he had greatly increased theirpower by destroying the authority of the pope and subjecting the clergyin all things to the government. [Sidenote: The demands of the peasants in the 'Twelve Articles. '] Some of the demands of the peasants were perfectly reasonable. The mostpopular expression of their needs was the dignified "TwelveArticles. "[286] In these they claimed that the Bible did not sanctionmany of the dues which the lords demanded of them, and that asChristians they should no longer be held as serfs. They were willing topay all the old and well-established dues, but they asked to be properlyremunerated for extra services demanded by the lord. They thought toothat each community should have the right freely to choose its ownpastor and to dismiss him if he proved negligent or inefficient. [Sidenote: Demands of the working classes of the towns. ] Much more radical demands came from the working classes in the towns, who in some cases joined the country people in their revolt. Thearticles drawn up in the town of Heilbronn, for example, give a goodidea of the sources of discontent. The church property was to beconfiscated and used for the good of the community, except in so far asit was necessary to support the pastors chosen by the people. The clergyand nobility were to be deprived of all their privileges and powers, sothat they could no longer oppress the poor man. [Sidenote: Luther urges the government to suppress the revolt. ] There were, moreover, leaders who were still more violent, who proposedto kill the "godless" priests and nobles. Hundreds of castles andmonasteries were destroyed by the frantic peasantry, and some of thenobility were murdered with shocking cruelty. Luther tried to induce thepeasants, with whom, as the son of a peasant, he was at first inclinedto sympathize, to remain quiet; but when his warnings proved vain, heattacked the rebels violently. He declared that they were guilty of themost fearful crimes, for which they deserved death of both body and soulmany times over. They had broken their allegiance, they had wantonlyplundered and robbed castles and monasteries, and lastly, they had triedto cloak their dreadful sins with excuses from the Gospel. He thereforeurged the government to put down the insurrection. "Have no pity on thepoor folk; stab, smite, throttle, who can!" [Sidenote: The peasant revolt put down with great cruelty. ] Luther's advice was followed with terrible literalness by the Germanrulers, and the nobility took fearful revenge for the depredations ofthe peasants. In the summer of 1525 the chief leader of the peasantswas defeated and killed, and it is estimated that ten thousand peasantswere put to death, many with the utmost cruelty. Few rulers or lordsintroduced any reforms, and the misfortunes due to the destruction ofproperty and to the despair of the peasants cannot be imagined. Thepeople concluded that the new gospel was not for them, and talked ofLuther as "Dr. Lügner, " i. E. , liar. The old exactions of the lords ofthe manors were in no way lightened, and the situation of the peasantsfor centuries following the great revolt was worse rather than better. [Sidenote: Catholic and Protestant unions of the German princes. ] 155. The terror inspired by the peasant war led to new measures againstfurther attempts to change the religious beliefs of the land. The Leagueof Dessau was formed among some of the leading rulers of central andnorthern Germany, to stamp out "the accursed Lutheran sect. " The unionincluded Luther's arch enemy, Duke George of Saxony, the electors ofBrandenburg and Mayence, and two princes of Brunswick. The rumor thatthe emperor, who had been kept busy for some years by his wars withFrancis I, was planning to come to Germany in order to root out thegrowing heresy, led the few princes who openly favored Luther to unitealso. Among these the chief were the new elector of Saxony, JohnFrederick, and Philip, landgrave of Hesse. These two proved themselvesthe most ardent and conspicuous defenders of the Protestant faith inGermany. [Sidenote: The diet of Speyer gives to the individual rulers the rightto determine the religion of their subjects, 1526. ] A new war, in which Francis and the pope sided against the emperor, prevented Charles from turning his attention to Germany, and heaccordingly gave up the idea of enforcing the Edict of Worms against theLutherans. Since there was no one who could decide the religiousquestion for all the rulers, the diet of Speyer (1526) determined that, pending the meeting of a general council, each ruler, and each knightand town owing immediate allegiance to the emperor, should decideindividually what particular form of religion should prevail in hisrealm. Each prince was "so to live, reign, and conduct himself as hewould be willing to answer before God and His Imperial Majesty. " For themoment, then, the various German governments were left to determine thereligion of their subjects. Yet all still hoped that one religion might ultimately be agreed upon. Luther trusted that all Christians would sometime accept the new gospel. He was willing that the bishops should be retained, and even that thepope should still be regarded as a sort of presiding officer in theChurch. As for his enemies, they were equally confident that theheretics would in time be suppressed as they had always been in thepast, and that harmony would thus be restored. Neither party was right;for the decision of the diet of Speyer was destined to become apermanent arrangement, and Germany remained divided between differentreligious faiths. [Sidenote: Charles V again intervenes in the religious controversy inGermany. ] New sects opposed to the old Church had begun to appear. Zwingli, aSwiss reformer, was gaining many followers, and the Anabaptists wererousing Luther's apprehensions by their radical plans for doing awaywith the Catholic religion. As the emperor found himself able for amoment to attend to German affairs he bade the diet, again meeting atSpeyer in 1529, to order the enforcement of the edict against theheretics. No one was to preach against the Mass and no one was to beprevented from attending it freely. [Sidenote: Origin of the term 'Protestant. '] This meant that the "Evangelical" princes would be forced to restore themost characteristic Catholic ceremony. As they formed only a minority inthe diet, all that they could do was to draw up a _protest_, signed byJohn Frederick, Philip of Hesse, and fourteen of the imperial towns(Strasburg, Nuremberg, Ulm, etc. ). In this they claimed that themajority had no right to abrogate the edict of the former diet of Speyerfor that had passed unanimously and all had solemnly pledged themselvesto observe the agreement. They therefore appealed to the emperor and afuture council against the tyranny of the majority. [287] Those whosigned this appeal were called from their action _Protestants_. Thusoriginated the name which came to be generally applied to those who donot accept the rule and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. [Sidenote: Preparations for the diet of Augsburg. ] 156. Since the diet at Worms the emperor had resided in Spain, busiedwith a succession of wars carried on with the king of France. It will beremembered that both Charles and Francis claimed Milan and the duchy ofBurgundy, and they sometimes drew the pope into their conflicts. [288]But in 1530 the emperor found himself at peace for the moment and held abrilliant diet of his German subjects at Augsburg in the hope ofsettling the religious problem, which, however, he understood veryimperfectly. He ordered the Protestants to draw up a statement ofexactly what they believed, which should serve as a basis fordiscussion. Melanchthon, Luther's most famous friend and colleague, whowas noted for his great learning and moderation, was intrusted with thedelicate task. [Sidenote: The Augsburg Confession. ] The Augsburg Confession, as his declaration was called, is an historicaldocument of great importance for the student of the Protestantrevolt. [289] Melanchthon's gentle and conciliatory disposition led himto make the differences between his belief and that of the old Churchseem as few and slight as possible. He showed that both parties held thesame fundamental views of Christianity. The Protestants, however, defended their rejection of a number of the practices of the RomanCatholics, such as the celibacy of the clergy and the observance offast days. There was little or nothing in the Augsburg Confessionconcerning the organization of the Church. [Sidenote: Charles V's attempt at pacification. ] Certain theologians, some of whom, like Eck, had been loud in theirdenunciations of Luther, were ordered by the emperor to prepare arefutation of the Protestant views. The statement of the Catholicsadmitted that a number of Melanchthon's positions were perfectlyorthodox; but the portion of the Augsburg Confession which dealt withthe practical reforms introduced by the Protestants was rejectedaltogether. Charles declared the Catholic statement to be "Christian andjudicious" and commanded the Protestants to accept it. They were tocease troubling the Catholics and were to give back all the monasteriesand church property which they had seized. The emperor agreed to urgethe pope to call a council to meet within a year. This, he hoped, wouldbe able to settle all differences and reform the Church according to theviews of the Catholics. [Sidenote: Progress of Protestantism up to the Peace of Augsburg, 1555. ] 157. It is unnecessary to follow in detail the progress of Protestantismin Germany during the quarter of a century succeeding the diet ofAugsburg. Enough has been said to show the character of the revolt andthe divergent views taken by the German princes and people. For tenyears after the emperor left Augsburg he was kept busy in southernEurope by new wars; and in order to secure the assistance of theProtestants, he was forced to let them go their own way. Meanwhile thenumber of rulers who accepted Luther's teachings gradually increased. Finally there was a brief war between Charles and the Protestantprinces, but the origin of the conflict was mainly political rather thanreligious. It occurred to the youthful Maurice, Duke of Saxony, that byaiding the emperor against the Protestants he might find a good excusefor dispossessing his Protestant relative, John Frederick, of hiselectorate. There was but little fighting done. Charles V brought hisSpanish soldiers into Germany and captured both John Frederick and hisally, Philip of Hesse, the chief leaders of the Lutheran cause, whom hekept prisoners for several years. [290] [Sidenote: The Peace of Augsburg. ] This episode did not check the progress of Protestantism. Maurice, whohad been granted John Frederick's electorate, soon turned about andallied himself with the Protestants. The king of France promised themhelp against his enemy, the emperor, and Charles was forced to agree toa preliminary peace with the Protestants. Three years later, in 1555, the religious Peace of Augsburg was ratified. Its provisions arememorable. Each German prince and each town and knight immediately underthe emperor was to be at liberty to make a choice between the beliefs ofthe venerable Catholic Church and those embodied in the AugsburgConfession. If, however, an ecclesiastical prince--an archbishop, bishop, or abbot--declared himself a Protestant, he must surrender hispossessions to the Church. Every one was either to conform to thereligious practices of his particular state, or emigrate. [Sidenote: The principle that the government should determine thereligion of its subjects. ] This religious peace in no way established freedom of conscience, exceptfor the rulers. Their power, it must be noted, was greatly increased, inasmuch as they were given the control of religious as well as ofsecular matters. This arrangement which permitted the ruler to determinethe religion of his realm was natural, and perhaps inevitable, in thosedays. The Church and the civil government had been closely associatedwith one another for centuries. No one as yet dreamed that everyindividual, so long as he did not violate the law of the land, mightsafely be left quite free to believe what he would and to practice anyreligious rites which afforded him help and comfort. [Sidenote: Weaknesses of the Peace of Augsburg. ] There were two noteworthy weaknesses in the Peace of Augsburg which weredestined to make trouble. In the first place, only one group ofProtestants was included in it. The now numerous followers of theFrench reformer, Calvin, and of the Swiss reformer, Zwingli, who werehated alike by Catholic and Lutheran, were not recognized. Every Germanhad to be either a Catholic or a Lutheran in order to be tolerated. Inthe second place, the clause which decreed that ecclesiastical princesconverted to Protestantism should surrender their property could not beenforced, for there was no one to see to its execution. CHAPTER XXVII THE PROTESTANT REVOLT IN SWITZERLAND AND ENGLAND 158. For at least a century after Luther's death the great issue betweenCatholics and Protestants dominates the history of all the countrieswith which we have to do, except Italy and Spain, where Protestantismnever took permanent root. In Switzerland, England, France, and Hollandthe revolt against the mediæval Church produced profound changes, whichmust be understood in order to follow the later development of thesecountries. [Sidenote: Origin of the Swiss Confederation. ] We turn first to Switzerland, lying in the midst of the great chain ofthe Alps which extends from the Mediterranean to Vienna. During theMiddle Ages, the region destined to be included in the SwissConfederation formed a part of the empire, and was scarcelydistinguishable from the rest of southern Germany. As early as thethirteenth century the three "forest" cantons on the shores of thewinding lake of Lucerne had formed a union to protect their libertiesagainst the encroachments of their neighbors, the Hapsburgs. It wasabout this tiny nucleus that Switzerland gradually consolidated. In 1315the cantons gained their first great victory over the Hapsburgs atMorgarten and thereupon solemnly renewed their league. This was soonjoined by Lucerne and the free imperial towns of Zurich and Berne. Bybrave fighting the Swiss were able to frustrate the renewed efforts ofthe Hapsburgs to subjugate them. Later, when a still more formidableenemy, Charles the Bold, undertook to conquer them they put his armiesto rout at Granson and Murten (1476). [291] [Illustration: The Swiss Confederation] [Sidenote: Switzerland becomes a separate country; mixed nationality ofits people. ] Various districts in the neighborhood successively joined the Swissunion, and even the region lying on the Italian slopes of the Alps wasbrought under its control. Gradually the bonds between the members ofthe union and the empire were broken. They were recognized as being nomore than "relatives" of the empire; in 1499 they were finally freedfrom the jurisdiction of the emperor, and Switzerland became apractically independent country. Although the original union had beenmade up of German-speaking people, considerable districts had beenannexed in which Italian or French was spoken. [292] The Swiss did not, therefore, form a compact, well-defined nation, and for some centuriestheir confederation was weak and ill-organized. [Sidenote: Zwingli (1484-1531) leads the revolt in Switzerland againstthe Church. ] 159. In Switzerland the leader of the revolt against the Church wasZwingli, who was a year younger than Luther and like him was the son ofpeasant parents. Zwingli's father was prosperous, however, and the boyhad the best education which could be obtained, at Basel and Vienna. Hislater discontent with the old Church came not through spiritualwrestlings in the monastery, but from the study of the classics and ofthe Greek New Testament. Zwingli had become a priest and settled at thefamous monastery of Einsiedeln near the lake of Zurich. This was thecenter of pilgrimages on account of a wonder-working image in the cellof St. Meinrad. "Here, " he says, "I began to preach the Gospel of Christin the year 1516, before any one in my locality had so much as heard thename of Luther. " [Sidenote: Zwingli denounces the abuses in the Church and the traffic insoldiers. ] Three years later he was called to an influential position as preacherin the cathedral of Zurich, and there his great work began. Through hisefforts a Dominican who was preaching indulgences was expelled from thecountry. He then began to denounce the abuses in the Church as well asthe shameless traffic in soldiers, which he had long regarded as a blotupon his country's honor. [293] The pope had found the help of the Swisstroops indispensable, and had granted annuities and lucrative positionsin the Church to influential Swiss, who were expected to work in hisinterest. So, from the first, Zwingli was led to combine with hisreligious reform a political reform which should put the cantons onbetter terms with one another and prevent the destruction of their youngmen in wars in which they had no possible interest. A new demand of thepope for troops in 1521 led Zwingli to attack him and his commissioners. "How appropriate, " he exclaims, "that they should have red hats andcloaks! If we shake them, crowns and ducats fall out. If we wring them, out runs the blood of your sons and brothers and fathers and goodfriends. "[294] [Sidenote: Zurich, under the influence of Zwingli, begins a reform. ] Such talk soon began to arouse comment, and the old forest cantons werefor a violent suppression of the new teacher, but the town council ofZurich stanchly supported their priest. Zwingli then began to attackfasts and the celibacy of the clergy. In 1523 he prepared a completestatement of his belief, in the form of sixty-seven theses. In these hemaintained that Christ was the only high priest and that the Gospel didnot gain its sanction from the authority of the Church. He denied theexistence of purgatory and rejected those practices of the Church whichLuther had already set aside. Since no one presented himself to refuteZwingli, the town council ratified his conclusions and so withdrew fromthe Roman Catholic Church. The next year the Mass, processions, and theimages of the saints were abolished; the shrines were opened and therelics buried. [Sidenote: Other towns follow Zurich's example. ] Some other towns followed Zurich's example; but the original cantonsabout the lake of Lucerne, which feared that they might lose the greatinfluence that, in spite of their small size, they had hitherto enjoyed, were ready to fight for the old faith. The first armed collision, halfpolitical and half religious, between the Swiss Protestants andCatholics took place at Kappel in 1531, and Zwingli fell in the battle. The various cantons and towns never came to an agreement in religiousmatters, and Switzerland is still part Catholic and part Protestant. The chief importance for the rest of Europe of Zwingli's revolt was theinfluence of his conception of the Lord's Supper. He not only deniedtransubstantiation, [295] but also the "real presence" of Christ in theelements (in which Luther believed), and conceived the bread and wine tobe mere symbols. Those in Germany and England who accepted Zwingli'sidea added one more to the Protestant parties, and consequentlyincreased the difficulty of reaching a general agreement among those whohad revolted from the Church. [296] [Sidenote: Calvin (1509-1564) and the Presbyterian Church. ] 160. Far more important than Zwingli's teachings, especially for Englandand America, was the work of Calvin, which was carried on in the ancientcity of Geneva on the very outskirts of the Swiss confederation. It wasCalvin who organized the Presbyterian Church and formulated its beliefs. He was born in northern France in 1509; he belonged, therefore, to thesecond generation of Protestants. He was early influenced by theLutheran teachings, which had already found their way into France. Apersecution of the Protestants under Francis I drove him out of thecountry and he settled for a time in Basel. [297] [Sidenote: Calvin's _Institutes of Christianity_. ] Here he issued the first edition of his great work, _The Institutes ofChristianity_, which has been more widely discussed than any otherProtestant theological treatise. It was the first orderly exposition ofthe principles of Christianity from a Protestant standpoint. Like PeterLombard's _Sentences_, it formed a convenient manual for study anddiscussion. The _Institutes_ are based upon the infallibility of theBible and reject the infallibility of the Church and the pope. Calvinpossessed a remarkably logical mind and a clear and admirable style. TheFrench version of his great work is the first example of the successfuluse of that language in an argumentative treatise. [Sidenote: Calvin's reformation in Geneva. ] Calvin was called to Geneva about 1540 and intrusted with the task ofreforming the town, which had secured its independence of the duke ofSavoy. He drew up a constitution and established an extraordinarygovernment, in which the church and the civil government were as closelyassociated as they had ever been in any Catholic country. [298] TheProtestantism which found its way into France was that of Calvin, notthat of Luther, and the same may be said of Scotland. [Sidenote: The gradual revolt of England from the Church. ] 161. The revolt of England from the mediæval Church was very gradual andhalting. Although there were some signs that Protestantism was gaining afoothold in the island not long after Luther's burning of the canon law, a generation at least passed away before the country definitelycommitted itself, upon the accession of Queen Elizabeth in 1558, to thechange in religion. It seems at first sight as if the revolution weredue mainly to the irritation of Henry VIII against the pope, who refusedto grant the king a divorce from his first wife in order that he mightmarry a younger and prettier woman. But a permanent change in thereligious convictions of a whole people cannot fairly be attributed tothe whim of even so despotic a ruler as Henry. There were changes takingplace in England before the revolt similar to those which prepared theway in Germany for Luther's success. [Sidenote: John Colet. ] English scholars began, in the latter part of the fifteenth century, tobe affected by the new learning which came to them from Italy. Colet, [299] among others, strove to introduce the study of Greek inOxford. Like Luther he found himself especially attracted by St. Paul, and had begun to teach the doctrine of justification by faith longbefore the German reformer was heard of. [Sidenote: Sir Thomas More and his 'Utopia. '] The most distinguished writer of the period was, perhaps, Sir ThomasMore. The title of his famous little book, _Utopia_, i. E. "Nowhere, "published about 1515, has become synonymous with ideal and impracticableschemes for bettering the world. He pictures the happy conditions in anundiscovered land where a perfect form of government has done away withall the evils which he observes about him in the England of his day. TheUtopians, unlike the English, fought only to keep out invaders or tofree others from tyranny, and never undertook wars of aggression such asHenry VIII was constantly contemplating. In Utopia no one was persecutedfor his religion so long as he treated others fairly. [300] [Sidenote: The English admirers of Erasmus. ] When Erasmus came to England about 1500 he was delighted with thesociety which he found, and we may assume that his views, which we havebefore described, [301] represented those of a considerable number ofintelligent Englishmen. It was at the house of More that he finished the_Praise of Folly_, and he carried on his studies with such success inEngland and found such congenial companions there that it seemed to himthat it was hardly worth while to go to Italy for intellectualinspiration. There is every reason to suppose that there were, inEngland, many who were quite conscious of the vices of the churchmen andwho were ready to accept a system which would abolish those practicesthat had come to seem useless and pernicious. [Sidenote: Wolsey's policy of peace and his idea of the balance ofpower. ] 162. Henry VIII's minister, Cardinal Wolsey, deserves great credit forhaving constantly striven to discourage his sovereign's ambition to takepart in the wars on the continent. The cardinal's argument that Englandcould become great by peace better than by war was a momentousdiscovery. Peace he felt would be best secured by maintaining the_balance of power_ on the continent so that no ruler should becomedangerous by unduly extending his sway. For example, he thought it goodpolicy to side with Charles when Francis was successful, and then withFrancis after his terrible defeat at Pavia (1525) when he fell into thehands of Charles. This idea of the balance of power came to berecognized later by the European countries as a very importantconsideration in determining their policy. But Wolsey was not long to bepermitted to put his enlightened ideas in practice. His fall and theprogress of Protestantism in England are both closely associated withthe notorious divorce case of Henry VIII. [Illustration: Henry VIII of England] [Sidenote: Henry VIII's divorce case. ] It will be remembered that Henry had married Catherine of Aragon, theaunt of Charles V. Only one of their children, Mary, had survived togrow up. Henry was very anxious to have a son and heir, for he wasfearful lest a woman might not be permitted to succeed to the throne. Moreover, Catherine, who was older than he, had become distasteful tohim. Catherine had first married Henry's older brother, who had died almostimmediately after the marriage. Since it was a violation of the rule ofthe Church to marry a deceased brother's wife, Henry professed to fearthat he was committing a sin by retaining Catherine as his wife anddemanded to be divorced from her on the ground that his marriage hadnever been legal. His anxiety to rid himself of Catherine was greatlyincreased by the appearance at court of a black-eyed girl of sixteen, named Anne Boleyn, with whom the king fell in love. [Sidenote: Clement VII refuses to divorce Henry. ] [Sidenote: Fall of Wolsey. ] Unfortunately for his case, his marriage with Catherine had beenauthorized by a dispensation from the pope, so that Clement VII, to whomthe king appealed to annul the marriage, could not, even if he had beenwilling to alienate the queen's nephew, Charles V, have granted Henry'srequest. Wolsey's failure to induce the pope to permit the divorceexcited the king's anger, and with rank ingratitude for his minister'sgreat services, Henry drove him from office (1529) and seized hisproperty. From a life of wealth which was fairly regal, Wolsey wasprecipitated into extreme poverty. An imprudent but innocent act of hissoon gave his enemies a pretext for charging him with treason; but theunhappy man died on his way to London before his head could be broughtto the block. [Sidenote: Henry forces the English clergy to recognize him as thesupreme head of the Church of England. ] 163. The king's next move was to bring a preposterous charge against thewhole English clergy by declaring that, in submitting to Wolsey'sauthority as papal legate, they had violated an ancient law forbiddingpapal representatives to appear in England without the king'spermission. Yet Henry had approved Wolsey's appointment as papal legate. The clergy met at Canterbury and offered to buy pardon for their allegedoffense by an enormous grant of money. But Henry refused to forgive themunless they would solemnly acknowledge him to be the supreme head of theEnglish Church. This they accordingly did;[302] they agreed, moreover, to hold no general meetings or pass any rules without the king'ssanction. The submission of the clergy ensured Henry against any futurecriticism on their part of the measures he proposed to take in thematter of his divorce. [Sidenote: Parliament forbids all appeals to the pope, 1533. ] [Sidenote: An English court declares Henry's marriage with Catherinevoid. ] He now induced Parliament to threaten to cut off the income which thepope had been accustomed to receive from newly appointed bishops. Theking hoped in this way to bring Clement VII to terms. He failed, however, in this design and, losing patience, married Anne Boleynsecretly without waiting for the divorce. Parliament was then persuadedto pass the Act of Appeals, declaring that lawsuits of all kinds shouldbe finally and definitely decided within the realm, and that no appealmight be made to any one outside the kingdom. Catherine's appeal to thepope was thus rendered illegal. When, shortly after, her marriage wasdeclared void by a Church court summoned by Henry, she had no remedy. Parliament also declared Henry's marriage with Catherine unlawful andthat with Anne legal. Consequently it was decreed that Elizabeth, Anne'sdaughter, who was born in 1533, was to succeed her father on the throne, instead of Mary, the daughter of Catherine. [Sidenote: The Act of Supremacy and the denial of the pope's authorityover England. ] In 1534 the English Parliament completed the revolt of the EnglishChurch from the pope by assigning to the king the right to appoint allthe English prelates and to enjoy all the income which had formerlyfound its way to Rome. In the Act of Supremacy, Parliament declared theking to be "the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, "and that he should enjoy all the powers which the title naturallycarried with it. Two years later every officer in the kingdom, whetherlay or ecclesiastical, was required to swear to renounce the authorityof the Bishop of Rome. Refusal to take this oath was to be adjudged hightreason. Many were unwilling to deny the pope's headship merely becauseking and Parliament renounced it, and this legislation led to apersecution in the name of treason which was even more horrible thanthat which had been carried on in the supposed interest of religion. [Sidenote: Henry VIII no Protestant. ] [Sidenote: The English Bible. ] It must be carefully noted that Henry VIII was not a Protestant in theLutheran sense of the word. He was led, it is true, by Clement VII'srefusal to declare his first marriage illegal, to break the bond betweenthe English and the Roman Church, and to induce the English clergy andParliament to acknowledge him as supreme head in the religious as wellas in the temporal interests of the country. No earlier Englishsovereign had ever ventured to go so far as this in the previousconflicts with Rome. He was ready, too, as we shall see, to appropriatethe property of the monasteries on the ground that these institutionswere so demoralized as to be worse than useless. Important as these actswere, they did not lead Henry to accept the teachings of Protestantleaders, like Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin. He shared the popular distrustof the new doctrines, and showed himself anxious to explain the old onesand free them from the objections which were beginning to be urgedagainst them. A proclamation was made, under the authority of the king, in which the sacraments of baptism, penance, and the Mass wereexplained. Henry also authorized a new translation of the Bible intoEnglish. A fine edition of this was printed (1539), and every parish wasordered to obtain a copy and place it in the parish church, where allthe people could readily make use of it. [Sidenote: Henry's anxiety to prove himself a good Catholic. ] Henry was anxious to prove that he was orthodox, especially after he hadseized the property of the monasteries and the gold and jewels whichadorned the receptacles in which the relics of the saints were kept. Hepresided in person over the trial of one who accepted the opinion ofZwingli, that the body and blood of Christ were not present in thesacrament. He quoted Scripture to prove the contrary, and the prisonerwas condemned and burned as a heretic. [Sidenote: The 'Six Articles. '] In 1539 Parliament passed a statute called the "Six Articles. " Thesedeclared first that the body and blood of Christ were actually presentin the bread and the wine of the Lord's Supper; whoever venturedpublicly to question this was to be burned. For speaking against fiveother tenets[303] of the old Church, offenders were to sufferimprisonment and loss of goods for the first offense, and to be hangedfor the second. Two bishops, who had ventured to go farther in thedirection of Protestantism than Henry himself had done, were driven fromoffice and some offenders were put to death under this act. [Sidenote: Henry's tyranny. ] [Sidenote: Execution of Sir Thomas More. ] 164. Henry was heartless and despotic. With a barbarity not uncommon inthose days, he allowed his old friend and adviser, Sir Thomas More, tobe beheaded for refusing to pronounce the marriage with Catherine void. He caused numbers of monks to be executed for refusing to swear that hisfirst marriage was illegal and for denying his title to supremacy in theChurch. Others he permitted to die of starvation and disease in thefilthy prisons of the time. Many Englishmen would doubtless have agreedwith one of the friars who said humbly: "I profess that it is not out ofobstinate malice or a mind of rebellion that I do disobey the king, butonly for the fear of God, that I offend not the Supreme Majesty; becauseour Holy Mother, the Church, hath decreed and appointed otherwise thanthe king and Parliament hath ordained. " [Sidenote: Dissolution of the English monasteries. ] Henry wanted money; some of the English abbeys were rich, and the monkswere quite unable to defend themselves against the charges which werebrought against them. The king sent commissioners about to inquire intothe moral state of the monasteries. A large number of scandalous taleswere easily collected, some of which were undoubtedly true. The monkswere doubtless often indolent and sometimes wicked. Nevertheless, theywere kind landlords, hospitable to the stranger, and good to the poor. The plundering of the smaller monasteries, with which the king began, led to a revolt, due to a rumor that the king would next proceed todespoil the parish churches as well. This gave Henry an excuse forattacking the larger monasteries. The abbots and priors who had takenpart in the revolt were hanged and their monasteries confiscated. Otherabbots, panic-stricken, confessed that they and their monks had beencommitting the most loathsome sins and asked to be permitted to give uptheir monasteries to the king. The royal commissioners then tookpossession, sold every article upon which they could lay hands, including the bells and the lead on the roofs. The picturesque remainsof the great abbey churches are still among the chief objects ofinterest to the sight-seer in England. The monastery lands were, ofcourse, appropriated by the king. They were sold for the benefit of thegovernment or given to nobles whose favor the king wished to secure. [Sidenote: Destruction of shrines and images for the benefit of theking's treasury. ] Along with the destruction of the monasteries went an attack upon theshrines and images in the churches, which were adorned with gold andjewels. The shrine of St. Thomas of Canterbury was destroyed and thebones of the saint were burned. An old wooden figure revered in Waleswas used to make a fire to burn an unfortunate friar who maintained thatin things spiritual the pope rather than the king should be obeyed. These acts suggest the Protestant attacks on images which occurred inGermany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. The object of the king andhis party was probably in the main a mercenary one, although the reasonurged for the destruction was the superstitious veneration in which therelics and images were popularly held. [Sidenote: Henry's third marriage and the birth of Edward VI. ] Henry's domestic troubles by no means came to an end with his marriagewith Anne Boleyn. Of her, too, he soon tired, and three years aftertheir marriage he had her executed on a series of monstrous charges. The next day he married his third wife, Jane Seymour, who was the motherof his son and successor, Edward VI. Jane died a few days after herson's birth, and later Henry married in succession three other women whoare historically unimportant since they left no children as claimantsfor the crown. Henry took care that his three children, all of whom weredestined to reign, should be given their due place by act of Parliamentin the line of inheritance. [304] His death in 1547 left the greatproblem of Protestantism and Catholicism to be settled by his son anddaughters. [Sidenote: Edward VI's ministers introduce Protestant practices. ] 165. While the revolt of England against the ancient Church was carriedthrough by the government at a time when the greater part of the nationwas still Catholic, there was undoubtedly, under Henry VIII, anever-increasing number of aggressive and ardent Protestants whoapplauded the change. During the six years of the boy Edward's reign--hedied in 1553 at the age of sixteen--those in charge of the governmentfavored the Protestant party and did what they could to change the faithof all the people by bringing Protestant teachers from the Continent. A general demolition of all the sacred images was ordered; even thebeautiful stained glass, the glory of the cathedrals, was destroyed, because it often represented saints and angels. The king was to appointbishops without troubling to observe the old forms of election, andProtestants began to be put into the high offices of the Church. Parliament turned over to the king the funds which had been establishedfor the purpose of having masses chanted for the dead, and decreed thatthereafter the clergy should be free to marry. [Sidenote: The prayer-book and the 'Thirty-Nine Articles. '] A prayer-book in English was prepared under the auspices of Parliamentnot very unlike that used in the Church of England to-day. Moreover, forty-two articles of faith were drawn up by the government, which wereto be the standard of belief for the country. These, in the time ofQueen Elizabeth, were revised and reduced to the famous "Thirty-NineArticles, " which still constitute the creed of the Church ofEngland. [305] [Sidenote: Protestantism partially discredited by Edward's ministers. ] The changes in the church services must have sadly shocked a great partof the English people, who had been accustomed to watch with awe andexpectancy the various acts associated with the many church ceremoniesand festivals. [306] Earnest men who watched the misrule of those whoconducted Edward's government in the name of Protestantism, must haveconcluded that the reformers were chiefly intent upon advancing theirown interests by plundering the Church. We get some idea of thedesecrations of the time from the fact that Edward was forced to forbid"quarreling and shooting in churches" and "the bringing of horses andmules through the same, making God's house like a stable or common inn. "Although many were heartily in favor of the recent changes it is nowonder that after Edward's death there was a revulsion in favor of theold religion. [Sidenote: Queen Mary, 1553-1558, and the Catholic reaction. ] 166. Edward VI was succeeded in 1553 by his half-sister Mary, who hadbeen brought up in the Catholic faith and held firmly to it. Her ardenthope of bringing her kingdom back once more to her religion did not seemaltogether ill-founded, for the majority of the people were stillCatholics at heart, and many who were not disapproved of the policy ofEdward's ministers, who had removed abuses "in the devil's own way, bybreaking in pieces. " [Sidenote: Mary's marriage with Philip II of Spain. ] The Catholic cause appeared, moreover, to be strengthened by Mary'smarriage with the Spanish prince, Philip II, the son of the orthodoxCharles V. But although Philip later distinguished himself, as we shallsee, by the merciless way in which he strove to put down heresy withinhis realms, he never gained any great influence in England. By hismarriage with Mary he acquired the title of king, but the English tookcare that he should have no hand in the government, nor be permitted tosucceed his wife on the English throne. [Sidenote: The 'Kneeling Parliament, ' 1554. ] Mary succeeded in bringing about a nominal reconciliation betweenEngland and the Roman Church. In 1554 the papal legate restored to thecommunion of the Catholic Church the "Kneeling Parliament, " whichtheoretically, of course, represented the nation. [Sidenote: Persecution of the Protestants under Mary. ] During the last four years of Mary's reign the most serious religiouspersecution in English history occurred. No less than 277 persons wereput to death for denying the teachings of the Roman Church. The majorityof the victims were humble artisans and husbandmen. The two most notablesufferers were Bishops Latimer and Ridley, who were burned in Oxford. Latimer cried to his fellow-martyr in the flames: "Be of good cheer andplay the man; we shall this day light such a candle in England as shallnever be put out!" [Sidenote: Mary's failure to restore the Catholic religion in England. ] It was Mary's hope and belief that the heretics sent to the stake wouldfurnish a terrible warning to the Protestants and check the spread ofthe new teachings, but it fell out as Latimer had prophesied. Catholicism was not promoted; on the contrary, doubters were onlyconvinced of the earnestness of the Protestants who could die with suchconstancy. [307] CHAPTER XXVIII THE CATHOLIC REFORMATION--PHILIP II [Sidenote: The conservative or Catholic reformation. ] 167. There had been many attempts, as we have seen, before Luther'sappearance, to better the clergy and remedy the evils in the Churchwithout altering its organization or teachings. Hopeful progress towardsuch a conservative reform had been made even before the Protestantsthrew off their allegiance to the pope. [308] Their revolt inevitablyhastened and stimulated the reform of the ancient Church, to which thegreater part of western Europe still remained faithful. The RomanCatholic churchmen were aroused to great activity by the realizationthat they could no longer rely upon the general acceptance of theirteachings. They were forced to defend the beliefs and ceremonies oftheir Church from the attacks of the Protestants, to whose ranks wholecountries were deserting. If the clergy were to make head against thedreaded heresy which threatened their position and power, they mustsecure the loyalty of the people to them and to the great institutionwhich they represented, by leading upright lives, giving up the oldabuses, and thus regaining the confidence of those intrusted to theirspiritual care. A general council was accordingly summoned at Trent to consider oncemore the remedying of the long recognized evils, and to settleauthoritatively numerous questions of belief upon which theologians haddiffered for centuries. New religious orders sprang up, whose object wasbetter to prepare the priests for their work and to bring home religionto the hearts of the people. Energetic measures were taken to repressthe growth of heresy in countries which were still Roman Catholic and toprevent the dissemination of Protestant doctrines in books andpamphlets. Above all, better men were placed in office, from the popedown. The cardinals, for example, were no longer merely humanists andcourtiers, but among them might be found the leaders of religiousthought in Italy. Many practices which had formerly irritated the peoplewere permanently abolished. These measures resulted in a remarkablereformation of the ancient Church, such as the Council of Constance hadstriven in vain to bring about. [309] Before turning to the terriblestruggles between the two religious parties in the Netherlands andFrance during the latter half of the sixteenth century, a word must besaid of the Council of Trent and of an extraordinarily powerful newreligious order, the Jesuits. [Sidenote: Charles V's confidence in the settlement of the religiousdifferences by a council. ] Charles V, who did not fully grasp the irreconcilable differencesbetween Protestant and Catholic beliefs, made repeated efforts to bringthe two parties together by ordering the Protestants to accept whatseemed to him a simple statement of the Christian faith. He had greatconfidence that if representatives of the old and the new beliefs couldmeet one another in a church council all points of disagreement might beamicably settled. The pope was, however, reluctant to see a councilsummoned in Germany, for he had by no means forgotten the conduct of theCouncil of Basel. To call the German Protestants into Italy, on theother hand, would have been useless, for none of them would haveresponded or have paid any attention to the decisions of a body whichwould appear to them to be under the pope's immediate control. It wasonly after years of delay that in 1545, just before Luther's death, ageneral council finally met in the city of Trent, on the border betweenGermany and Italy. [Sidenote: The Council of Trent, 1545-1563, sanctions the teaching ofthe Roman Catholic Church. ] As the German Protestants were preoccupied at the moment by anapproaching conflict with the emperor and, moreover, hoped for nothingfrom the council's action, they did not attend its sessions. Consequently the papal representatives and the Roman Catholic prelateswere masters of the situation. The council immediately took up justthose matters in which the Protestants had departed farthest from theold beliefs. In its early sessions it proclaimed all those accursed whotaught that the sinner was saved by faith alone, or who questioned man'spower, with God's aid, to forward his salvation by good works. Moreover, it declared that if any one should say--as did the Protestants--that thesacraments were not all instituted by Christ; "or that they are more orless than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Ordination, and Matrimony; or even that any one ofthese is not truly and properly a sacrament, let him be accursed. " Theancient Latin translation of the Bible--the Vulgate--was fixed as thestandard. No one should presume to question its accuracy so far asdoctrine was concerned, or be permitted to publish any interpretation ofthe Bible differing from that of the Church. [Sidenote: Reform measures of the council. ] While the council thus finally rejected any possibility of compromisewith the Protestants, it took measures to do away with the abuses ofwhich the Protestants complained. The bishops were ordered to reside intheir respective dioceses, to preach regularly, and to see that thosewho were appointed to church benefices should fulfill the duties oftheir offices and not merely enjoy the revenue. Measures were also takento improve education and secure the regular reading of the Bible inchurches, monasteries, and schools. [Sidenote: Final sessions of the Council of Trent, 1562-1563. ] [Sidenote: Importance of the council's work. ] When the council had been in session for something more than a year, itsmeetings were interrupted by various unfavorable conditions. Little wasaccomplished for a number of years, but in 1562 the members once morereassembled to prosecute their work with renewed vigor. Many more of thedoctrines of the Roman Church in regard to which there had been someuncertainty, were carefully defined, and the teachings of the hereticsexplicitly rejected. A large number of decrees directed against existingabuses were also ratified. _The Canons and Decrees of the Council ofTrent_, which fill a stout volume, provided a new and solid foundationfor the law and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and theyconstitute an historical source of the utmost importance. [310] Theyfurnish, in fact, our most complete and authentic statement of the RomanCatholic form of Christianity. They, however, only restate long-acceptedbeliefs and sanction the organization of the Church briefly described inan earlier chapter (XVI). [Sidenote: Ignatius Loyola, 1491-1556, the founder of the Jesuits. ] 168. Among those who, during the final sessions of the council, sturdilyopposed every attempt to reduce in any way the exalted powers of thepope, was the head of a new religious society, which was becoming themost powerful organization in Europe. The Jesuit order, or Society ofJesus, was founded by a Spaniard, Ignatius Loyola. He had been a soldierin his younger days, and while bravely fighting for his king, Charles V, had been wounded by a cannon ball (1521). Obliged to lie inactive forweeks, he occupied his time in reading the lives of the saints, andbecame filled with a burning ambition to emulate their deeds. Uponrecovering he dedicated himself to the service of the Lord, donned abeggar's gown, and started on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. When there hebegan to realize that he could do little without an education. So hereturned to Spain and, although already thirty-three years old, took hisplace beside the boys who were learning the elements of Latin grammar. After two years he entered a Spanish university, and later went to Paristo carry on his theological studies. In Paris he sought to influence his fellow-students at the university, and finally, in 1534, seven of his companions agreed to follow him toPalestine, or, if they were prevented from that, to devote themselves tothe service of the pope. On arriving in Venice they found that war hadbroken out between that republic and the Turks. They accordingly gave uptheir plan for converting the infidels in the Orient and, with thepope's permission, began to preach in the neighboring towns, explainingthe Scriptures and bringing comfort to those in the hospitals. Whenasked to what order they belonged, they replied, "to the Society ofJesus. " [Sidenote: Rigid organization and discipline of the Jesuits. ] In 1538 Loyola summoned his disciples to Rome, and there they worked outthe principles of their order. The pope then incorporated these in abull in which he gave his sanction to the new society. [311] Theorganization was to be under the absolute control of a _general_, whowas to be chosen for life by the general assembly of the order. Loyolahad been a soldier, and he laid great and constant stress upon thesource of all efficient military discipline, namely, absolute andunquestioning obedience. This he declared to be the mother of all virtueand happiness. Not only were all the members to obey the pope asChrist's representative on earth, and undertake without hesitation anyjourney, no matter how distant or perilous, which he might command, buteach was to obey his superiors in the order as if he were receivingdirections from Christ in person. He must have no will or preference ofhis own, but must be as the staff which supports and aids its bearer inany way in which he sees fit to use it. This admirable organization andincomparable discipline were the great secret of the later influence ofthe Jesuits. [Sidenote: Objects and methods of the new order. ] The object of the society was to cultivate piety and the love of God, especially through example. The members were to pledge themselves tolead a pure life of poverty and devotion. Their humility was to showitself in face and attitude, so that their very appearance shouldattract those with whom they came in contact to the service of God. Themethods adopted by the society for reaching its ends are of the utmostimportance. A great number of its members were priests, who went aboutpreaching, hearing confession, and encouraging devotional exercises. Butthe Jesuits were teachers as well as preachers and confessors. Theyclearly perceived the advantage of bringing young people under theirinfluence, and they became the schoolmasters of Catholic Europe. Sosuccessful were their methods of instruction that even Protestantssometimes sent their children to them. [Sidenote: Rapid increase of the Jesuits in numbers. ] [Sidenote: Their missions and explorations. ] It was originally proposed that the number of persons admitted to theorder should not exceed sixty, but this limit was speedily removed, andbefore the death of Loyola over a thousand persons had joined thesociety. Under his successor the number was trebled, and it went onincreasing for two centuries. The founder of the order had been, as wehave seen, attracted to missionary work from the first, and the Jesuitsrapidly spread not only over Europe, but throughout the whole world. Francis Xavier, one of Loyola's original little band, went to Hindustan, the Moluccas, and Japan. Brazil, Florida, Mexico, and Peru were soonfields of active missionary work at a time when Protestants scarcelydreamed as yet of carrying Christianity to the heathen. We owe to theJesuits' reports much of our knowledge of the condition of America whenwhite men first began to explore Canada and the Mississippi valley, forthe followers of Loyola boldly penetrated into regions unknown toEuropeans, and settled among the natives with the purpose of bringingthe Gospel to them. [312] [Sidenote: Their fight against the Protestants. ] Dedicated as they were to the service of the pope, the Jesuits earlydirected their energies against Protestantism. They sent their membersinto Germany and the Netherlands, and even made strenuous efforts toreclaim England. Their success was most apparent in southern Germany andAustria, where they became the confessors and confidential advisers ofthe rulers. They not only succeeded in checking the progress ofProtestantism, but were able to reconquer for the pope districts inwhich the old faith had been abandoned. [Sidenote: Accusations brought against the Jesuits. ] Protestants soon realized that the new order was their most powerful anddangerous enemy. Their apprehensions produced a bitter hatred whichblinded them to the high purposes of the founders of the order and ledthem to attribute an evil purpose to every act of the Jesuits. TheJesuits' air of humility the Protestants declared to be mere hypocrisyunder which they carried on their intrigues. The Jesuits' readiness toadjust themselves to circumstances and the variety of the tasks thatthey undertook seemed to their enemies a willingness to resort to anymeans in order to reach their ends. They were popularly supposed tojustify the most deceitful and immoral measures on the ground that theresult would be "for the greater glory of God. " The very obedience ofwhich the Jesuits said so much was viewed by the hostile Protestant asone of their worst offenses, for he believed that the members of theorder were the blind tools of their superiors and that they would nothesitate even to commit a crime if so ordered. [Sidenote: Decline and abolition of the Jesuits, 1773. ] [Sidenote: Reëstablishment of the order, 1814. ] Doubtless there have been many unscrupulous Jesuits and some wickedones, and as time went on the order degenerated just as the earlierones had done. In the eighteenth century it was accused of undertakinggreat commercial enterprises, and for this and other reasons lost theconfidence of even the Catholics. The king of Portugal was the first tobanish the Jesuits, and then France, where they had long been veryunpopular with an influential party of the Catholics, expelled them in1764. Convinced that the order could no longer serve any useful purpose, the pope abolished it in 1773. It was, however, restored in 1814, andnow again has thousands of members. [Illustration: Philip II of Spain] [Sidenote: Philip II, the chief enemy of Protestantism among the rulersof Europe. ] 169. The chief ally of the pope and the Jesuits in their efforts tocheck Protestantism in the latter half of the sixteenth century was theson of Charles V, Philip II. Like the Jesuits he enjoys a mostunenviable reputation among Protestants. Certain it is that they had nomore terrible enemy among the rulers of the day than he. He closelywatched the course of affairs in France and Germany with the hope ofpromoting the cause of the Catholics. He eagerly forwarded everyconspiracy against England's Protestant queen, Elizabeth, and finallymanned a mighty fleet with the purpose of overthrowing her. He resorted, moreover, to incredible cruelty in his attempts to bring back hispossessions in the Netherlands to what he considered the true faith. [Sidenote: Division of the Hapsburg possessions between the German andSpanish branches. ] Charles V, crippled with the gout and old before his time, laid down thecares of government in 1555-1556. To his brother Ferdinand, who hadacquired by marriage the kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary, Charles hadearlier transferred the German possessions of the Hapsburgs. To hisson, Philip II (1556-1598), he gave Spain with its great Americancolonies, Milan, the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and theNetherlands. [313] [Sidenote: Philip II's fervent desire to stamp out Protestantism. ] Charles had constantly striven to maintain the old religion within hisdominions. He had never hesitated to use the Inquisition in Spain andthe Netherlands, and it was the great disappointment of his life that apart of his empire had become Protestant. He was, nevertheless, nofanatic. Like many of the princes of the time, he was forced to takesides on the religious question without, perhaps, himself having anydeep religious sentiments. The maintenance of the Catholic faith hebelieved to be necessary in order that he should keep his hold upon hisscattered and diverse dominions. On the other hand, the whole life andpolicy of his son Philip were guided by a fervent attachment to the oldreligion. He was willing to sacrifice both himself and his country inhis long fight against the detested Protestants within and without hisrealms. And he had vast resources at his disposal, for Spain was astrong power, not only on account of her income from America, but alsobecause her soldiers and their commanders were the best in Europe atthis period. [Sidenote: The Netherlands. ] 170. The Netherlands, [314] which were to cause Philip his first andgreatest trouble, included seventeen provinces which Charles V hadinherited from his grandmother, Mary of Burgundy. They occupied theposition on the map where we now find the kingdoms of Holland andBelgium. Each of the provinces had its own government, but Charles hadgrouped them together and arranged that the German empire should protectthem. In the north the hardy Germanic population had been able, by meansof dikes which kept out the sea, to reclaim large tracts of lowlands. Here considerable cities had grown up, --Harlem, Leyden, Amsterdam, andRotterdam. To the south were the flourishing towns of Ghent, Bruges, Brussels, and Antwerp, which had for hundreds of years been centers ofmanufacture and trade. [Sidenote: Philip II's harsh attitude toward the Netherlands. ] Charles, in spite of some very harsh measures, had retained the loyaltyof the people of the Netherlands, for he was himself one of them andthey felt a patriotic pride in his achievements. Toward Philip theirattitude was very different. His sour face and haughty manner made adisagreeable impression upon the people at Brussels when Charles V firstintroduced him to them as their future ruler. He was to them a Spaniardand a foreigner, and he ruled them as such after he returned to Spain. Instead of attempting to win them by meeting their legitimate demands, he did everything to alienate all classes in his Burgundian realm andincrease their natural hatred and suspicion of the Spaniards. The peoplewere forced to house Spanish soldiers whose insolence drove them nearlyto desperation. A half-sister of the king, the duchess of Parma, who didnot even know their language, was given to them as their regent. Philipput his trust in a group of upstarts rather than in the nobility of theprovinces, who naturally felt that they should be given some part in thedirection of affairs. [Sidenote: The Inquisition in the Netherlands. ] What was still worse, Philip proposed that the Inquisition should carryon its work far more actively than hitherto and put an end to the heresywhich appeared to him to defile his fair realms. The Inquisition was nonew thing to the provinces. Charles V had issued the most cruel edictsagainst the followers of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. According to a lawof 1550, heretics who persistently refused to recant were to be burnedalive. Even those who confessed their errors and abjured their heresywere, if men, to lose their heads, if women, to be buried alive. In bothcases their property was to be confiscated. The lowest estimate of thosewho were executed in the Netherlands during Charles' reign is fiftythousand. Although these terrible laws had not checked the growth ofProtestantism, all of Charles' decrees were solemnly reënacted by Philipin the first month of his reign. [Sidenote: Protest against Philip's policy. ] [Sidenote: The 'Beggars. '] For ten years the people suffered Philip's rule; but their king, insteadof listening to the protests of their leaders who were quite as earnestCatholics as himself, appeared to be bent on the destruction of theland. So in 1566 some five hundred of the nobles, who were later joinedby many of the citizens, pledged themselves to make a common standagainst Spanish tyranny and the Inquisition. Although they had no ideaas yet of a revolt, they planned a great demonstration during which theypresented a petition to the duchess of Parma requesting the suspensionof the king's edicts. The story is that one of the duchess' councilorsassured her that she had no reason to fear these "beggars. " This namewas voluntarily assumed by the petitioners and an important group of theinsurgents in the later troubles were known as "Beggars. " [Sidenote: The image-breaking Protestants. ] [Sidenote: Philip sends the duke of Alva to the Netherlands. ] The Protestant preachers now took courage, and large congregationsgathered in the fields to hear them. Excited by their exhortations, those who were converted to the new religion rushed into the Catholicchurches, tore down the images, broke the stained glass windows, andwrecked the altars. The duchess of Parma was just succeeding in quietingthe tumult when Philip took a step which led finally to the revolt ofthe Netherlands. He decided to dispatch to the low countries theremorseless duke of Alva, whose conduct has made his name synonymouswith blind and unmeasured cruelty. 171. The report that Alva was coming caused the flight of many of thosewho especially feared his approach. William of Orange, who was to be theleader in the approaching war against Spain, went to Germany. Thousandsof Flemish weavers fled across the North Sea, and the products of theirlooms became before long an important article of export from England. [Sidenote: Alva's cruel administration, 1567-1573. ] [Sidenote: The Council of Blood. ] Alva brought with him a fine army of Spanish soldiers, ten thousand innumber and superbly equipped. He judged that the wisest and quickest wayof pacifying the discontented provinces was to kill all those whoventured to criticise "the best of kings, " of whom he had the honor tobe the faithful servant. He accordingly established a special court forthe speedy trial and condemnation of all those whose fidelity to Philipwas suspected. This was popularly known as the Council of Blood, for itsaim was not justice but butchery. Alva's administration from 1567 to1573 was a veritable reign of terror. He afterwards boasted that he hadslain eighteen thousand, but probably not more than a third of thatnumber were really executed. [Sidenote: William of Orange, called the Silent, 1533-1584. ] The Netherlands found a leader in William, Prince of Orange and Count ofNassau. He is a national hero whose career bears a striking resemblanceto that of Washington. Like the American patriot, he undertook theseemingly hopeless task of freeing his people from the oppressive ruleof a distant king. To the Spaniards he appeared to be only animpoverished nobleman at the head of a handful of armed peasants andfishermen, contending against the sovereign of the richest realm in theworld. [Sidenote: William the Silent collects an army. ] William had been a faithful servant of Charles V and would gladly havecontinued to serve his son after him had the oppression and injustice ofthe Spanish dominion not become intolerable. But Alva's policy convincedhim that it was useless to send any more complaints to Philip. Heaccordingly collected a little army in 1568 and opened the long strugglewith Spain. [Sidenote: Differences between the northern i. E. , Dutch, provinces andthe southern. ] William found his main support in the northern provinces, of whichHolland was the chief. The Dutch, who had very generally acceptedProtestant teachings, were purely German in blood, while the people ofthe southern provinces, who adhered (as they still do) to the RomanCatholic faith, were more akin to the population of northern France. [Sidenote: William chosen governor of Holland and Zealand, 1572. ] The Spanish soldiers found little trouble in defeating the troops whichWilliam collected. Like Washington again, he seemed to lose almost everybattle and yet was never conquered. The first successes of the Dutchwere gained by the "sea beggars, "--freebooters who captured Spanishships and sold them in Protestant England. Finally they seized the townof Brille and made it their headquarters. Encouraged by this, many ofthe towns in the northern provinces of Holland and Zealand ventured tochoose William as their governor, although they did not throw off theirallegiance to Philip. In this way these two provinces became the nucleusof the United Netherlands. [Sidenote: Both the northern and southern provinces combine againstSpain, 1576. ] Alva recaptured a number of the revolted towns and treated theirinhabitants with his customary cruelty; even women and children wereslaughtered in cold blood. But instead of quenching the rebellion, hearoused even the Catholic southern provinces to revolt. He introduced anunwise system of taxation which required that ten per cent of theproceeds of every sale should be paid to the government. This causedthe thrifty Catholic merchants of the southern towns to close theirshops in despair. [Sidenote: The 'Spanish fury. '] After six years of this tyrannical and mistaken policy, Alva wasrecalled. His successor soon died and left matters worse than ever. Theleaderless soldiers, trained in Alva's school, indulged in wild orgiesof robbery and murder; they plundered and partially reduced to ashes therich city of Antwerp. The "Spanish fury, " as this outbreak was called, together with the hated taxes, created such general indignation thatrepresentatives from all of Philip's Burgundian provinces met at Ghentin 1576 with the purpose of combining to put an end to the Spanishtyranny. [Sidenote: The Union of Utrecht. ] [Sidenote: The northern provinces declare themselves independent ofSpain, 1581. ] This union was, however, only temporary. Wiser and more moderategovernors were sent by Philip to the Netherlands, and they soonsucceeded in again winning the confidence of the southern provinces. Sothe northern provinces went their own way. Guided by William the Silent, they refused to consider the idea of again recognizing Philip as theirking. In 1579 seven provinces (Holland, Zealand, Utrecht, Gelderland, Overyssel, Groningen, and Friesland, all lying north of the mouths ofthe Rhine and the Scheldt) formed the new and firmer Union of Utrecht. The articles of this union served as a constitution for the UnitedProvinces which, two years later, at last formally declared themselvesindependent of Spain. [Sidenote: Assassination of William the Silent. ] Philip realized that William was the soul of the revolt and that withouthim it might not improbably have been put down. The king thereforeoffered a patent of nobility and a large sum of money to any one whoshould make away with the Dutch patriot. After several unsuccessfulattempts, William, who had been chosen hereditary governor of the UnitedProvinces, was shot in his house at Delft, 1584. He died praying theLord to have pity upon his soul and "on this poor people. " [Sidenote: Reasons why the Dutch finally won their independence. ] [Sidenote: Independence of the United Provinces acknowledged by Spain, 1648. ] The Dutch had long hoped for aid from Queen Elizabeth or from theFrench, but had heretofore been disappointed. At last the English queendecided to send troops to their assistance. While the English renderedbut little actual help, Elizabeth's policy so enraged Philip that he atlast decided to attempt the conquest of England. The destruction of thegreat fleet which he equipped for that purpose interfered with furtherattempts to subjugate the United Provinces, which might otherwise havefailed to preserve their liberty in spite of their heroic resistance. Moreover, Spain's resources were being rapidly exhausted and the statewas on the verge of bankruptcy in spite of the wealth which it had beendrawing from across the sea. But even when Spain had to surrender thehope of winning back the lost provinces, which now became a small butimportant European power, she refused formally to acknowledge theirindependence until 1648[315] (Peace of Westphalia). 172. The history of France during the latter part of the sixteenthcentury is little more than a chronicle of a long and bloody series ofcivil wars between the Catholics and Protestants. Each party, however, had political as well as religious objects, and the religious issueswere often almost altogether obscured by the worldly ambition of theleaders. [Sidenote: Beginnings of Protestantism in France. ] [Sidenote: Lefèvre, 1450-1537. ] [Sidenote: Persecution of the Protestants under Francis I. ] [Sidenote: Massacre of the Waldensians, 1545. ] Protestantism began in France[316] in much the same way as in England. Those who had learned from the Italians to love the Greek language, turned to the New Testament in the original and commenced to study itwith new insight. Lefèvre, the most conspicuous of these Erasmus-likereformers, translated the Bible into French and began to preachjustification by faith before he had ever heard of Luther. He and hisfollowers won the favor of Margaret, the sister of Francis I and queenof the little kingdom of Navarre, and under her protection they wereleft unmolested for some years. The Sorbonne, the famous theologicalschool at Paris, finally stirred up the suspicions of the king againstthe new ideas. While, like his fellow-monarchs, Francis had no specialinterest in religious matters, he was shocked by an act of desecrationascribed to the Protestants, and in consequence forbade the circulationof Protestant books. About 1535 several adherents of the new faith wereburned, and Calvin was forced to flee to Basel, where he prepared adefense of his beliefs in his _Institutes of Christianity_. This isprefaced by a letter to Francis in which he pleads with him to protectthe Protestants. [317] Francis, before his death, became so intolerantthat he ordered the massacre of three thousand defenseless peasants whodwelt on the slopes of the Alps, and whose only offense was adherence tothe simple teachings of the Waldensians. [318] [Sidenote: Persecution under Henry II, 1547-1559. ] Francis' son, Henry II (1547-1559), swore to extirpate the Protestants, and hundreds of them were burned. Nevertheless, Henry's religiousconvictions did not prevent him from willingly aiding the GermanProtestants against his enemy Charles V, especially when they agreed tohand over to him three bishoprics which lay on the Frenchboundary, --Metz, Verdun, and Toul. [Sidenote: Francis II, 1559-1560, Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Guises. ] Henry II was accidentally killed in a tourney and left his kingdom tothree weak sons, the last scions of the house of Valois, who succeededin turn to the throne during a period of unprecedented civil war andpublic calamity. The eldest son, Francis II, a boy of sixteen, succeededhis father. His chief importance for France arose from his marriage withthe RELATIONS OF THE GUISES, MARY STUART, THE VALOIS, AND THE BOURBONS Claude, duke of Francis I (d. 1547)Guise (d. 1527) | | | +--+------------+-----------+ | | | | |Francis, duke Charles, Mary, m. James V of Scotland, |of Guise cardinal of | son of Henry VIII's Henry II (d. 1559), m. Catherine(murdered 1563) Lorraine | sister | de' Medici | | | | +-----------------+ +-------------------------------+ | | | | | +---------------+------+-----+----------+ | | | | | | | Mary Stuart, m. Francis II Charles IX Henry III Margaret, m. Henry IV (d. 1610), | Queen of Scots (d. 1560 (d. 1574 (d. 1589 king of Navarre, | | without without without a descendant | | heirs) heirs) heirs) through theHenry, duke of | younger, _Bourbon_, Guise (killed | line from St. Louis 1588) | | | | James VI of Scotland Louis XIII (d. 1643), I of England, by Henry's second by Mary's second marriage with marriage with Mary de' Medici Lord Darnley | Louis XIV (d. 1715) | Louis XV (d. 1774) great grandson of Louis XIV daughter of King James V of Scotland, Mary Stuart, who became famous asMary, Queen of Scots. Her mother was the sister of two very ambitiousFrench nobles, the duke of Guise and the cardinal of Lorraine. FrancisII was so young that Mary's uncles, the Guises, eagerly seized theopportunity to manage his affairs for him. The duke put himself at thehead of the army, and the cardinal of the government. When the kingdied, after reigning but a year, the Guises were naturally reluctant tosurrender their power, and many of the woes of France for the next fortyyears were due to the machinations which they carried on in the name ofthe Holy Catholic religion. [Sidenote: The queen mother, Catherine de' Medici. ] [Sidenote: The Bourbons. ] 173. The new king, Charles IX (1560-1574), was but ten years old, andhis mother, Catherine de' Medici, of the famous Florentine family, claimed the right to conduct the government for her son. The rivalriesof the time were complicated by the existence of a younger branch of theFrench royal family, namely, the Bourbons, one of whom was king ofNavarre. The Bourbons formed an alliance with the Huguenots, [319] as theFrench Calvinists were called. [Sidenote: The Huguenots and their political ambition. ] Many of the leading Huguenots, including their chief Coligny, belongedto noble families and were anxious to play a part in the politics of thetime. This fact tended to confuse religious with political motives. Inthe long run this mixture of motives proved fatal to the Protestantcause in France, but for the time being the Huguenots formed so strong aparty that they threatened to get control of the government. [Sidenote: Catherine grants conditional toleration to the Protestants, 1562. ] Catherine tried at first to conciliate both parties, and granted aDecree of Toleration (1562) suspending the former edicts against theProtestants and permitting them to assemble for worship during thedaytime and outside of the towns. Even this restricted toleration of theProtestants appeared an abomination to the more fanatical Catholics, anda savage act of the duke of Guise precipitated civil war. [Sidenote: The massacres of Vassy and the opening of the wars ofreligion. ] As he was passing through the town of Vassy on a Sunday he found athousand Huguenots assembled in a barn for worship. The duke's followersrudely interrupted the service, and a tumult arose in which the troopskilled a considerable number of the defenseless multitude. The news ofthis massacre aroused the Huguenots and was the beginning of a war whichcontinued, broken only by short truces, until the last weak descendantof the house of Valois ceased to reign. As in the other religious warsof the time, both sides exhibited the most inhuman cruelty. France wasfilled for a generation with burnings, pillage, and every form ofbarbarity. The leaders of both the Catholic and the Protestant party, aswell as two of the French kings themselves, fell by the hands ofassassins, and France renewed in civil war all the horrors of theEnglish invasion in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. [Sidenote: Coligny's influence and plan for a national war againstPhilip II. ] In 1570 a brief peace was concluded. The Huguenots were to be tolerated, and certain towns were assigned to them, including La Rochelle, wherethey might defend themselves in case of renewed attacks from theCatholics. For a time both the king and the queen mother were on thefriendliest terms with the Huguenot leader Coligny, who became a sort ofprime minister. He was anxious that Catholics and Protestants shouldjoin in a great national war against Spain. In this way the people ofFrance would combine, regardless of their differences in religion, in apatriotic effort to win the county of Burgundy and a line of fortressesto the north and east, which seemed naturally to belong to France ratherthan to Spain. Coligny did not, of course, overlook the considerationthat in this way he could aid the Protestant cause in the Netherlands. [Sidenote: The massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, 1572. ] The strict Catholic party of the Guises frustrated this plan by a mostfearful expedient. They easily induced Catherine de' Medici to believethat she was being deceived by Coligny, and an assassin was engaged toput him out of the way; but the scoundrel missed his aim and onlywounded his victim. Fearful lest the young king, who was faithful toColigny, should discover her part in the attempted murder, the queenmother invented a story of a great Huguenot conspiracy. The credulousking was deceived, and the Catholic leaders at Paris arranged that at agiven signal not only Coligny, but all the Huguenots, who had gatheredin great numbers in the city to witness the marriage of the ProtestantHenry of Navarre with the king's sister, should be massacred on the eveof St. Bartholomew's Day (August 23, 1572). [Sidenote: The Holy League. ] The signal was duly given, and no less than two thousand persons wereruthlessly murdered in Paris before the end of the next day. The news ofthis attack spread into the provinces and it is probable that, at thevery least, ten thousand more Protestants were put to death outside ofthe capital. Both the pope and Philip II expressed their gratificationat this signal example of French loyalty to the Church. Civil war againbroke out, and the Catholics formed the famous Holy League, under theleadership of Henry of Guise, for the advancement of their interests andthe extirpation of heresy. [Sidenote: Question of the succession to the French throne. ] Henry III (1574-1589), the last of the sons of Henry II, who succeededCharles IX, had no heirs, and the great question of succession arose. The Huguenot, Henry of Navarre, was the nearest male relative, but theLeague could never consent to permit the throne of France to be sulliedby heresy, especially as their leader, Henry of Guise, was himselfanxious to become king. [Sidenote: War of the Three Henrys, 1585-1589. ] Henry III was driven weakly from one party to the other, and it finallycame to a war between the three Henrys, --Henry III, Henry of Navarre, and Henry of Guise (1585-1589). It ended in a characteristic way. Henrythe king had Henry of Guise assassinated. The sympathizers of the Leaguethen assassinated Henry the king, which left the field to Henry ofNavarre. He ascended the throne as Henry IV[320] in 1589, and is anheroic figure in the line of French kings. [Sidenote: Henry IV, 1589-1610, becomes a Catholic. ] 174. The new king had many enemies, and his kingdom was devastated anddemoralized by years of war. He soon saw that he must accept thereligion of the majority of his people if he wished to reign over them. He accordingly asked to be readmitted to the Catholic Church (1593), excusing himself on the ground that "Paris was worth a mass. " He did notforget his old friends, however, and in 1598 he issued the Edict ofNantes. [Sidenote: The Edict of Nantes, 1598. ] By this edict of toleration the Calvinists were permitted to holdservices in all the towns and villages where they had previously heldthem, but in Paris and a number of other towns all Protestant serviceswere prohibited. The Protestants were to enjoy the same political rightsas Catholics, and to be eligible to public office. A number of fortifiedtowns were to remain in the hands of the Huguenots, particularly LaRochelle, Montauban, and Nîmes. Henry's only mistake lay in granting theHuguenots the exceptional privilege of holding and governing fortifiedtowns. In the next generation, this privilege aroused the suspicion ofthe king's minister, Richelieu, who attacked the Huguenots, not so muchon religious grounds, as on account of their independent position in thestate, which suggested that of the older feudal nobles. [Sidenote: Ministry of Sully. ] Henry IV chose Sully, an upright and able Calvinist, for his chiefminister. Sully set to work to reëstablish the kingly power, which hadsuffered greatly under the last three brothers of the house of Valois. He undertook to lighten the tremendous burden of debt which weighed uponthe country. He laid out new roads and canals, and encouragedagriculture and commerce; he dismissed the useless noblemen and officerswhom the government was supporting without any advantage to itself. Hadhis administration not been prematurely interrupted, France might havereached unprecedented power and prosperity; but religious fanaticism putan end to his reforms. [Sidenote: Assassination of Henry IV, 1610. ] In 1610 Henry IV, like William the Silent, was assassinated just in themidst of his greatest usefulness to his country. Sully could not agreewith the regent, Henry's widow, and retired to his castle, where hedictated his memoirs, which give a remarkable account of the stirringtimes in which he had played so important a part. Before many years, Richelieu, perhaps the greatest minister France has ever had, rose topower, and from 1624 to his death in 1642 he governed France for Henry'sson, Louis XIII (1610-1643). Something will be said of his policy inconnection with the Thirty Years' War. [321] [Sidenote: England under Elizabeth, 1558-1603. ] 175. The long and disastrous civil war between Catholics andProtestants, which desolated France in the sixteenth century, hadhappily no counterpart in England. During her long and wise reign QueenElizabeth[322] succeeded not only in maintaining peace at home, but infrustrating the conspiracies and attacks of Philip II, which threatenedher realm from without. Moreover, by her interference in theNetherlands, she did much to secure their independence of Spain. [Sidenote: Elizabeth restores the Protestant service. ] Upon the death of Catholic Mary and the accession of her sisterElizabeth in 1558, the English government became once more Protestant. Undoubtedly a great majority of Elizabeth's subjects would have beensatisfied to have had her return to the policy of her father, HenryVIII. They still venerated the Mass and the other ancient ceremonies, although they had no desire to acknowledge the supremacy of the popeover their country. Elizabeth believed, however, that Protestantismwould finally prevail. She therefore reintroduced the Book of Prayer ofEdward VI, with some modifications, and proposed that all her subjectsshould conform in public to the form of worship sanctioned by the state. Elizabeth did not adopt the Presbyterian organization, which had a goodmany advocates, but retained the old system of church government withits archbishops, bishops, deans, etc. Naturally, however, Protestantclergymen were substituted for the Catholics who had held office underMary. Elizabeth's first Parliament gave to the queen the power thoughnot the title of supreme head of the English church. [Sidenote: Presbyterian Church established in Scotland. ] Elizabeth's position in regard to the religious question was firstthreatened by events in Scotland. There, shortly after her accession, the ancient Church was abolished, largely in the interest of the nobles, who were anxious to get the lands of the bishops into their own handsand enjoy the revenue from them. John Knox, a veritable second Calvin inhis stern energy, secured the introduction of the Presbyterian form offaith and church government which still prevail in Scotland. [Sidenote: Mary Stuart the Scotch queen, becomes the hope of theCatholics. ] In 1561 the Scotch queen, Mary Stuart, whose French husband, Francis II, had just died, landed at Leith. She was but nineteen years old, of greatbeauty, and, by reason of her Catholic faith and French training, almosta foreigner to her subjects. Her grandmother was a sister of Henry VIII, and Mary claimed to be the rightful heiress to the English throne shouldElizabeth die childless. Consequently the beautiful Queen of Scotsbecame the hope of all those, including Philip II and Mary's relatives, the Guises, who wished to bring back England and Scotland to the RomanCatholic faith. [Sidenote: Mary's suspicious conduct. ] [Sidenote: Mary flees to England, 1568. ] Mary made no effort to undo the work of John Knox, but she quicklydiscredited herself with both Protestants and Catholics by her conduct. After marrying her second cousin, Lord Darnley, she discovered that hewas a dissolute scapegrace, and came to despise him. She then formed anattachment for a reckless nobleman named Bothwell. The house nearEdinburgh in which the wretched Darnley was lying ill was blown up onenight with gunpowder, and he was killed. The public suspected that bothBothwell and the queen were implicated. How far Mary was responsible forher husband's death no one can be sure. It is certain that she latermarried Bothwell and that her indignant subjects thereupon deposed heras a murderess. After fruitless attempts to regain her power, sheabdicated in favor of her infant son, James VI, and then fled to Englandto appeal to Elizabeth. While the prudent Elizabeth denied the right ofthe Scotch to depose their queen, she took good care to keep her rivalpractically a prisoner. [Sidenote: The rising in the north, 1569, and Catholic plans fordeposing Elizabeth. ] 176. As time went on it became increasingly difficult for Elizabeth toadhere to her policy of moderation in the treatment of the Catholics. Arising in the north of England (1569) showed that there were many whowould gladly reëstablish the Catholic faith by freeing Mary and placingher on the English throne. This was followed by the excommunication ofElizabeth by the pope, who at the same time absolved her subjects fromtheir allegiance to their heretical ruler. Happily for Elizabeth therebels could look for no help either from Alva or the French king. TheSpaniards had their hands full, for the war in the Netherlands had justbegun; and Charles IX, who had accepted Coligny as his adviser, was atthat moment in hearty accord with the Huguenots. The rising in the northwas suppressed, but the English Catholics continued to harbortreasonable designs and to look to Philip for help. They openedcorrespondence with Alva and invited him to come with six thousandSpanish troops to dethrone Elizabeth and make Mary Stuart queen ofEngland in her stead. Alva hesitated, for he characteristically thoughtthat it would be better to kill Elizabeth, or at least capture her. Meanwhile the plot was discovered and came to naught. [Sidenote: English mariners capture Spanish ships. ] Although Philip found himself unable to harm England, the Englishmariners, like the Dutch "sea beggars, " caused great loss to Spain. Inspite of the fact that Spain and England were not openly at war, theEnglish seamen extended their operations as far as the West Indies, andseized Spanish treasure ships, with the firm conviction that in robbingPhilip they were serving God. The daring Sir Francis Drake evenventured into the Pacific, where only the Spaniards had gone heretofore, and carried off much booty on his little vessel, the _Pelican_. At lasthe took "a great vessel with jewels in plenty, thirteen chests of silvercoin, eighty pounds weight of gold, and twenty-six tons of silver. " Hethen sailed around the world, and on his return presented his jewels toElizabeth, who paid little attention to the expostulations of the kingof Spain. [323] [Sidenote: Relations between England and Catholic Ireland. ] One hope of the Catholics has not yet been mentioned, namely, Ireland, whose relations with England from very early times down to the presentday form one of the most cheerless pages in the history of Europe. Ireland was no longer, as it had been in the time of Gregory the Great, a center of culture. [324] The population was divided into numerous clansand their chieftains fought constantly with one another as well as withthe English, who were vainly endeavoring to subjugate the island. UnderHenry II and later kings England had conquered a district in the easternpart of Ireland, and here the English managed to maintain a foothold inspite of the anarchy outside. Henry VIII had suppressed a revolt of theIrish and assumed the title of King of Ireland. Mary had hoped topromote better relations by colonizing Kings County and Queens Countywith Englishmen. This led, however, to a long struggle which only endedwhen the colonists had killed all the natives in the district theyoccupied. Elizabeth's interest in the perennial Irish question was stimulated bythe probability that Ireland might become a basis for Catholicoperations, since Protestantism had made little progress among itssimple and half-barbarous people. Her fears were realized. Severalattempts were made by Catholic leaders to land troops in Ireland withthe purpose of making the island the base for an attack on England. Elizabeth's officers were able to frustrate these enterprises, but theresulting disturbances greatly increased the misery of the Irish. In1582 no less than thirty thousand people are said to have perished, chiefly from starvation. [Sidenote: Persecution of the English Catholics. ] As Philip's troops began to get the better of the opposition in thesouthern Netherlands, the prospect of sending a Spanish army to Englandgrew brighter. Two Jesuits were sent to England in 1580 to strengthenthe adherents of their faith and were supposed to be urging them toassist the foreign force against their queen when it should come. Parliament now grew more intolerant and ordered fines and imprisonmentto be inflicted on those who said or heard mass, or who refused toattend the English services. One of the Jesuits was cruelly tortured andexecuted for treason but the other escaped to the continent. [Sidenote: Plans to assassinate Elizabeth. ] In the spring of 1582 the first attempt to assassinate the hereticalqueen was made at Philip's instigation. It was proposed that, whenElizabeth was out of the way, the duke of Guise should see that an armywas sent to England in the interest of the Catholics. But Guise was keptbusy at home by the War of the Three Henrys, and Philip was left toundertake the invasion of England by himself. [Sidenote: Execution of Mary Queen of Scots, 1587. ] Mary did not live to witness the attempt. She became implicated inanother plot for the assassination of Elizabeth. Parliament now realizedthat as long as Mary lived Elizabeth's life was in constant danger;whereas, if Mary were out of the way, Philip would have no interest inthe death of Elizabeth, since Mary's son, James VI of Scotland, was aProtestant. Elizabeth was therefore reluctantly persuaded by heradvisers to sign a warrant for Mary's execution in 1587. [325] [Sidenote: Destruction of Philip's Armada, 1588. ] Philip by no means gave up his project of reclaiming Protestant England. In 1588 he brought together a great fleet, including his best andlargest warships, which was proudly called by the Spaniards the"Invincible Armada" (i. E. , fleet). This was to sail up the Channel toFlanders and bring over the duke of Parma and his veterans, who, it wasexpected, would soon make an end of Elizabeth's raw militia. The Englishships were inferior to those of Spain in size although not in number, but they had trained commanders, such as Drake and Hawkins. These famouscaptains had long sailed the Spanish Main and knew how to use theircannon without getting near enough to the Spaniards to suffer from theirshort-range weapons. When the Armada approached, it was permitted by theEnglish fleet to pass up the Channel before a strong wind which laterbecame a storm. The English ships then followed and both fleets weredriven past the coast of Flanders. Of the hundred and twenty Spanishships, only fifty-four returned home; the rest had been destroyed byEnglish valor, or by the gale to which Elizabeth herself ascribed thevictory. [326] The defeat of the Armada put an end to the danger fromSpain. [Sidenote: Prospects of the Catholic cause at the opening of the reignof Philip II. ] 177. As we look back over the period covered by the reign of Philip II, it is clear that it was a most notable one in the history of theCatholic Church. When he ascended the throne Germany, as well asSwitzerland and the Netherlands, had become largely Protestant. England, however, under his Catholic wife, Mary, seemed to be turning back to theold religion, while the French monarchs showed no inclination totolerate the heretical Calvinists. Moreover, the new and enthusiasticorder of the Jesuits promised to be a potent agency in inducing thedisaffected people to accept once more the supremacy of the pope and thedoctrines of the ancient church as formulated by the Council of Trent. The tremendous power and apparently boundless resources of Spainitself, --which were viewed by the rest of Europe with the gravestapprehension, not to say terror, --Philip was willing to dedicate to theextirpation of heresy in his own dominions and the destruction ofProtestantism throughout western Europe. [Sidenote: Outcome of Philip's policy. ] When Philip died all was changed. England was hopelessly Protestant: the"Invincible Armada" had been miserably wrecked, and Philip's plan forbringing England once more within the fold of the Roman Catholic Churchwas forever frustrated. In France the terrible wars of religion wereover, and a powerful king, lately a Protestant himself, was on thethrone, who not only tolerated the Protestants but chose one of them forhis chief minister, and would brook no more meddling of Spain in Frenchaffairs. A new Protestant state, the United Netherlands, had actuallyappeared within the bounds of the realm bequeathed to Philip by hisfather. In spite of its small size this state was destined to play, fromthat time on, quite as important a part in European affairs as the harshSpanish stepmother from whose control it had escaped. [Sidenote: Decline of Spain after the sixteenth century. ] Spain itself had suffered most of all from Philip's reign. [327] Hisdomestic policy and his expensive wars had weakened a country which hadnever been intrinsically strong. The income from across the sea wasbound to decrease as the mines were exhausted. The final expulsion ofthe industrious Moors, shortly after Philip's death, left the indolentSpaniards to till their own fields, which rapidly declined in fertilityunder their careless cultivation. Poverty was deemed no disgrace butmanual labor was. Some one once ventured to tell a Spanish king that"not gold and silver but sweat is the most precious metal, a coin whichis always current and never depreciates"; but it was a rare form ofcurrency in the Spanish peninsula. After Philip II's death Spain sinksto the rank of a secondary European power. CHAPTER XXIX THE THIRTY YEARS' WAR [Sidenote: The Thirty Years' War really a series of wars. ] 178. The last great conflict caused by the differences between theCatholics and Protestants was fought out in Germany during the firsthalf of the seventeenth century. It is generally known as the ThirtyYears' War (1618-1648), but there was in reality a series of wars; andalthough the fighting was done upon German territory, Sweden, France, and Spain played quite as important a part as Germany. [Sidenote: Weaknesses of the Peace of Augsburg. ] Just before the abdication of Charles V, the Lutheran princes had forcedthe emperor to acknowledge their right to their own religion and to thechurch property which they had appropriated. The religious Peace ofAugsburg had, however, as we have seen, [328] two great weaknesses. Inthe first place, only those Protestants who held the Lutheran faith wereto be tolerated. The Calvinists, who were increasing in numbers, werenot included in the peace. In the second place, the peace did not put astop to the seizure of church property by the Protestant princes. [Sidenote: Spread of Protestantism. ] During the last years of Ferdinand I's reign and that of his successorthere was little trouble. Protestantism, however, made rapid progressand invaded Bavaria, the Austrian possessions, and above all, Bohemia, where the doctrines of Huss had never died out. So it looked for a timeas if even the German Hapsburgs were to see large portions of theirterritory falling away from the old Church. But the Catholics had in theJesuits a band of active and efficient missionaries. They not onlypreached and founded schools, but also succeeded in gaining theconfidence of some of the German princes, whose chief advisers theybecame. Conditions were very favorable, at the opening of theseventeenth century, for a renewal of the religious struggle. [Sidenote: Formation of the Protestant Union and the Catholic League. ] The Lutheran town of Donauwörth permitted the existence of a monasterywithin its limits. In 1607 a Protestant mob attacked the monks as theywere passing in procession through the streets. Duke Maximilian ofBavaria, an ardent Catholic, on the border of whose possessions the townlay, gladly undertook to punish this outrage. His army enteredDonauwörth, reëstablished the Catholic worship, and drove out theLutheran pastor. This event led to the formation of the Protestant Unionunder the leadership of Frederick, elector of the Palatinate. The Unionincluded by no means all the Protestant princes; for example, theLutheran elector of Saxony refused to have anything to do with theCalvinistic Frederick. The next year the Catholics, on their part, formed the Catholic League under a far more efficient head, namely, Maximilian of Bavaria. [329] [Sidenote: Bohemia revolts from the Hapsburg rule, 1618. ] [Sidenote: Frederick, elector of the Palatinate, chosen king ofBohemia. ] These were the preliminaries of the Thirty Years' War. Hostilities beganin Bohemia, which had been added to the Hapsburg possessions through themarriage of Ferdinand I. The Protestants were so strong in that countrythat they had forced the emperor in 1609 to grant them privilegesgreater even than those enjoyed by the Huguenots in France. Thegovernment, however, failed to observe this agreement, and thedestruction of two Protestant churches resulted in a revolution atPrague in 1618. Three representatives of the emperor were seized by theirritated Bohemian leaders and thrown out of the window of the palace. After this emphatic protest against the oppressive measures of thegovernment, Bohemia endeavored to establish itself once more as anindependent kingdom. It renounced the rule of the Hapsburgs and choseFrederick, the elector of the Palatinate, as its new king. He appearedto the Bohemians to possess a double advantage; in the first place, hewas the head of the Protestant Union, and in the second, he was theson-in-law of the king of England, James I, to whom they looked forhelp. [Sidenote: Failure of the Bohemian revolt. ] [Sidenote: Battle on the White Hill, 1620. ] The Bohemian venture proved a most disastrous one for Germany and forProtestantism. The new emperor, Ferdinand II (1619-1637), who was atonce an uncompromising Catholic and a person of considerable ability, appealed to the League for assistance. Frederick, the new king ofBohemia, showed himself entirely unequal to the occasion. He and hisEnglish wife, the Princess Elizabeth, made a bad impression on theBohemians, and they failed to gain the support of the neighboringLutheran elector of Saxony. A single battle, which the army of theLeague under Maximilian won in 1620, put to flight the poor "winterking, " as he was derisively called on account of his reign of a singleseason. The emperor and the duke of Bavaria set vigorously to work tosuppress Protestantism within their borders. The emperor arbitrarilygranted the eastern portion of the Palatinate to Maximilian and gave himthe title of Elector, without consulting the diet. [Sidenote: England and France unable to assist the Protestants. ] 179. Matters were becoming serious for the Protestant party, and Englandmight have intervened had it not been that James I believed that hecould by his personal influence restore peace to Europe and induce theemperor and Maximilian of Bavaria to give back the Palatinate to the"winter king. " Even France might have taken a hand, for althoughRichelieu, then at the head of affairs, had no love for the Protestants, he was still more bitterly opposed to the Hapsburgs. However, his handswere tied for the moment, for he was just undertaking to deprive theHuguenots of their strong towns. [Sidenote: Christian IV of Denmark invades Germany, but is defeated. ] [Sidenote: Wallenstein. ] A diversion came, nevertheless, from without. Christian IV, king ofDenmark, invaded northern Germany in 1625 with a view of relieving hisfellow Protestants. In addition to the army of the League which wasdispatched against him, a new army was organized by the notoriouscommander, Wallenstein. The emperor was poor and gladly accepted theoffer of this ambitious Bohemian nobleman[330] to collect an army whichshould support itself upon the proceeds of the war, to wit, confiscationand robbery. Christian met with two serious defeats in northern Germany;even his peninsula was invaded by the imperial forces, and in 1629 heagreed to retire from the conflict. [Sidenote: The Edict of Restitution, 1629. ] [Sidenote: Dismissal of Wallenstein. ] [Sidenote: Appearance of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, 1594-1632. ] The emperor was encouraged by the successes of the Catholic armies toissue that same year an Edict of Restitution. In this he ordered theProtestants throughout Germany to give back all the church possessionswhich they had seized since the religious Peace of Augsburg (1555). These included two archbishoprics (Magdeburg and Bremen), ninebishoprics, about one hundred and twenty monasteries, and other churchfoundations. Moreover, he decreed that only the Lutherans might enjoythe practice of their religion; the other "sects" were to be broken up. As Wallenstein was preparing to execute this decree in his usualmerciless fashion, the war took a new turn. The League had becomejealous of a general who threatened to become too powerful, and itaccordingly joined in the complaints, which came from every side, of theterrible extortions and incredible cruelty practiced by Wallenstein'stroops. The emperor consented, therefore, to dismiss this most competentcommander and lose a large part of his army. Just as the Catholics werethus weakened, a new enemy arrived upon the scene who was far moredangerous than any they had yet had to face, Gustavus Adolphus, king ofSweden. [331] [Sidenote: The kingdom of Sweden. ] [Sidenote: Gustavus Vasa, 1523-1560. ] 180. We have had no occasion hitherto to speak of the Scandinaviankingdoms of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, which the northern Germanpeoples had established about Charlemagne's time; but from now on theybegin to take part in the affairs of central Europe. The Union of Calmar(1397) had brought these three kingdoms, previously separate, under asingle ruler. About the time that the Protestant revolt began in Germanythe union was broken by the withdrawal of Sweden. Gustavus Vasa, aSwedish noble, led the movement and was subsequently chosen king ofSweden (1523). In the same year Protestantism was introduced. Vasaconfiscated the church lands, got the better of the aristocracy, andstarted Sweden on its way toward national greatness. Under his successorthe eastern shores of the Baltic were conquered and the Russians cut offfrom the sea. [Sidenote: Motives of Gustavus Adolphus in invading Germany, 1630. ] Gustavus Adolphus (1594-1632) was induced to invade Germany for tworeasons. In the first place, he was a sincere and enthusiasticProtestant and by far the most generous and attractive figure of histime. He was genuinely afflicted by the misfortunes of his Protestantbrethren and anxious to devote himself to their welfare. Secondly, hedreamed of extending his domains so that one day the Baltic mightperhaps become a Swedish lake. He undoubtedly hoped by his invasion notonly to free his co-religionists from the oppression of the emperor andof the League, but to gain a strip of territory for Sweden. [Sidenote: Destruction of Magdeburg, 1631. ] [Sidenote: Gustavus Adolphus victorious at Breitenfeld, 1631. ] Gustavus was not received with much cordiality at first by theProtestant princes of the north; but they were brought to their sensesby the awful destruction of Magdeburg by the troops of the League underGeneral Tilly. Magdeburg was the most important town of northernGermany. When it finally succumbed after an obstinate and difficultsiege, twenty thousand of its inhabitants were killed and the townburned to the ground. Although Tilly's reputation for cruelty is quiteequal to that of Wallenstein, he was probably not responsible for thefire. After Gustavus Adolphus had met Tilly near Leipsic andvictoriously routed the army of the League, the Protestant princes beganto look with more favor on the foreigner. Gustavus then moved westwardand took up his winter quarters on the Rhine. [Sidenote: Wallenstein recalled. ] [Sidenote: Gustavus Adolphus killed at Lützen, 1632. ] The next spring he entered Bavaria and once more defeated Tilly (who wasmortally wounded in the battle), and forced Munich to surrender. Thereseemed now to be no reason why he should not continue his way to Vienna. At this juncture the emperor recalled Wallenstein, who collected a newarmy over which the emperor gave him absolute command. After some delayGustavus met Wallenstein on the field of Lützen, in November, 1632, where, after a fierce struggle, the Swedes gained the victory. But theylost their leader and Protestantism its hero, for the Swedish kingventured too far into the lines of the enemy and was surrounded andkilled. [Sidenote: Murder of Wallenstein. ] [Sidenote: Battle of Nördlingen, 1634. ] The Swedes did not, however, retire from Germany, but continued toparticipate in the war, which now degenerated into a series of raids byleaders whose soldiers depopulated the land by their unspeakableatrocities. Wallenstein roused the suspicions of the Catholics byentering into mysterious negotiations with Richelieu and with the GermanProtestants. This treasonable correspondence quickly reached the ears ofthe emperor. Wallenstein, who had long been detested by even theCatholics, was deserted by his soldiers and murdered (in 1634), to thegreat relief of all parties. In the same year the imperial army won theimportant battle of Nördlingen, one of the most bloody and at the sametime decisive engagements of the war. Shortly after, the elector ofSaxony withdrew from his alliance with the Swedes and made peace withthe emperor. It looked as if the war were about to come to an end, formany others among the German princes were quite ready to lay down theirarms. [332] [Sidenote: Richelieu renews the struggle of France against theHapsburgs. ] 181. Just at this critical moment Richelieu decided that it would be tothe interest of France to renew the old struggle with the Hapsburgs bysending troops against the emperor. France was still shut in, as she hadbeen since the time of Charles V, by the Hapsburg lands. Except on theside toward the ocean her boundaries were in the main artificial ones, and not those established by great rivers and mountains. She thereforelonged to weaken her enemy and strengthen herself by winning Roussillonon the south, and so make the crest of the Pyrenees the line ofdemarcation between France and Spain. She dreamed, too, of extending hersway toward the Rhine by adding the county of Burgundy (i. E. , Franche-Comté) and a number of fortified towns which would affordprotection against the Spanish Netherlands. [Sidenote: Richelieu checks Spanish aggression in Italy. ] Richelieu had been by no means indifferent to the Thirty Years' War. Hehad encouraged the Swedish king to intervene, and had supplied him withfunds if not with troops. Moreover, he himself had checked Spanishprogress in northern Italy. In 1624 Spanish troops had invaded thevalley of the Adda, a Protestant region, with the evident purpose ofconquest. This appeared a most serious aggression to Richelieu, for ifthe Spanish won the valley of the Adda, the last barrier between theHapsburg possessions in Italy and in Germany would be removed. Frenchtroops were dispatched to drive out the Spaniards, but it was in theinterest of France rather than in that of the oppressed Calvinists, forwhom Richelieu could hardly have harbored a deep affection. A few yearslater it became a question whether a Spanish or a French candidateshould obtain the vacant duchy of Mantua, and Richelieu led anotherFrench army in person to see that Spain was again discomfited. It was, then, not strange that he should decide to deal a blow at the emperorwhen the war appeared to be coming to a close that was tolerablysatisfactory from the standpoint of the Hapsburgs. [Sidenote: Richelieu's intervention prolongs the war. ] Richelieu declared war against Spain in May, 1635. He had alreadyconcluded an alliance with the chief enemies of the house of Austria. Sweden agreed not to negotiate for peace until France was ready for it. The United Provinces joined France, as did some of the German princes. So the war was renewed, and French, Swedish, Spanish, and Germansoldiers ravaged an already exhausted country for a decade longer. Thedearth of provisions was so great that the armies had to move quicklyfrom place to place in order to avoid starvation. After a serious defeatby the Swedes, the emperor (Ferdinand III, 1637-1657) sent a Dominicanmonk to expostulate with Cardinal Richelieu for his crime in aiding theGerman and Swedish heretics against the unimpeachably orthodox Austria. [Sidenote: France succeeds Spain in the military supremacy of westernEurope. ] The cardinal had, however, just died (December, 1642), well content withthe results of his diplomacy. The French were in possession ofRoussillon and of Artois, Lorraine, and Alsace. The military exploits ofthe French generals, especially Turenne and Condé, during the openingyears of the reign of Louis XIV (1643-1715) showed that a new period hadbegun in which the military and political supremacy of Spain was to giveway to that of France. [Sidenote: Close of the Thirty Years' War, 1648. ] 182. The participants in the war were now so numerous and their objectsso various and conflicting, that it is not strange that it required someyears to arrange the conditions of peace even when every one was readyfor it. It was agreed (1644) that France and the empire should negotiateat Münster, and the emperor and the Swedes at Osnabrück, --both of whichtowns lie in Westphalia. For four years the representatives of theseveral powers worked upon the difficult problem of satisfying everyone, but at last the treaties of Westphalia were signed late in 1648. Their provisions continued to be the basis of the international law ofEurope down to the French Revolution. [Sidenote: Provisions of the treaties of Westphalia. ] The religious troubles in Germany were settled by extending thetoleration of the Peace of Augsburg so as to include the Calvinists aswell as the Lutherans. The Protestant princes were, regardless of theEdict of Restitution, to retain the lands which they had in theirpossession in the year 1624, and each ruler was still to have the rightto determine the religion of his state. The dissolution of the Germanempire was practically acknowledged by permitting the individual statesto make treaties among themselves and with foreign powers; this wasequivalent to recognizing the practical independence which they had, asa matter of fact, already long enjoyed. A part of Pomerania and thedistricts at the mouth of the Oder, the Elbe, and the Weser were cededto Sweden. This territory did not, however, cease to form a part of theempire, for Sweden was thereafter to have three votes in the Germandiet. As for France, it was definitely given the three bishoprics of Metz, Verdun, and Toul, which Henry II had bargained for when he alliedhimself with the Protestants a century earlier. [333] The emperor alsoceded to France all his rights in Alsace, although the city of Strasburgwas to remain with the empire. Lastly, the independence both of theUnited Netherlands and of Switzerland was acknowledged. [334] [Sidenote: Disastrous results of the war in Germany. ] The accounts of the misery and depopulation of Germany caused by theThirty Years' War are well-nigh incredible. Thousands of villages werewiped out altogether; in some regions the population was reduced by onehalf, in others to a third, or even less, of what it had been at theopening of the conflict. The flourishing city of Augsburg was left withbut sixteen thousand souls instead of eighty thousand. The people werefearfully barbarized by privation and suffering and by the atrocitiesof the soldiers of all the various nations. Until the end of theeighteenth century Germany was too exhausted and impoverished to makeany considerable contribution to the culture of Europe. Only one hopefulcircumstance may be noted as we leave this dreary subject. After thePeace of Westphalia the elector of Brandenburg was the most powerful ofthe German princes next to the emperor. As king of Prussia he wasdestined to create another European power, and at last to humble thehouse of Hapsburg and create a new German empire in which Austria shouldhave no part. General Reading. --The most complete and scholarly account of the Thirty Years' War to be had in English is GINDELY, _History of the Thirty Years' War_ (G. P. Putnam's Sons, 2 vols. , $3. 50). CHAPTER XXX STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT [Sidenote: The question of absolute or limited monarchy in England. ] 183. The great question which confronted England in the seventeenthcentury was whether the king should be permitted to rule the people, asGod's representative, or should submit to the constant control of thenation's representatives, i. E. , Parliament. In France the EstatesGeneral met for the last time in 1614, and thereafter the French kingmade laws and executed them without asking the advice of any one excepthis immediate counselors. In general, the rulers on the continentexercised despotic powers, and James I of England and his son Charles Iwould gladly have made themselves absolute rulers, for they entertainedthe same exalted notions of the divine right of kings which prevailedacross the English Channel. England finally succeeded, however, inadjusting the relations between king and Parliament in a very happy way, so as to produce a limited, or constitutional, monarchy. The long andbitter struggle between the house of Stuart and the English Parliamentplays an important rôle in the history of Europe at large, as well as inthat of England. After the French Revolution, at the end of theeighteenth century, the English system began to become popular on thecontinent, and it has now replaced the older absolute monarchy in allthe kingdoms of western Europe. [Sidenote: Accession of James I, 1603-1625. ] On the death of Elizabeth in 1603, James I, the first of the Stuarts, ascended the English throne. He was, it will be remembered, the son ofMary Queen of Scots, and was known in Scotland as James VI;consequently England and Scotland now came under the same ruler. Thisdid not, however, make the relations between the two countries muchhappier, for a century to come at least. [Sidenote: James' belief in the 'divine right' of kings. ] The chief interest of James' reign lay in his tendency to exalt theroyal prerogative, and in the systematic manner in which he extolledabsolute monarchy in his writings and speeches and discredited it by hisconduct. James was an unusually learned man, for a king, but hislearning did not enlighten him in matters of common sense. As a man anda ruler, he was far inferior to his unschooled and light-heartedcontemporary, Henry IV of France. Henry VIII had been a heartlessdespot, and Elizabeth had ruled the nation in a high-handed manner; butboth of them had known how to make themselves popular and had had thegood sense to say as little as possible about their rights. James, onthe contrary, had a fancy for discussing his high position. [Sidenote: His own expression of his claims. ] "As for the absolute prerogative of the crown, " he declares, "that is nosubject for the tongue of a lawyer, nor is it lawful to be disputed. Itis atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God can do: ... So it ispresumption and high contempt in a subject to dispute what a king cando, or say that a king cannot do this or that. " The king, James claimed, could make any kind of law or statute that he thought meet, without anyadvice from Parliament, although he might, if he chose, accept itssuggestions. "He is overlord of the whole land, so is he master overevery person who inhabiteth the same, having power over the life anddeath of every one of them: for although a just prince will not take thelife of one of his subjects without a clear law, yet the same lawswhereby he taketh them are made by himself and his predecessors; so thepower flows always from himself. " A good king will act according to law, but he is above the law and is not bound thereby except voluntarily andfor good-example giving to his subjects. [Sidenote: The theory of 'divine right. '] These theories, taken from James' work on _The Law of Free Monarchies_, seem strange and unreasonable to us. But he was really only claiming therights which his predecessors had enjoyed, and such as were conceded tothe kings of France until the French Revolution. According to the theoryof "divine right, " the king did not owe his power to the nation but toGod, who had appointed him to be the father of his people. From God hederived all the prerogatives necessary to maintain order and promotejustice; consequently he was responsible to God alone, and not to thepeople, for the exercise of his powers. It is unnecessary to follow indetail the troubles between James and his Parliament and the variousmethods which he invented for raising money without the sanction ofParliament, for all this forms only the preliminary to the fatalexperience of James' son, Charles I. [Sidenote: James I's foreign policy. ] In his foreign policy James showed as little sense as in his relationswith his own people. He refused to help his son-in-law when he becameking of Bohemia. [335] But when the Palatinate was given by the emperorto Maximilian of Bavaria, James struck upon the extraordinary plan offorming an alliance with the hated Spain and inducing its king topersuade the emperor to reinstate the "winter king" in his formerpossessions. In order to conciliate Spain, Charles, Prince of Wales, wasto marry a Spanish princess. Naturally this proposal was very unpopularamong the English Protestants, and it finally came to nothing. [Sidenote: Literature in the time of Elizabeth and James I. ] [Sidenote: Shakespeare, 1564-1616. ] [Sidenote: Francis Bacon, 1561-1626. ] [Sidenote: The King James translation of the Bible. ] Although England under James I failed to influence deeply the course ofaffairs in Europe at large, his reign is distinguished by the work ofunrivaled writers who gave England a literature which outshone that ofany other of the European countries. Shakespeare is generally admittedto have been the greatest dramatist the world has ever produced. Whilehe wrote many of his plays before the death of Elizabeth, _Othello_, _King Lear_, and _The Tempest_ belong to the reign of James. FrancisBacon, philosopher and statesman, did much for the advancement ofscientific research by advocating new methods of reasoning based upon acareful observation of natural phenomena instead of upon Aristotle'slogic. He urged investigators to take the path already indicated overthree centuries earlier by his namesake, Roger Bacon. [336] The mostworthy monument of the strong and beautiful English of the period is tobe found in the translation of the Bible, prepared in James' reign andstill generally used in all the countries where English is spoken. [337] [Sidenote: Charles I, 1625-1649. ] 184. Charles I was somewhat more dignified than his father, but he wasquite as obstinately set upon having his own way and showed no moreskill in winning the confidence of his subjects. He did nothing toremove the disagreeable impressions of his father's reign and beganimmediately to quarrel with Parliament. When that body refused to granthim any money, mainly because they thought that it was likely to bewasted by his favorite, the duke of Buckingham, Charles formed the planof winning their favor by a great military victory. After James I had reluctantly given up his cherished Spanish alliance, Charles had married a French princess, Henrietta Maria, the daughter ofHenry IV. In spite of this marriage Charles now proposed to aid theHuguenots whom Richelieu was besieging in their town of La Rochelle. Healso hoped to gain popularity by prosecuting a war against Spain, whoseking was energetically supporting the Catholic League in Germany. Accordingly, in spite of Parliament's refusal to grant him thenecessary funds, he embarked in war. With only the money which he couldraise by irregular means, Charles arranged an expedition to take Cadizand the Spanish treasure ships which arrived there once a year fromAmerica, laden with gold and silver. The expedition failed, as well asCharles' attempt to help the Huguenots. [Sidenote: Charles' exactions and arbitrary acts. ] In his attempts to raise money without a regular grant from Parliament, Charles had resorted to vexatious exactions. The law prohibited him fromasking for _gifts_ from his people, but it did not forbid his askingthem to _lend_ him money, however little prospect there might be of hisever repaying it. Five gentlemen who refused to pay such a forced loanwere imprisoned by the mere order of the king. This raised the questionof whether the king had the right to send to prison those whom he wishedwithout showing legal cause for their arrest. [Sidenote: The Petition of Right. ] This and other attacks upon the rights of his subjects rousedParliament. In 1628 that body drew up the celebrated Petition ofRight, [338] which is one of the most important documents in the historyof the English Constitution. In it Parliament called the king'sattention to his illegal exactions, and to the acts of his agents whohad in sundry ways molested and disquieted the people of the realm. Parliament therefore "humbly prayed" the king that no man needthereafter "make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or such likecharge" without consent of Parliament; that no free man should beimprisoned or suffer any punishment except according to the laws andstatutes of the realm as presented in the Great Charter; and thatsoldiers should not be quartered upon the people on any pretextwhatever. Very reluctantly Charles consented to this restatement of thelimitations which the English had always, in theory at least, placedupon the arbitrary power of their king. [Sidenote: Religious differences between Charles and the Commons. ] The disagreement between Charles and Parliament was rendered much moreserious by religious differences. The king had married a Catholicprincess, and the Catholic cause seemed to be gaining on the continent. The king of Denmark had just been defeated by Wallenstein and Tilly, andRichelieu had succeeded in depriving the Huguenots of their cities ofrefuge. Both James and Charles had shown their readiness to enter intoengagements with France and Spain to protect English Catholics, andthere was evidently a growing inclination in England to revert to theolder ceremonies of the Church, which shocked the more stronglyProtestant members of the House of Commons. The communion table wasagain placed by many clergymen at the eastern end of the church andbecame fixed there as an altar, and portions of the service were oncemore chanted. [Illustration: Charles I (After a painting by Vandyke)] [Sidenote: Charles dissolves Parliament (1629) and determines to rule byhimself. ] These "popish practices, " with which the king was supposed tosympathize, served to widen the breach between him and the Commons whichhad been opened by the king's attempt to raise taxes on his own account. The Parliament of 1629, after a stormy session, was dissolved by theking, who determined to rule thereafter by himself. For eleven years nonew Parliament was summoned. 185. Charles was not well fitted by nature to try the experiment ofpersonal government. Moreover, the methods resorted to by his ministersto raise money without recourse to Parliament rendered the king more andmore unpopular and prepared the way for the triumphant return ofParliament. [Sidenote: Charles' financial exactions. ] According to an ancient law of England, those who had a certain amountof land must become knights; but since the decay of the feudal system, landowners had given up the meaningless form of qualifying themselves asknights. It now occurred to the king's government that a large amount ofmoney might be raised by fining these delinquents. Other unfortunateswho had settled within the boundaries of the royal forests were eitherheavily fined or required to pay enormous arrears of rent. In addition to these sources of income, Charles applied to his subjectsfor _ship money_. [339] He was anxious to equip a fleet, but instead ofrequiring the various ports to furnish ships, as was the ancient custom, he permitted them to buy themselves off by contributing to the fittingout of large ships owned by himself. Even those living inland were askedfor ship money. The king maintained that this was not a tax but simply apayment by which his subjects freed themselves from the duty ofdefending their country. John Hampden, a squire of Buckinghamshire, madea bold stand against this illegal demand by refusing to pay twentyshillings of ship money which was levied upon him. The case was triedbefore the king's judges, a bare majority of whom decided againstHampden. But the trial made it tolerably clear that the country wouldnot put up long with the king's despotic policy. [Sidenote: William Laud made Archbishop of Canterbury. ] In 1633 Charles made William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury. Laudbelieved that the English Church would strengthen both itself and thegovernment by following a middle course which should lie between thatof the Church of Rome and that of Calvinistic Geneva. He declared thatit was the part of good citizenship to conform outwardly to the servicesof the state church, but that the state should not undertake to oppressthe individual conscience, and that every one should be at liberty tomake up his own mind in regard to the interpretation to be given to theBible and to the church fathers. As soon as he became archbishop hebegan a series of visitations through his province. Every clergyman whorefused to conform to the Prayer Book, or opposed the placing of thecommunion table at the east end of the church, or declined to bow at thename of Jesus, was, if obstinate, to be brought before the king'sspecial Court of High Commission to be tried and if convicted to bedeprived of his benefice. [Sidenote: The different sects of Protestants. ] Laud's conduct was no doubt gratifying to the High Church party amongthe Protestants, that is, those who still clung to some of the ancientpractices of the Roman Church, although they rejected the doctrine ofthe Mass and refused to regard the pope as their head. The Low Churchparty, or _Puritans_, on the contrary, regarded Laud and his policy withaversion. While, unlike the Presbyterians, they did not urge theabolition of the bishops, they disliked all "superstitious usages, " asthey called the wearing of the surplice by the clergy, the use of thesign of the cross at baptism, the kneeling posture in partaking of thecommunion. The Presbyterians, who are often confused with the Puritans, agreed with them in many respects, but went farther and demanded theintroduction of Calvin's system of church government. [340] [Sidenote: The Independents. ] [Sidenote: The Pilgrim Fathers. ] Lastly, there was an ever-increasing number of Separatists, orIndependents. These rejected both the organization of the Church ofEngland and that of the Presbyterians, and desired that each religiouscommunity should organize itself independently. The government hadforbidden these Separatists to hold their little meetings, which theycalled _conventicles_, and about 1600 some of them fled to Holland. Thecommunity of them which established itself at Leyden dispatched the_Mayflower_, in 1620, with colonists--since known as the PilgrimFathers--to the New World across the sea. [341] It was these colonistswho laid the foundations of a _New England_ which has proved a worthyoffspring of the mother country. The form of worship which theyestablished in their new home is still known as Congregational. [342] [Sidenote: Charles summons Parliament once more, to aid him in fightingthe Scotch Presbyterians, 1640. ] 186. In 1640 Charles found himself forced to resort to Parliament, forhe was involved in a war with Scotland which he could not carry onwithout money. There the Presbyterian system had been pretty generallyintroduced by John Knox in Queen Mary's time, but the bishops had beenpermitted to maintain a precarious existence in the interest of thenobles who enjoyed their revenues. James I had always had a strongdislike for Presbyterianism. He once said, "A Scottish presbyteryagreeth as well with the monarchy as God with the devil. Then Jack andTom and Will and Dick shall meet and at their pleasure censure me and mycouncil. " He much preferred a few bishops appointed by himself tohundreds of presbyteries over whose sharp eyes and sharper tongues hecould have little control. So bishops were reappointed in Scotland inthe early years of his reign and got back some of their powers. ThePresbyterians, however, were still in the majority, and they continuedto regard the bishops as the tools of the king. [Sidenote: The National Covenant, 1638. ] An attempt on the part of Charles to force the Scots to accept amodified form of the English Prayer Book led to the signing of theNational Covenant in 1638. This pledged those who attached their namesto it to reëstablish the purity and liberty of the Gospel, which, tomost of the Covenanters, meant Presbyterianism. Charles thereuponundertook to coerce the Scots. Having no money, he bought on credit alarge cargo of pepper, which had just arrived in the ships of the EastIndia Company, and sold it cheap for ready cash. The soldiers, however, whom he got together showed little inclination to fight the Scots, withwhom they were in tolerable agreement on religious matters. Charles wastherefore at last obliged to summon a Parliament, which, owing to thelength of time it remained in session, is known as the Long Parliament. [Sidenote: The measures of the Long Parliament against the king'styranny. ] The Long Parliament began by imprisoning Strafford, the king's mostconspicuous minister, and Archbishop Laud in the Tower of London. Thehelp that Strafford had given to the king in ruling without Parliamenthad mortally offended the House of Commons. They declared him guilty oftreason, and he was executed in 1641, in spite of Charles' efforts tosave him. Laud met the same fate four years later. Parliament also triedto strengthen its position by passing the Triennial Bill, which providedthat it should meet at least once in three years, even if not summonedby the king. The courts of Star Chamber and High Commission, which hadarbitrarily condemned a number of the king's opponents, were abolished, and ship money declared illegal. [343] In short, Charles' whole system ofgovernment was abrogated. The efforts of the queen to obtain money andsoldiers from the pope, and a visit of Charles to Scotland, whichParliament suspected was for the purpose of forcing the Scots to lendhim an army to use against themselves, led to the Grand Remonstrance. Inthis all of Charles' errors were enumerated and a demand was made thatthe king's ministers should thereafter be responsible to Parliament. This document Parliament ordered to be printed and circulated throughoutthe country. [Sidenote: Charles' attempts to arrest five members of the House ofCommons. ] Exasperated at the conduct of the Commons, Charles attempted tointimidate the opposition by undertaking the arrest of five of its mostactive leaders, whom he declared to be traitors. But when he entered theHouse of Commons and looked around for his enemies, he found that theyhad taken shelter in London, whose citizens later brought them back intriumph to Westminster. [Sidenote: The beginning of civil war, 1642. ] [Sidenote: Cavaliers and Roundheads. ] 187. Both Charles and Parliament now began to gather troops for theinevitable conflict, and England was plunged into civil war. Those whosupported Charles were called _Cavaliers_. They included not only mostof the aristocracy and the papal party, but also a number of members ofthe House of Commons who were fearful lest Presbyterianism shouldsucceed in doing away with the English Church. The parliamentary partywas popularly known as the _Roundheads_, since some of them croppedtheir hair close because of their dislike for the long locks of theirmore aristocratic and worldly opponents. [Illustration: Oliver Cromwell] [Sidenote: Oliver Cromwell. ] The Roundheads soon found a distinguished leader in Oliver Cromwell[344](b. 1599), a country gentleman and member of Parliament, who was laterto become the most powerful ruler of his time. Cromwell organized acompact army of God-fearing men, who indulged in no profane words orlight talk, as is the wont of soldiers, but advanced upon their enemiessinging psalms. The king enjoyed the support of northern England, andalso looked for help from Ireland, where the royal and Catholic causeswere popular. [Sidenote: Battles of Marston Moor and Naseby. ] [Sidenote: The losing cause of the king. ] The war continued for several years, and a number of battles were foughtwhich, after the first year, went in general against the Cavaliers. Themost important of these were the battle of Marston Moor in 1644, andthat of Naseby the next year, in which the king was disastrouslydefeated. The enemy came into possession of his correspondence, whichshowed them how their king had been endeavoring to bring armies fromFrance and Ireland into England. This encouraged Parliament to prosecutethe war with more energy than ever. The king, defeated on every hand, put himself in the hands of the Scotch army which had come to the aid ofParliament (1646), and the Scotch soon turned him over to Parliament. During the next two years Charles, while held in captivity, entered intonegotiations with the various parties in turn, but played fast and loosewith them all. [Sidenote: Pride's Purge. ] There were many in the House of Commons who still sided with the king, and in December, 1648, that body declared for a reconciliation with themonarch, whom they had safely imprisoned in the Isle of Wight. The nextday Colonel Pride, representing the army, --which constituted a party initself and was opposed to all negotiations between the king and theCommons, --stood at the door of the House with a body of soldiers andexcluded all the members who took the side of the king. This outrageousact is known in history as Pride's Purge. [Sidenote: Execution of Charles, 1649. ] In this way the House was brought completely under the control of thosemost bitterly hostile to Charles, whom they now proposed to bring totrial. They declared that the House of Commons, since it was chosen bythe people, was supreme in England and the source of all just power, andthat consequently neither king nor House of Lords was necessary. Themutilated House appointed a special High Court of Justice made up ofCharles' sternest opponents, who alone would consent to sit in judgmenton him. They passed sentence upon him, and on January 30, 1649, Charleswas beheaded in front of his palace of Whitehall, London. It must beclear from the above account that it was not the nation at large whichdemanded Charles' death, but a very small group of extremists whoclaimed to be the representatives of the nation. [345] [Sidenote: England becomes a commonwealth or republic. ] [Sidenote: Cromwell at the head of the government. ] 188. The Rump Parliament, as the remnant of the House of Commons wascontemptuously called, proclaimed England to be thereafter acommonwealth, that is, a republic, without a king or House of Lords. Cromwell, the head of the army, was the real ruler of England. Hederived his main support from the Independents; and it is verysurprising that he was able to maintain himself so long, consideringwhat a small portion of the English people was in sympathy with thereligious ideas of that sect and with the abolition of kingship. Eventhe Presbyterians were on the side of Charles II, the legal heir to thethrone. Yet Cromwell represented the principles for which the opponentsof tyranny had been contending. He was, moreover, a vigorous andskillful administrator, and had a well-organized army of fifty thousandmen at his command; otherwise the republic could scarcely have lastedmore than a few months. [Sidenote: Ireland and Scotland subdued. ] Cromwell found himself confronted by every variety of difficulty. Thethree kingdoms had fallen apart. The nobles and Catholics in Irelandproclaimed Charles II as king, and Ormond, a Protestant leader, formedan army of Irish Catholics and English royalist Protestants with a viewof overthrowing the Commonwealth. Cromwell accordingly set out forIreland, where, after taking Drogheda, he mercilessly slaughtered twothousand of the "barbarous wretches, " as he called them. Town after townsurrendered to Cromwell's army, and in 1652, after much cruelty, theisland was once more conquered. A large part of it was confiscated forthe benefit of the English, and the Catholic landowners were driven intothe mountains. In the meantime (1650) Charles II had landed in Scotland, and upon his agreeing to be a Presbyterian king, the whole Scotch nationwas ready to support him. But Scotland was subdued even more promptlythan Ireland had been. So completely was the Scottish army destroyedthat Cromwell found no need to draw the sword again in the BritishIsles. [Sidenote: The Navigation Act, 1651. ] [Sidenote: Commercial war between Holland and England. ] Although it would seem that Cromwell had enough to keep him busy athome, he had already engaged in a victorious foreign war against theDutch, who had become dangerous commercial rivals of England. The shipswhich went out from Amsterdam and Rotterdam were the best merchantvessels in the world, and had got control of the carrying trade betweenEurope and the colonies. In order to put an end to this, the EnglishParliament passed the Navigation Act (1651), which permitted onlyEnglish vessels to bring goods to England, unless the goods came invessels belonging to the country which had produced them. This led to acommercial war between Holland and England, and a series of battles wasfought between the English and Dutch fleets, in which sometimes one andsometimes the other gained the upper hand. This war is notable as thefirst example of the commercial struggles which were thereafter to takethe place of the religious conflicts of the preceding period. [Sidenote: Cromwell dissolves the Long Parliament (1653), and is madeLord Protector by his own Parliament. ] Cromwell failed to get along with Parliament any better than Charles haddone. The Rump Parliament had become very unpopular, for its members, inspite of their boasted piety, accepted bribes and were zealous in thepromotion of their relatives in the public service. At last Cromwellupbraided them angrily for their injustice and self-interest, which wereinjuring the public cause. On being interrupted by a member, he criedout, "Come, come, we have had enough of this. I'll put an end to this. It's not fit that you should sit here any longer, " and calling in hissoldiers he turned the members out of the House and sent them home. Having thus made an end of the Long Parliament (April, 1653), hesummoned a Parliament of his own, made up of God-fearing men whom he andthe officers of his army chose. This extraordinary body is known asBarebone's Parliament, from a distinguished member, a London merchant, with the characteristically Puritan name of Praisegod Barebone. Many ofthese godly men were unpractical and hard to deal with. A minority ofthe more sensible ones got up early one winter morning (December, 1653)and, before their opponents had a chance to protest, declared Parliamentdissolved and placed the supreme authority in the hands of Cromwell. [Sidenote: The Protector's foreign policy. ] For nearly five years Cromwell was, as Lord Protector, --a titleequivalent to that of regent, --practically king of England, although herefused actually to accept the royal insignia. He did not succeed inpermanently organizing the government at home but showed remarkableability in his foreign negotiations. He formed an alliance with France, and English troops aided the French in winning a great victory overSpain. England gained thereby Dunkirk, and the West Indian island ofJamaica. The French king, Louis XIV, at first hesitated to addressCromwell, in the usual courteous way of monarchs, as "my cousin, " butsoon admitted that he would have to call Cromwell "father" should hewish it, as the Protector was undoubtedly the most powerful person inEurope. [Sidenote: Death of Cromwell, September, 1658. ] In May, 1658, Cromwell fell ill, and as a great storm passed overEngland at that time, the Cavaliers asserted that the devil had come tofetch home the soul of the usurper. Cromwell was dying, it is true, buthe was no instrument of the devil. He closed a life of honest effort forhis fellow-beings with a last touching prayer to God, whom he hadconsistently sought to serve: "Thou hast made me, though very unworthy, a mean instrument to do Thy people some good and Thee service: and manyof them have set too high a value upon me, though others wish and wouldbe glad of my death. Pardon such as desire to trample upon the dust of apoor worm, for they are Thy people too; and pardon the folly of thisshort prayer, even for Jesus Christ's sake, and give us a good night, ifit be Thy pleasure. Amen. "[346] [Sidenote: The Restoration. ] [Sidenote: Charles II welcomed back as king, 1660. ] 189. After Cromwell's death his son Richard, who succeeded him, foundhimself unable to carry on the government. He soon abdicated, and theremnants of the Long Parliament met once more. But the power was reallyin the hands of the soldiers. In 1660 George Monk, who was in command ofthe forces in Scotland, came to London with a view of putting an end tothe anarchy. He soon concluded that no one cared to support the Rump, and that body peacefully disbanded of its own accord. Resistance wouldhave been vain in any case with the army against it. The nation was gladto acknowledge Charles II, whom every one preferred to a government bysoldiers. A new Parliament, composed of both houses, was assembled, which welcomed a messenger from the king and solemnly resolved that, "according to the ancient and fundamental laws of this kingdom, thegovernment is, and ought to be, by king, lords, and commons. " Thus thePuritan revolution and the ephemeral republic was followed by the_Restoration_ of the Stuarts. [Sidenote: Character of Charles II. ] Charles II was quite as fond as his father of having his own way, but hewas a man of more ability. He disliked to be ruled by Parliament; but, unlike his father, he was unwilling to arouse the nation against him. Hedid not propose to let anything happen which would send him on histravels again. He and his courtiers were fond of pleasure of alight-minded and immoral kind. The licentious dramas of the Restorationseem to indicate that those who had been forced by the Puritans to giveup their legitimate pleasures now welcomed the opportunity to indulge inreckless gayety without regard to the bounds imposed by custom anddecency. [Sidenote: Religious measures adopted by Parliament. ] [Sidenote: The Act of Uniformity. ] [Sidenote: The Dissenters. ] Charles' first Parliament was a moderate body, but his second was madeup almost wholly of Cavaliers, and it got along, on the whole, so wellwith the king that he did not dissolve it for eighteen years. It did nottake up the old question, which was still unsettled, as to whetherParliament or the king was really supreme. It showed its hostility, however, to the Puritans by a series of intolerant acts, which are veryimportant in English history. It ordered that no one should hold amunicipal office who had not received the Eucharist according to therites of the Church of England. This was aimed at both the Presbyteriansand the Independents. By the Act of Uniformity (1662), every clergymanwho refused to accept everything contained in the Book of Common Prayerwas to be excluded from holding his benefice. Two thousand clergymenthereupon resigned their positions for conscience' sake. These lawstended to throw all those Protestants who refused to conform to theChurch of England into a single class, still known as Dissenters. Itincluded the Independents, the Presbyterians, and the newer bodies ofthe Baptists, and the Society of Friends, commonly known as Quakers. These sects abandoned any idea of controlling the religion or politicsof the country, and asked only that they might be permitted to worshipin their own way outside of the English Church. [Sidenote: Toleration favored by the king. ] [Sidenote: The Conventicle Act. ] [Sidenote: The Test Act. ] Toleration found an unexpected ally in the king, who, in spite of hisdissolute habits, had interest enough in religion to have secretleanings toward Catholicism. He asked Parliament to permit him tomoderate the rigor of the Act of Uniformity by making some exceptions. He even issued a declaration in the interest of toleration, with a viewof bettering the position of the Catholics and nonconformists. Suspicionwas, however, aroused lest this toleration might lead to the restorationof "popery, " and Parliament passed the harsh Conventicle Act (1664). Any adult attending a conventicle--that is to say, any religious meetingnot held in accordance with the practice of the English Church--wasliable to penalties which culminated in transportation to some distantcolony. Samuel Pepys, who saw some of the victims of this law upon theirway to a terrible exile, notes in his famous diary: "They go like lambswithout any resistance. I would to God that they would conform or bemore wise and not be catched. " A few years later Charles issued adeclaration giving complete religious liberty to Roman Catholics as wellas to Dissenters. Parliament not only forced him to withdraw thisenlightened measure but passed the Test Act, which excluded every onefrom public office who did not accept the Anglican views. [Sidenote: War with Holland. ] The old war with Holland, begun by Cromwell, was renewed under CharlesII, who was earnestly desirous to increase English commerce and to foundnew colonies. The two nations were very evenly matched on the sea, butin 1664 the English seized some of the West Indian Islands from theDutch and also their colony on Manhattan Island, which was renamed NewYork in honor of the king's brother. In 1667 a treaty was signed byEngland and Holland which confirmed these conquests. Three years laterCharles was induced by Louis XIV to conclude a secret treaty, by whichhe engaged to aid Louis in a fresh war upon Holland. Louis cherished agrudge against Holland for preventing him from seizing the SpanishNetherlands, to which he asserted a claim on behalf of his Spanishwife. [347] In return for Charles' promised aid, Louis was to support himwith money and troops whenever Charles thought fit publicly to declarehimself a Catholic--he had already acknowledged his conversion to aselect circle. But Charles' nephew, William of Orange, --thegreat-grandson of William the Silent, --who was later to become king ofEngland, encouraged the Dutch to withstand, and Louis was forced torelinquish his purpose of conquering this stubborn people. Peace wasconcluded in 1674, and England and Holland soon became allies againstLouis, who was now recognized as the greatest danger which Europe had toface. [Sidenote: James II, 1685-1688. ] 190. Upon Charles' death he was succeeded by his brother James, who wasan avowed Catholic and had married, as his second wife, a Catholic, Maryof Modena. He was ready to reëstablish Catholicism in England regardlessof what it might cost him. Mary, James' daughter by his first wife, hadmarried William, Prince of Orange, the head of the United Netherlands. The nation might have tolerated James so long as they could look forwardto the accession of his Protestant daughter. But when a son was born tohis Catholic second wife, and James showed unmistakably his purpose offavoring the Catholics, messengers were dispatched by a group ofProtestants to William of Orange, asking him to come and rule over them. Charles I, m. Henrietta Maria (1625-1649) | | +-------+------------------+-----------------+ | | |Charles II Mary, m. William II Anne Hyde, m. James II, m. Mary of Modena(1660-1685) | Prince of | (1685-1688)| | Orange | | | +------+-------+ | | | | | William III, m. Mary Anne James Francis Edward, (1688-1702) (1702-1714) the Old Pretender [Sidenote: The revolution of 1688 and the accession of William III, 1688-1702. ] William landed in November, 1688, and marched upon London, where hereceived general support from all the English Protestants, regardless ofparty. James started to oppose William, but his army refused to fight, and his courtiers deserted him. William was glad to forward James'flight to France, as he would hardly have known what to do with him hadJames insisted on remaining in the country. A new Parliament declaredthe throne vacant, on the ground that King James II, "by the advice ofthe Jesuits and other wicked persons, having violated the fundamentallaws and withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, had abdicated thegovernment. " [Sidenote: The Declaration of Rights. ] A Declaration of Rights was then drawn up, condemning James' violationof the constitution and appointing William and Mary joint sovereigns. The Declaration of Rights, which is an important monument in Englishconstitutional history, once more stated the fundamental rights of theEnglish nation and the limitations which the Petition of Right and MagnaCharta had placed upon the king. By this peaceful revolution of 1688 theEnglish rid themselves of the Stuarts and their claims to rule by divineright, and once more declared themselves against the domination of theChurch of Rome. General Reading. --GARDINER, _The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, $1. 00). GARDINER, _Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution_ (Clarendon Press, $2. 25). For Cromwell, CARLYLE, "The Hero as King" in _Heroes and Hero Worship_. MORLEY, _Oliver Cromwell_ (The Century Company, $3. 50). For the Puritans, CAMPBELL, _The Puritans in Europe, Holland, England, and America_ (2 vols. , Harper, $5. 00). FISKE, _The Beginnings of New England_ (Houghton, Mifflin & Co. , $2. 00). MACAULAY, _Essay on Milton_. CHAPTER XXXI THE ASCENDENCY OF FRANCE UNDER LOUIS XIV [Sidenote: France at the accession of Louis XIV, 1643-1715. ] 191. Under the despotic rule of Louis XIV (1643-1715) France enjoyed acommanding influence in European affairs. After the wars of religionwere over, the royal authority had been reëstablished by the wiseconduct of Henry IV. Richelieu had solidified the monarchy by deprivingthe Huguenots of the exceptional privileges granted to them for theirprotection by Henry IV; he had also destroyed the fortified castles ofthe nobles, whose power had greatly increased during the turmoil of theHuguenot wars. His successor, Cardinal Mazarin, who conducted thegovernment during Louis XIV's boyhood, was able to put down a lastrising of the discontented nobility. [348] [Sidenote: What Richelieu and Mazarin had done for the French Monarchy. ] When Mazarin died in 1661, he left to the young monarch a kingdom suchas no previous French king had enjoyed. The nobles, who for centurieshad disputed the power with Hugh Capet and his successors, were nolonger feudal lords but only courtiers. The Huguenots, whose claim to aplace in the state beside the Catholics had led to the terrible civilwars of the sixteenth century, were reduced in numbers and no longerheld fortified towns from which they could defy the king's agents. Richelieu and Mazarin had successfully taken a hand in the Thirty Years'War, and France had come out of it with enlarged territory and increasedimportance in European affairs. [Sidenote: The government of Louis XIV. ] Louis XIV carried the work of these great ministers still farther. Hegave that form to the French monarchy which it retained until theFrench Revolution. He made himself the very mirror of kingship. Hismarvelous court at Versailles became the model and the despair of otherless opulent and powerful princes, who accepted his theory of theabsolute power of kings but could not afford to imitate his luxury. Byhis incessant wars of aggression he kept Europe in turmoil for over halfa century. The distinguished generals who led his newly organizedtroops, and the wily diplomats who arranged his alliances and negotiatedhis treaties, made France feared and respected by even the most powerfulof the other European states. [Sidenote: The theory of the 'divine right' of kings in France. ] 192. Louis XIV had the same idea of kingship that James I had tried invain to induce the English people to accept. God had given kings to men, and it was His will that monarchs should be regarded as His lieutenantsand that all those subject to them should obey them absolutely, withoutasking any questions or making any criticisms; for in yielding to theirprince they were really yielding to God Himself. If the king were goodand wise, his subjects should thank the Lord; if he proved foolish, cruel, or perverse, they must accept their evil ruler as a punishmentwhich God had sent them for their sins. But in no case might they limithis power or rise against him. [349] [Sidenote: Different attitude of the English and French nations towardabsolute monarchy. ] Louis had two great advantages over James. In the first place theEnglish nation has always shown itself far more reluctant than France toplace absolute power in the hands of its rulers. By its Parliament, itscourts, and its various declarations of the nation's rights, it hadbuilt up traditions which made it impossible for the Stuarts toestablish their claim to be absolute rulers. In France, on the otherhand, there was no Great Charter or Bill of Rights; the Estates Generaldid not hold the purse strings, and the king was permitted to raisemoney without asking their permission or previously redressing thegrievances which they chose to point out. They were therefore onlysummoned at irregular intervals. When Louis XIV took charge of thegovernment, forty-seven years had passed without a meeting of theEstates General, and a century and a quarter was still to elapse beforeanother call to the representatives of the nation was issued in 1789. Moreover, the French people placed far more reliance upon a powerfulking than the English, perhaps because they were not protected by thesea from their neighbors, as England was. On every side France hadenemies ready to take advantage of any weakness or hesitation whichmight arise from dissension between a parliament and the king. So theFrench felt it best, on the whole, to leave all in the king's hands, even if they suffered at times from his tyranny. [Illustration: Louis XIV] [Sidenote: Personal characteristics of Louis XIV. ] Louis had another great advantage over James. He was a handsome man, ofelegant and courtly mien and the most exquisite perfection of manner;even when playing billiards he retained an air of world mastery. Thefirst of the Stuarts, on the contrary, was a very awkward man, whoseslouching gait, intolerable manners, and pedantic conversation wereutterly at variance with his lofty pretensions. Louis added to hisgraceful exterior a sound judgment and quick apprehension. He saidneither too much nor too little. He was, for a king, a hard worker andspent several hours a day attending to the business of government. Itrequires, in fact, a great deal of energy and application to be a realdespot. In order really to understand and to solve the problems whichconstantly face the ruler of a great state, a monarch must, likeFrederick the Great or Napoleon, rise early and toil late. Louis wasgreatly aided by the able ministers who sat in his council, but healways retained for himself the place of first minister. He would neverhave consented to be dominated by an adviser, as his father had been byRichelieu. "The profession of the king, " he declared, "is great, noble, and delightful if one but feels equal to performing the duties which itinvolves, "--and he never harbored a doubt that he himself was born forthe business. [Sidenote: The king's palace at Versailles. ] 193. Louis XIV was careful that his surroundings should suit thegrandeur of his office. His court was magnificent beyond anything thathad been dreamed of in the West. He had an enormous palace constructedat Versailles, just outside of Paris, with interminable halls andapartments and a vast garden stretching away behind it. About this atown was laid out, where those who were privileged to be near hismajesty or supply the wants of the royal court lived. This palace andits outlying buildings, including two or three less gorgeous residencesfor the king when he occasionally tired of the ceremony of Versailles, probably cost the nation about a hundred million dollars, in spite ofthe fact that thousands of peasants and soldiers were forced to turn toand work without remuneration. The furnishings and decorations were asrich and costly as the palace was splendid. For over a centuryVersailles continued to be the home of the French kings and the seat oftheir government. [Illustration: The King's Bedroom in the Palace of Versailles] [Sidenote: Life at Louis XIV's court. ] This splendor and luxury helped to attract the nobility, who no longerlived on their estates in well-fortified castles, planning how theymight escape the royal control. They now dwelt in the effulgence of theking's countenance. They saw him to bed at night and in statelyprocession they greeted him in the morning. It was deemed a high honorto hand him his shirt as he was being dressed, or, at dinner, to providehim with a fresh napkin. Only by living close to the king could thecourtiers hope to gain favors, pensions, and lucrative offices forthemselves and their friends, and perhaps occasionally to exercise somelittle influence upon the policy of the government. For they were nowentirely dependent upon the good will of their monarch. [350] [Sidenote: The reforms of Colbert. ] The reforms which Louis carried out in the earlier part of his reignwere largely the work of the great financier, Colbert, to whom Francestill looks back with gratitude. He early discovered that Louis'officials were stealing and wasting vast sums. The offenders werearrested and forced to disgorge, and a new system of bookkeeping wasintroduced similar to that employed by business men. He then turned hisattention to increasing the manufactures of France by establishing newindustries and seeing that the older ones kept to a high standard, whichwould make French goods sell readily in foreign markets. He arguedjustly that if foreigners could be induced to buy French goods, thesesales would bring gold and silver into the country and so enrich it. Hemade rigid rules as to the width and quality of cloths which themanufacturers might produce and the dyes which they might use. He evenreorganized the old mediæval guilds; for through them the governmentcould keep its eye on all the manufacturing that was done, and thiswould have been far more difficult if every one had been free to carryon any trade which he might choose. There were serious drawbacks to thiskind of government regulation, but France accepted it, nevertheless, formany years. [351] [Sidenote: Art and literature in the reign of Louis XIV. ] It was, however, as a patron of art and literature that Louis XIV gainedmuch of his celebrity. Molière, who was at once a playwright and anactor, delighted the court with comedies in which he delicatelysatirized the foibles of his time. Corneille, who had gained renown bythe great tragedy of _The Cid_ in Richelieu's time, found a worthysuccessor in Racine, the most distinguished perhaps of French tragicpoets. The charming letters of Madame de Sévigné are models of prosestyle and serve at the same time to give us a glimpse into the morerefined life of the court. In the famous memoirs of Saint-Simon, theweaknesses of the king, as well as the numberless intrigues of thecourtiers, are freely exposed with inimitable skill and wit. [Sidenote: The government fosters the development of the Frenchlanguage and literature. ] Men of letters were generously aided by the king with pensions. Colbertencouraged the French Academy, which had been created by Richelieu. Thisbody gave special attention to making the French tongue more eloquentand expressive by determining what words should be used. It is now thegreatest honor that a Frenchman can obtain to be made one of the fortymembers of this association. A magazine which still exists, the _Journaldes Savants_, was founded for the promotion of science. Colbert had anastronomical observatory built at Paris; and the Royal Library, whichonly possessed about sixteen thousand volumes, began to grow into thatgreat collection of two and a half million volumes--by far the largestin existence--which to-day attracts scholars to Paris from all parts ofthe world. In short, Louis and his ministers believed one of the chiefobjects of any government to be the promotion of art, literature, andscience, and the example they set has been followed by almost everymodern state. [352] [Sidenote: Louis XIV's warlike enterprises. ] 194. Unfortunately for France, the king's ambitions were by no meansaltogether peaceful. Indeed, he regarded his wars as his chief glory. Heemployed a carefully reorganized army and the skill of his generals in aseries of inexcusable attacks on his neighbors, in which he finallysquandered all that Colbert's economies had accumulated and led Franceto the edge of financial ruin. [Sidenote: He aims to restore the 'natural boundaries' of France. ] Louis XIV's predecessors had had, on the whole, little time to think ofconquest. They had first to consolidate their realms and gain themastery of their feudal dependents, who shared the power with them; thenthe claims of the English Edwards and Henrys had to be met, and theFrench provinces freed from their clutches; lastly, the great religiousdispute was only settled after many years of disintegrating civil war. But Louis was now at liberty to look about him and consider how hemight best realize the dream of his ancestors and perhaps reëstablishthe ancient boundaries which Cæsar reported that the Gauls had occupied. The "natural limits" of France appeared to be the Rhine on the north andeast, the Jura Mountains and the Alps on the southeast, and to the souththe Mediterranean and the Pyrenees. Richelieu had believed that it wasthe chief end of his ministry to restore to France the boundariesdetermined for it by nature. Mazarin had labored hard to win Savoy andNice, and to reach the Rhine on the north. Before his death France atleast gained Alsace and reached the Pyrenees, "which, " as the treatywith Spain says (1659), "formerly divided the Gauls from Spain. " [Sidenote: Louis lays claim to the Spanish Netherlands. ] Louis first turned his attention to the conquest of the SpanishNetherlands, to which he laid claim through his wife, the elder sisterof the Spanish king, Charles II (1665-1700). In 1667 he surprised Europeby publishing a little treatise in which he set forth his claims notonly to the Spanish Netherlands, but even to the whole Spanish monarchy. By confounding the kingdom of France with the old empire of the Frankshe could maintain that the people of the Netherlands were his subjects. [Sidenote: The invasion of the Netherlands, 1667. ] Louis placed himself at the head of the army which he had reformed andreorganized, and announced that he was to undertake a "journey, " as ifhis invasion was only an expedition into another part of his undisputedrealms. He easily took a number of towns on the border, and completelyconquered Franche-Comté. This was an outlying province of Spain, isolated from her other lands, and a most tempting morsel for the hungryking of France. These conquests alarmed Europe, and especially Holland, which could not afford to have the barrier between it and Franceremoved, for Louis would be an uncomfortable neighbor. A TripleAlliance, composed of Holland, England, and Sweden, was accordinglyorganized to induce France to make peace with Spain. Louis contentedhimself for the moment with the dozen border towns that he had takenand which Spain ceded to him on condition that he would returnFranche-Comté (Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1668). [Sidenote: Louis breaks up the Triple Alliance and allies himself withCharles II of England. ] The success with which Holland had held her own against the navy ofEngland[353] and brought the proud king of France to a halt, produced anelation on the part of that tiny country which was very aggravating toLouis. He was thoroughly vexed that he should have been blocked by sotrifling an obstacle as Dutch intervention. He consequently conceived astrong dislike for the United Provinces, which was increased by theprotection that they afforded to political writers who annoyed him withtheir attacks. He broke up the Triple Alliance by inducing Charles II ofEngland to conclude a treaty which arranged that England should helpFrance in a new war against the Dutch. [Sidenote: Louis' invasion of Holland, 1672. ] Louis then startled Europe again by seizing the duchy of Lorraine, whichbrought him to the border of Holland. At the head of a hundred thousandmen he crossed the Rhine (1672) and easily conquered southern Holland. For the moment the Dutch cause appeared to be lost. But William ofOrange showed the spirit of his great ancestor, William the Silent; thesluices in the dikes were opened and the country flooded, so the Frencharmy was checked before it could take Amsterdam and advance into thenorth. Holland found an ally in the elector of Brandenburg, and the warbecame general. The emperor sent an army against Louis, and Englanddeserted him and made peace with Holland. [Sidenote: Peace of Nimwegen, 1678. ] [Sidenote: Louis' encroachments on German territory. ] When a general peace was concluded at Nimwegen, at the end of six years, the chief provisions were that Holland should be left intact, and thatFrance should retain Franche-Comté, which had been conquered by Louis inperson. This bit of the Burgundian heritage thus became at last a partof France, after France and Spain had quarreled over it for a centuryand a half. For the ten years following there was no open war, but Louisbusied himself in the interval by instituting courts in the debatableregion between France and Germany, to decide what neighboring districtsbelonged to the various territories and towns which had been ceded toFrance by the treaties of Westphalia and later ones. The vestiges of theold feudal entanglements gave ample scope for claims, which werereënforced by Louis' troops. Louis, moreover, seized the important freecity of Strasburg, and made many other less conspicuous but equallyunwarranted additions to his territory. The emperor was unable to domore than protest against these outrageous encroachments, for he wasfully occupied with the Turks, who had just laid siege to Vienna. [354] [Sidenote: Situation of the Huguenots at the beginning of Louis XIV'sreign. ] 195. Louis XIV exhibited as woeful a want of statesmanship in thetreatment of his Protestant subjects as in the prosecution of disastrouswars. The Huguenots, deprived of their former military and politicalpower, had turned to manufacture, trade, and banking; "as rich as aHuguenot" had become a proverb in France. There were perhaps a millionof them among fifteen million Frenchmen, and they undoubtedly formed byfar the most thrifty and enterprising part of the nation. The Catholicclergy, however, did not cease to urge the complete suppression ofheresy. [Sidenote: Louis' policy of suppression. ] Louis XIV had scarcely taken the reins of government into his own handsbefore the perpetual nagging and injustice to which the Protestants hadbeen subjected at all times took a more serious form. Upon one pretenseor another their churches were demolished. Children were authorized torenounce Protestantism when they reached the age of seven. If they wereinduced by the offer of a toy or a sweetmeat to say, for example, thewords "Ave Maria" (Hail, Mary), they might be taken from their parentsto be brought up in a Catholic school. In this way Protestant familieswere pitilessly broken up. Rough and licentious dragoons were quarteredupon the Huguenots with the hope that the insulting behavior of thesoldiers might drive the heretics to accept the religion of the king. [Sidenote: Revocation of the Edict of Nantes and its results. ] At last Louis was led by his officials to believe that practically allthe Huguenots had been converted by these drastic measures. In 1685, therefore, he revoked the Edict of Nantes, and the Protestants therebybecame outlaws and their ministers subject to the death penalty. Evenliberal-minded Catholics, like the kindly writer of fables, La Fontaine, and the charming letter writer, Madame de Sévigné, hailed thereëstablishment of "religious unity" with delight. They believed thatonly an insignificant and seditious remnant still clung to the beliefsof Calvin. But there could have been no more serious mistake. Thousandsof the Huguenots succeeded in eluding the vigilance of the royalofficials and fled, some to England, some to Prussia, some to America, carrying with them their skill and industry to strengthen France'srivals. This was the last great and terrible example of that fiercereligious intolerance which had produced the Albigensian Crusade, theSpanish Inquisition, and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. [355] [Sidenote: Louis' operations in the Rhenish Palatinate. ] Louis now set his heart upon conquering the Rhenish Palatinate, to whichhe easily discovered that he had a claim. The rumor of his intention andthe indignation occasioned in Protestant countries by the revocation ofthe Edict of Nantes, resulted in an alliance against the French kingheaded by William of Orange. Louis speedily justified the suspicions ofEurope by a frightful devastation of the Palatinate, burning whole townsand destroying many castles, including the exceptionally beautiful oneof the elector at Heidelberg. Ten years later, however, Louis agreed toa peace which put things back as they were before the struggle began. Hewas preparing for the final and most ambitious undertaking of his life, which precipitated the longest and bloodiest war of all his warlikereign. [Illustration: TREATY OF UTRECHT] [Sidenote: The question of the Spanish succession. ] 196. The king of Spain, Charles II, was childless and brotherless, andEurope had long been discussing what would become of his vast realmswhen his sickly existence should come to an end. Louis had married oneof his sisters, and the emperor, Leopold I, another, and these twoambitious rulers had been considering for some time how they mightdivide the Spanish possessions between the Bourbons and the Hapsburgs. But when Charles II died, in 1700, it was discovered that he had left awill in which he made Louis' younger grandson, Philip, the heir to histwenty-two crowns, but on the condition that France and Spain shouldnever be united. [Sidenote: Louis' grandson, Philip, becomes king of Spain. ] It was a weighty question whether Louis should permit his grandson toaccept this hazardous honor. Should Philip become king of Spain, Louisand his family would control all of southwestern Europe from Holland toSicily, as well as a great part of North and South America. This wouldmean the establishment of an empire more powerful than that of CharlesV. It was clear that the disinherited emperor and the ever watchfulWilliam of Orange, now king of England, would never permit thisunprecedented extension of French influence. They had already shownthemselves ready to make great sacrifices in order to check far lessserious aggressions on the part of the French king. Nevertheless, familypride and personal ambition led Louis criminally to risk the welfare ofhis country. He accepted the will and informed the Spanish ambassador atthe French court that he might salute Philip V as his new king. Theleading French newspaper of the time boldly proclaimed that the Pyreneeswere no more. [Sidenote: The War of the Spanish Succession. ] King William soon succeeded in forming a new Grand Alliance (1701) inwhich Louis' old enemies, England, Holland, and the emperor, were themost important members. William himself died just as hostilities werebeginning, but the long War of the Spanish Succession was carried onvigorously by the great English general, the duke of Marlborough, andthe Austrian commander, Eugene of Savoy. The conflict was even moregeneral than the Thirty Years' War; even in America there was fightingbetween French and English colonists, which passes in American historiesunder the name of Queen Anne's War. All the more important battles wentagainst the French, and after ten years of war, which was rapidlyruining the country by the destruction of its people and its wealth, Louis was willing to consider some compromise, and after long discussiona peace was arranged in 1713. [Sidenote: The Treaty of Utrecht, 1713. ] The Treaty of Utrecht changed the map of Europe as no previous treatyhad done, not even that of Westphalia. Each of the chief combatants gotits share of the Spanish booty over which they had been fighting. TheBourbon Philip V was permitted to retain Spain and its colonies oncondition that the Spanish and French crowns should never rest on thesame head. To Austria fell the Spanish Netherlands, hereafter called theAustrian Netherlands, which continued to form a barrier between Hollandand France. Holland received certain fortresses to make its positionstill more secure. The Spanish possessions in Italy, i. E. , Naples andMilan, were also given to Austria, and in this way Austria got the holdon Italy which it retained until 1866. England acquired from France, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and the Hudson Bay region, and so began theexpulsion of the French from North America. Besides these Americanprovinces she received the island of Minorca with its fortress, and therock and fortress of Gibraltar, which still gives her command of thenarrow entrance to the Mediterranean. [Sidenote: The development of international law. ] The period of Louis XIV is remarkable for the development ofinternational law. The incessant wars, the great alliances embracingseveral powers, and the prolonged peace negotiations, such as thosewhich preceded the treaties of Westphalia and Utrecht, made increasinglyclear the need of well-defined rules governing independent states intheir relations with one another both in peace and in war. It was ofthe utmost importance to determine, for instance, the rights ofambassadors and of the vessels of neutral powers not engaged in the war, and what should be considered fair conduct in warfare and in thetreatment of prisoners. [Sidenote: Grotius' _War and Peace_. ] The first great systematic treatise on international law was publishedby Grotius in 1625, when the horrors of the Thirty Years' War wereimpressing men's minds with the necessity of finding some other meansthan war of settling disputes between nations. Grotius' _War and Peace_was followed, in Louis XIV's time, by Pufendorf's _On the Law of Natureand Nations_ (1672). While the rules laid down by these and laterwriters on international law have by no means put an end to war, theyhave prevented many conflicts by settling certain questions and byincreasing the ways in which nations may come to an understanding withone another through their ambassadors without recourse to arms. Louis XIV outlived his son and grandson, and left a sadly demoralizedkingdom to his five-year-old great-grandson, Louis XV (1715-1774). Thenational treasury was depleted, the people were reduced in numbers andwere in a miserable state, and the army, once the finest in Europe, wasin no condition to gain further victories. Later we must study theconditions in France which led to the great Revolution. Now, however, weturn to the rise of two new European powers, Prussia and Russia, whichbegan in the eighteenth century to play a prominent rôle in Europeanaffairs. CHAPTER XXXII RISE OF RUSSIA AND PRUSSIA 197. We have had little occasion hitherto, in dealing with the historyof western Europe, to speak of the Slavic peoples, to whom the Russians, Poles, Bohemians, and many other nations of eastern Europe belong. Together they form the most numerous race in Europe, but, as has beenwell said, "they occupy a greater place on the map than in history. " Inthe eighteenth century, however, Russia began to take an increasinglyimportant part in European affairs, and it is now a great force in thepolitics of the world. The realms of the Tsar which lie in Europe exceedin extent those of all the other rulers of the continent put together, and yet they are scarcely more than a quarter of his whole dominion, which embraces northern and central Asia, and forms together an empireoccupying toward three times the area of the United States. [Sidenote: Movements of the Slavs during the period of the Germaninvasions. ] The Slavs were settled along the Dnieper, Don, and Vistula long beforethe Christian era. After the East Goths had penetrated into the Romanempire, the Slavs followed their example and invaded, ravaged, andconquered the Balkan Peninsula, which they held for some time. When theGerman Lombards went south into Italy, about 569, the Slavs pressedbehind them into Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, where they still livewithin the bounds of the Austrian empire. Other Slavic hordes had driventhe Germans across the Oder and upper Elbe. Later the German emperors, beginning with Charlemagne, began to push them back, but the Bohemiansand Moravians still hold an advanced position on the borders of Bavariaand Saxony. [Sidenote: Beginnings of Russia. ] In the ninth century some of the Northmen invaded the districts to theeast of the Baltic, while their relatives were causing grievous troublein France and England. It is generally supposed that one of theirleaders, Rurik, was the first to consolidate the Slavic tribes aboutNovgorod into a sort of state in 862. Rurik's successor extended thebounds of the new empire so as to include the important town of Kiev onthe Dnieper. The word _Russia_ is probably derived from _Rous_, the namegiven by the neighboring Finns to the Norman adventurers. Before the endof the tenth century the Greek form of Christianity was introduced andthe Russian ruler was baptized. The frequent intercourse withConstantinople might have led to rapid advance in civilization had itnot been for a great disaster which put Russia back for centuries. [Sidenote: The Tartar invasion of the thirteenth century. ] Russia is geographically nothing more than an extension of the vastplain of northern Asia, which the Russians were destined finally toconquer. It was therefore exposed to the great invasion of the Tartarsor Mongols, who swept in from the east in the thirteenth century. Thepowerful Tartar ruler, Genghiz Khan (1162-1227), conquered northernChina and central Asia, and the mounted hordes of his successors crossedinto Europe and overran Russia, which had fallen apart into numerousprincipalities. The Russian princes became the dependents of the GreatKhan, and had frequently to seek his far distant court, some threethousand miles away, where he freely disposed of both their crowns andtheir heads. The Tartars exacted tribute of the Russians, but left themundisturbed in their laws and religion. [Sidenote: Influence of the Tartar occupation on manners and customs. ] [Sidenote: Ivan the Terrible assumes the title of Tsar. ] Of the Russian princes who went to prostrate themselves at the foot ofthe Great Khan's throne, none made a more favorable impression upon himthan the prince of Moscow, in whose favor the Khan was wont to decideall cases of dispute between the prince and his rivals. When the Mongolpower had begun to decline in strength and the princes of Moscow hadgrown stronger, they ventured to kill the Mongol ambassadors sent todemand tribute in 1480, and thus freed themselves from the Mongol yoke. But the Tartar occupation had left its mark, for the princes of Moscowimitated the Khans rather than the western rulers, of whom, in fact, they knew nothing. In 1547 Ivan the Terrible assumed the Asiatic titleof Tsar, [356] which appeared to him more worthy than that of king oremperor. The costumes and etiquette of the court were also Asiatic. TheRussian armor suggested that of the Chinese, and their headdress was aturban. It was the task of Peter the Great to Europeanize Russia. [Sidenote: Peter the Great, 1672-1725. ] 198. At the time of Peter's accession, Russia, which had grown greatlyunder Ivan the Terrible and other enterprising rulers, still had nooutlet to the sea. In manners and customs the kingdom was Asiatic, andits government was that of a Tartar prince. Peter had no quarrel withthe despotic power which fell to him and which the Russian monarchsstill exercise, since there is no parliament or constitution in thatcountry down to the present day. But he knew that Russia was very muchbehind the rest of Europe, and that his crudely equipped soldiers couldnever make head against the well armed and disciplined troops of theWest. He had no seaport and no ships, without which Russia could neverhope to take part in the world's affairs. His two great tasks were, therefore, to introduce western habits and to "make a window, " as heexpressed it, through which Russia might look abroad. [Sidenote: Peter's travels in Europe. ] In 1697-1698 Peter himself visited Germany, Holland, and England with aview to investigating every art and science of the West, as well as themost approved methods of manufacture, from the making of a man-of-war tothe etching of an engraving. Nothing escaped the keen eyes of this rude, half-savage northern giant. For a week he put on the wide breeches of aDutch laborer and worked in the shipyard at Saardam near Amsterdam. InEngland, Holland, and Germany he engaged artisans, scientific men, architects, ship captains, and those versed in artillery and thetraining of troops, all of whom he took back with him to aid in thereform and development of Russia. [Sidenote: Suppression of revolt against foreign ideas. ] He was called home by the revolt of the royal guard, who had alliedthemselves with the very large party of nobles and churchmen who werehorrified at Peter's desertion of the habits and customs of hisforefathers. They hated what they called "German ideas, " such as shortcoats, tobacco smoking, and beardless faces. The clergy even suggestedthat Peter was perhaps Antichrist. Peter took a fearful revenge upon therebels, and is said to have himself cut off the heads of many of them. Like the barbarian that he was at heart, he left their heads and bodieslying about all winter, unburied, in order to make the terrible resultsof revolt against his power quite plain to all. [Sidenote: Peter's reform measures. ] Peter's reforms extended through his whole reign. He made his peoplegive up their cherished oriental beards and long flowing garments. Heforced the women of the better class, who had been kept in a sort oforiental harem, to come out and meet the men in social assemblies, suchas were common in the West. He invited foreigners to settle in Russia, and insured them protection, privileges, and the free exercise of theirreligion. He sent young Russians abroad to study. He reorganized thegovernment officials on the model of a western kingdom, and made overhis army in the same way. [Sidenote: Founding of a new capital, St. Petersburg. ] Finding that the old capital of Moscow clung persistently to its ancienthabits, he prepared to found a new capital for his new Russia. Heselected for this purpose a bit of territory on the Baltic which he hadconquered from Sweden, --very marshy, it is true, but where he might hopeto construct Russia's first real port. Here he built St. Petersburg atenormous expense and colonized it with Russians and foreigners. Russiawas at last becoming a European power. [Illustration: Northeastern Europe at the Opening of the EighteenthCentury] [Sidenote: The military prowess of Charles XII of Sweden. ] In his ambition to get to the sea, Peter naturally collided with Sweden, to which the provinces between Russia and the Baltic belonged. Never hadSweden, or any other country, had a more warlike king than the one withwhom Peter had to contend, the youthful prodigy, Charles XII. WhenCharles came to the throne in 1697 he was only fifteen years old, and itseemed to the natural enemies of Sweden an auspicious time to profit bythe supposed weakness of the boy ruler. So a union was formed betweenDenmark, Poland, and Russia, with the object of increasing theirterritories at Sweden's expense. But Charles turned out to be a secondAlexander the Great in military prowess. He astonished Europe bypromptly besieging Copenhagen and forcing the king of Denmark to sign atreaty of peace. He then turned like lightning against Peter, who wasindustriously besieging Narva, and with eight thousand Swedes wiped outan army of fifty thousand Russians (1700). Lastly he defeated the kingof Poland. [Sidenote: Defeat and death of Charles XII. ] Though Charles was a remarkable military leader, he was a foolish ruler. He undertook to wrest Poland from its king, to whom he attributed theformation of the league against him. He had a new king crowned atWarsaw, whom he at last succeeded in getting recognized. He then turnedhis attention to Peter, who had meanwhile been conquering the Balticprovinces. This time fortune turned against the Swedes. The long marchto Moscow proved as fatal to them as to Napoleon a century later. Charles XII was totally defeated in the battle of Pultowa (1709). Hefled to Turkey and spent some years there in vainly urging the Sultan toattack Peter. At last he returned to his own kingdom, which he hadutterly neglected for years. He was killed in 1718 while besieging atown. [Sidenote: Russia acquires the Baltic provinces and attempts to get afooting on the Black Sea. ] Soon after Charles' death a treaty was concluded between Sweden andRussia by which Russia gained Livonia, Esthonia, and the other Swedishprovinces at the eastern end of the Baltic. Peter had made lesssuccessful attempts to get a footing on the Black Sea. He had firsttaken Azof, which he soon lost during the war with Sweden, and thenseveral towns on the Caspian. It had become evident that if the Turksshould be driven out of Europe, Russia would be a mighty rival of thewestern powers in the division of the spoils. [357] For a generation after the death of Peter the Great, Russia fell intothe hands of incompetent rulers. It only appears again as a Europeanstate when the great Catherine II came to the throne in 1762. From thattime on, the western powers had always to consider the vast Slavicempire in all their great struggles. They had also to consider a newkingdom in northern Germany, which was just growing into a great poweras Peter began his work. This was Prussia, whose beginnings we must nowconsider. [Sidenote: Brandenburg and the Hohenzollerns. ] 199. The electorate of Brandenburg had figured on the map of Germany forcenturies, and there was no particular reason to suppose that it was tobecome one day the dominant state in Germany. At the time of the Councilof Constance the old line of electors had died out, and the impecuniousEmperor Sigismund had sold it to a hitherto inconspicuous house, theHohenzollerns, which is known to us now through such names as those ofFrederick the Great, William I, the first German emperor, and hisgrandson, the present emperor. Beginning with a strip of territoryextending some ninety or a hundred miles to the east and to the west ofthe little town of Berlin, the successive representatives of the linehave gradually extended their boundaries until the present kingdom ofPrussia embraces nearly two thirds of Germany. Of the earlier littleannexations nothing need be said. While it has always been the pride ofthe Hohenzollern family that practically every one of its reigningmembers has added something to what his ancestors handed down to him, nogreat extension took place until just before the Thirty Years' War. About that time the elector of Brandenburg inherited Cleves, and thusgot his first hold on the Rhine district. [Sidenote: Prussia acquired by the elector of Brandenburg. ] [Sidenote: The elector of Brandenburg assumes the title of King ofPrussia, 1701. ] What was quite as important, he won, far to the east, the duchy ofPrussia, which was separated from Brandenburg by Polish territory. Prussia was originally the name of a region on the Baltic inhabited byheathen Slavs. These had been conquered in the thirteenth century by oneof the orders of crusading knights, who, when the conquest of the HolyLand was abandoned, looked about for other occupation. The regionfilled up with German colonists, but it came under the sovereignty ofthe neighboring kingdom of Poland, whose king annexed the western halfof the territory of the Teutonic Order, as the German knights werecalled. [358] In Luther's day the Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights, who happened to be a relative of the electors of Brandenburg, concludedto abolish the order and become duke of Prussia. In good time his familydied out, and the duchy fell to the electors of Brandenburg. When one ofthem was permitted by the emperor, in the year 1701, to assume the titleof king, he chose to be called King of Prussia. [359] [Sidenote: The Great Elector, 1640-1688. ] Brandenburg accepted the Protestant religion before Luther's death, butplayed a pitiful part in the Thirty Years' War. Its real greatness datesfrom the Great Elector (1640-1688). In the treaties of Westphalia heacquired a goodly strip on the Baltic, and he succeeded in creating anabsolute monarchy on the model furnished by his contemporary, Louis XIV. He joined England and Holland in their alliances against Louis, and thearmy of Brandenburg began to be known and feared. [Sidenote: Frederick William I, 1713-1740. ] While it was reserved for Frederick the Great to stir Europe to itsdepths and establish the right of the new kingdom of Prussia to beconsidered one of the great European powers, he owed to his father, Frederick William I, the resources which made his victories possible. Frederick William strengthened the government and collected an armynearly as large as that maintained by France or Austria. He had, moreover, by miserly thrift and entire indifference to the amenities andluxuries of life, treasured up a large sum of money. ConsequentlyFrederick, upon his accession, had an admirable army ready for use andan ample supply of gold. [360] [Sidenote: The Hapsburgs in Austria. ] 200. Prussia's aspiration to become a great European power made itnecessary for her to extend her territory. This inevitably brought herinto rivalry with Austria. It will be remembered that Charles V, shortlyafter his accession, ceded to his brother, Ferdinand I, the German orAustrian possessions of the house of Hapsburg, while he himself retainedthe Spanish, Burgundian, and Italian dominions. Ferdinand, by afortunate marriage with the heiress of the kingdoms of Bohemia andHungary, greatly augmented his territory. Hungary was, however, almostcompletely occupied by the Turks at that time, and till the end of theseventeenth century the energies of the Austrian rulers were largelyabsorbed in a long struggle against the Mohammedans. [Sidenote: Conquests of the Turks in Europe. ] A Turkish tribe from western Asia had, at the opening of the fourteenthcentury, established themselves in western Asia Minor under their leaderOthman (d. 1326). It was from him that they derived their name ofOttoman Turks, to distinguish them from the Seljuk Turks, with whom thecrusaders had come into contact. The leaders of the Ottoman Turks showedgreat energy. They not only extended their Asiatic territory far towardthe east, and later into Africa, but they gained a footing in Europe asearly as 1353. They gradually conquered the Slavic peoples in Macedoniaand occupied the territory about Constantinople, although it was ahundred years before they succeeded in capturing the ancient capital ofthe Eastern Empire. [Sidenote: The defense of Europe against the Turks. ] This advance of the Turks naturally aroused grave apprehensions in thestates of western Europe lest they too might be deprived of theirindependence. The brunt of the defense against the common foe devolvedupon Venice and the German Hapsburgs, who carried on an almostcontinuous war with the Turks for nearly two centuries. As late as 1683the Mohammedans collected a large force and besieged Vienna, which mightvery well have fallen into their hands had it not been for the timelyassistance which the city received from the king of Poland. From thistime on, the power of the Turks in Europe rapidly decreased, and theHapsburgs were able to regain the whole territory of Hungary andTransylvania, their possession of which was formally recognized by theSultan in 1699. [Sidenote: The question of the Austrian succession. ] In 1740, a few months before the accession of Frederick II of Prussia, the emperor Charles VI, who was the last representative of the directline of the Hapsburgs, died. Foreseeing the difficulties which wouldarise at his death in regard to the inheritance of his possessions, hehad spent a great part of his life in trying to induce the Europeanpowers to promise that his daughter, Maria Theresa, should be recognizedas his successor. England, Holland, and even Prussia were ready to bidGodspeed to the new archduchess of Austria and queen of Hungary andBohemia, but France, Spain, and the neighboring Bavaria held back in thehope of gaining some portion of the scattered Austrian dominions forthemselves. The duke of Bavaria insisted that he was the rightful heirand managed to have himself elected emperor under the title of CharlesVII. [Sidenote: Accession of Frederick II of Prussia, called 'the Great, '1740-1786. ] [Sidenote: Frederick's attack upon Silesia. ] 201. In his early years Frederick II grieved and disgusted his boorishbut energetic old father by his dislike for military life and hisinterest in books and music. He was a particular admirer of the Frenchand preferred their language to his own. No sooner had he become king, however, than he suddenly developed marvelous energy and skill inwarlike enterprises. He realized that Prussia must widen its boundaries, and he saw no better way of accomplishing this than by robbing theseemingly defenseless Maria Theresa of Silesia, a strip of territorylying to the southeast of Brandenburg. He accordingly marched his armyinto the coveted district, and occupied the important city of Breslauwithout declaring war or offering any excuse except a vague claim to aportion of the land. [Sidenote: The War of the Austrian Succession. ] France, stimulated by Frederick's example, joined with Bavaria in theattack upon Maria Theresa. It seemed for a time as if her struggle tomaintain the integrity of her realm would be vain; but the loyalty ofall the various peoples under her scepter was roused by herextraordinary courage and energy. The French were driven back, but MariaTheresa was forced to grant Silesia to Frederick in order to induce himto retire from the war. Finally, England and Holland joined in analliance for maintaining the balance of power, for they had no desire tosee France annex the Austrian Netherlands. On the death of the emperorCharles VII (1745), Maria Theresa's husband, Francis, duke of Lorraine, was chosen emperor. A few years later (1748) all the powers, tired ofthe war, laid down their arms and agreed to what is called in diplomacythe _status quo ante bellum_, which simply means that things were to berestored to the condition in which they had been before the opening ofhostilities. [Sidenote: Frederick promotes the material development of Prussia. ] [Sidenote: Frederick and Voltaire. ] Frederick was, however, permitted to keep Silesia, which increased hisdominions by about one third of their former extent. He now turned hisattention to making his subjects happier and more prosperous, bydraining the swamps, promoting industry, and drawing up a new code oflaws. He found time, also, to gratify his interest in men of letters, and invited Voltaire, the most distinguished writer of the eighteenthcentury, to make his home at Berlin. It will not seem strange to any onewho knows anything of the character of these two men, that theyquarreled after two or three years, and that Voltaire left the Prussianking with very bitter feelings. [361] [Sidenote: The Seven Years' War. ] 202. Maria Theresa was by no means reconciled to the loss of Silesia, and she began to lay her plans for expelling the perfidious Frederickand regaining her lost territory. This led to one of the most importantwars in modern history, in which not only almost every European powerjoined, but which involved the whole world, from the Indian rajahs ofHindustan to the colonists of Virginia and New England. This SevenYears' War (1756-1763) will be considered in its broader aspects in thenext chapter. We note here only the part played in it by the king ofPrussia. [Sidenote: The alliance against Prussia. ] Maria Theresa's ambassador at Paris was so skillful in his negotiationswith the French court that in 1756 he induced it, in spite of its twohundred years of hostility to the house of Hapsburg, to enter into analliance with Austria against Prussia. Russia, Sweden, and Saxony alsoagreed to join in a concerted attack on Prussia. Their armies, coming asthey did from every point of the compass, threatened the completeannihilation of Austria's rival. It seemed as if the new kingdom ofPrussia might disappear altogether from the map of Europe. [Sidenote: Frederick's victorious defense. ] However, it was in this war that Frederick earned his title of "theGreat" and showed himself the equal of the ablest generals the world hasseen, from Alexander to Napoleon. Learning the object of the allies, hedid not wait for them to declare war against him, but occupied Saxony atonce and then moved on into Bohemia, where he nearly succeeded in takingthe capital, Prague. Here he was forced to retire, but in 1757 hedefeated the French and his German enemies in the most famous, perhaps, of his battles, at Rossbach. A month later he routed the Austrians atLeuthen, not far from Breslau. Thereupon the Swedes and Russians retiredfrom the field and left Frederick for the moment master of thesituation. [Sidenote: Frederick finally triumphs over Austria. ] England now engaged the French and left Frederick at liberty to dealwith his other enemies. While he exhibited marvelous military skill, hewas by no means able to gain all the battles in which he engaged. For atime, indeed, it looked as if he might after all be vanquished. But theaccession of a new Tsar, who was an ardent admirer of Frederick, ledRussia to conclude peace with Prussia, whereupon Maria Theresareluctantly agreed to give up once more her struggle with her inveterateenemy. [Sidenote: The kingdom of Poland and its defective constitution. ] Frederick was able during his reign greatly to strengthen his kingdom byadding to it the Polish regions which had hitherto divided hispossessions in Brandenburg from those which lay across the Vistula. Thekingdom of Poland, which in its declining years was to cause westernEurope much trouble, was shut in between Russia, Austria, and Prussia. The Slavic population of this region had come under an able ruler aboutthe year 1000, and the Polish kings had succeeded for a time inextending their power over a large portion of Russia, Moravia, and theBaltic regions. They had never been able, however, to establish asuccessful form of government. This was largely due to the fact that thekings were elected by the nobles, the crown not passing from father toson, as in the neighboring kingdoms. The elections were tumultuousaffairs, and foreigners were frequently chosen. Moreover, each noble hadthe right to veto any law proposed in the diet, and consequently asingle person might prevent the passage of even the most importantmeasure. The anarchy which prevailed in Poland had become proverbial. [Sidenote: The first partition of Poland, 1772. ] On the pretense that this disorderly country was a menace to theirwelfare, the neighboring powers, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, agreed toreduce the danger by each helping itself to a slice of the unfortunatekingdom. This amicable arrangement resulted in what is known as thefirst partition of Poland. It was succeeded by two others (1793 and1795), by the last of which this ancient state was wiped from the mapaltogether. [362] [Sidenote: Achievements of Frederick the Great. ] When Frederick died (1786) he left the state which had been intrusted tohim by his father nearly doubled in size. He had rendered it illustriousby his military glory, and had vastly increased its resources byimproving the condition of the people in the older portions of histerritory and by establishing German colonies in the desolate regions ofWest Prussia, which he strove in this way to bind closely to the rest ofthe kingdom. General Reading. --TUTTLE, _History of Prussia_ (4 vols. , Houghton, Mifflin & Co. , $8. 25). CARLYLE, _Frederick the Great_ (3 vols. , Chapman, $2. 25). LONGMAN, F. W. , _Frederick the Great_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, $1. 00). RAMBAUD, _History of Russia_ (2 vols. , Coryell & Co. , $2. 00). For Peter the Great and his Age, WALISZEWSKI, _Life of Peter the Great_ (D. Appleton & Co. , $2. 00). For the Seven Years' War and France, PERKINS, _France under Louis XV_ (2 vols. , Houghton, Mifflin & Co. , $4. 00). CHAPTER XXXIII THE EXPANSION OF ENGLAND 203. In the last chapter we reviewed the progress of affairs in easternEurope and noted the appearance of two new and important powers, Prussiaand Russia, which, together with Austria, were engaged during theeighteenth century in extending their bounds at the expense of theirweak neighbors, Poland and Turkey. [Sidenote: In the eighteenth century England lays the foundation of hercommercial greatness. ] In the west, England was rapidly becoming a dominant power. While shedid not play a very important part in the wars on the continent, she wasmaking herself mistress of the seas. At the close of the War of theSpanish Succession her navy was superior to that of any other Europeanpower, for both France and Holland had been greatly weakened by the longconflict. Fifty years after the Treaty of Utrecht, England had succeededin driving the French from both North America and India and in layingthe foundation of her vast colonial empire, which still gives her thecommercial supremacy among the European countries. [Sidenote: Questions settled by the accession of William and Mary. ] With the accession of William and Mary, England may be regarded ashaving practically settled the two great questions which had producedsuch serious dissensions during the previous fifty years. In the firstplace, the nation had clearly shown that it proposed to remainProtestant; and the relations between the Church of England and thedissenters were gradually being satisfactorily adjusted. In the secondplace, the powers of the king had been carefully defined, and from theopening of the eighteenth century to the present time no English monarchhas ventured to veto an act of Parliament. [363] [Sidenote: Queen Anne, 1702-1714. ] [Sidenote: The union of England and Scotland, 1707. ] William III was succeeded in 1702 by his sister-in-law, Anne, a youngerdaughter of James II. Far more important than the war which her generalscarried on against Spain was the final union of England and Scotland. Aswe have seen, the difficulties between the two countries had led to muchbloodshed and suffering ever since Edward I's futile attempt to conquerScotland. [364] The two countries had, it is true, been under the sameruler since the accession of James I, but each had maintained its ownindependent parliament and system of government. Finally, in 1707, bothnations agreed to unite their governments into one. Forty-five membersof the British House of Commons were to be chosen thereafter inScotland, and sixteen Scotch lords were to be added to the British Houseof Lords. In this way the whole island of Great Britain was placed undera single government, and the occasions for strife were thereby greatlyreduced. [Sidenote: Accession of George I (1714-1727), the first of the house ofHanover. ] Since none of Anne's children survived her, she was succeeded, accordingto an arrangement made before her accession, by the nearest Protestantheir. This was the son of James I's granddaughter Sophia. She hadmarried the elector of Hanover[365]; consequently the new king ofEngland, George I, was also elector of Hanover and a member of the HolyRoman Empire. [Sidenote: The king ceases to attend the meetings of the cabinet, whichcomes to be regarded as the real governing body. ] The new king was a German who could not speak English and was forced tocommunicate with his ministers in bad Latin. The king's leadingministers had come to form a little body by themselves, called the_cabinet_. As George could not understand the discussions he did notattend the meetings of his ministers, and thereby set an example whichhas been followed by his successors. In this way the cabinet came tohold its meetings and transact its business independently of the king. Before long it became a recognized principle in England that it was thecabinet that really governed rather than the king; and that its members, whether the king liked them or not, might retain their offices so longas they continued to enjoy the confidence and support of Parliament. James I (1603-1625) | +------------------+------------+ | | Charles I Elizabeth, m. Frederick V, (1625-1649) | Elector of the | | Palatinate | | (Winter King +--------+-------------------+ | of Bohemia) | | |Charles II (1) Anne Hyde, m. James II, m. (2) Mary of Sophia, m. Ernest(1660-1685) | (1685-1689) | Modena | Augustus, | | | Elector of +-------+-----+ | | Hanover | | | |William III, m. Mary Anne | |(1689-1702) (1689-1694) (1702-1714) | George I | (1714-1727) | | | George II James (the (1727-1760) Old Pretender) | | Frederick, | Prince of Wales Charles Edward (d. 1751) (the Young Pretender) | | George III (1760-1820) [Sidenote: England and the 'balance of power. '] 204. William of Orange had been a continental statesman before he becameking of England, and his chief aim had always been to prevent Francefrom becoming over-powerful. He had joined in the War of the SpanishSuccession in order to maintain the "balance of power" between thevarious European countries. [366] During the eighteenth century Englandcontinued, for the same reason, to engage in the struggles between thecontinental powers, although she had no expectation of attempting toextend her sway across the Channel. The wars which she waged in order toincrease her own power and territory were carried on in distant parts ofthe world, and more often on sea than on land. [Sidenote: Peace under Walpole as prime minister, 1721-1742. ] For a quarter of a century after the Treaty of Utrecht, England enjoyedpeace. [367] Under the influence of Walpole, who for twenty-one years wasthe head of the cabinet and the first to be called "prime minister, "peace was maintained within and without. Not only did Walpole avoidgoing to war with other countries, but he was careful to prevent theill-feeling at home from developing into civil strife. His principle wasto "let sleeping dogs lie"; so he strove to conciliate the dissentersand to pacify the Jacobites, [368] as those were called who still desiredto have the Stuarts return. [Sidenote: England in the War of the Austrian Succession. ] [Sidenote: 'Prince Charlie, ' the Young Pretender, in Scotland. ] When, in 1740, Frederick the Great and the French attacked MariaTheresa, England's sympathies were with the injured queen. As elector ofHanover, George II (who had succeeded his father in 1727), led an armyof German troops against the French and defeated them on the river Main. Frederick then declared war on England; and France sent the grandson ofJames II, [369] the Young Pretender, as he was called, with a fleet toinvade England. The attempt failed, for the fleet was dispersed by astorm. In 1745 the French defeated the English and Dutch forces in theNetherlands; this encouraged the Young Pretender to make another attemptto gain the English crown. He landed in Scotland, where he found supportamong the Highland chiefs, and even Edinburgh welcomed "PrinceCharlie. " He was able to collect an army of six thousand men, with whichhe marched into England. He was quickly forced back into Scotland, however, and after a disastrous defeat on Culloden Moor (1746) and manyromantic adventures, he was glad to reach France once more in safety. 205. Soon after the close of the War of the Austrian Succession in 1748, England entered upon a series of wars which were destined profoundly toaffect not only her position, but also the fate of distant portions ofthe globe. In order to follow these changes intelligently we mustbriefly review the steps by which the various European states hadextended their sway over regions separated from them by the ocean. [Sidenote: Colonial policy of Portugal, Spain, and Holland in thesixteenth and seventeenth centuries. ] The voyages which had brought America and India within the ken of Europeduring the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries were, as we know, mainly undertaken by the Portuguese and Spaniards. Portugal was thefirst to realize the advantage of extending her commerce by establishingstations in India and on the Brazilian coast of South America; thenSpain laid claim to Mexico, the West Indies, and a great part of SouthAmerica. These two powers found their first rival in the Dutch; for whenPhilip II was able to add Portugal to the realms of the Spanish monarchsfor a few decades (1580-1640), he immediately closed the port of Lisbonto the Dutch ships. Thereupon the United Provinces, whose merchantscould no longer procure the spices which the Portuguese brought from theEast, resolved to take possession of the source of supplies. Theyaccordingly expelled the Portuguese from a number of their settlementsin India and the Spice Islands and brought Java, Sumatra, and othertropical regions under Dutch control. [370] [Sidenote: Settlements of the French and English in North America. ] In North America the chief rivals were England and France, both of whichsucceeded in establishing colonies in the early part of the seventeenthcentury. Englishmen successively settled at Jamestown in Virginia(1607), then in New England, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. Thecolonies owed their growth to the influx of refugees, --Puritans, Catholics, and Quakers, --who exiled themselves in the hope of gainingthe right freely to enjoy their particular forms of religion. [371] Just as Jamestown was being founded by the English the French weremaking their first successful settlement in Nova Scotia and at Quebec. Although England made no attempt to oppose the French occupation ofCanada, it progressed but slowly. In 1673 Marquette, a Jesuitmissionary, and Joliet, a merchant, discovered the Mississippi River. LaSalle sailed down the great stream and named the new country which heentered Louisiana, after his king. The city of New Orleans was foundednear the mouth of the river in 1718, and the French established a chainof forts between it and Montreal. England was able, however, by the Treaty of Utrecht, to establishherself in the northern regions, for France thereby ceded to herNewfoundland, Nova Scotia, and the borders of Hudson Bay. While thenumber of English in North America at the beginning of the Seven Years'War is supposed to have been over a million, the French scarcelyexceeded a twentieth of that number. Yet careful observers at the timewere by no means sure that France was not destined to dominate the newcountry, rather than England. [Sidenote: Extent of India. ] The rivalry of England and France was not confined to the wildernessesof North America, occupied by half a million of savage red men. At theopening of the eighteenth century both countries had gained a footholdon the borders of the vast Indian empire, inhabited by two hundredmillions of people and the seat of an ancient and highly developedcivilization. One may gain some idea of the extent of India by layingthe map of Hindustan upon that of the United States. If the southernmostpoint, Cape Comorin, be placed over New Orleans, Calcutta will lienearly over New York City and Bombay in the neighborhood of Des Moines, Iowa. [Sidenote: The Mongolian emperors of Hindustan. ] A generation after Vasco da Gama landed in Calicut, [372] a Mongolianconqueror, Baber, [373] had established his empire in India. The dynastyof Mongolian rulers which he founded had been able to keep the wholecountry under its control for toward two centuries; then their empirehad fallen apart in much the same way as that of Charlemagne had done. Like the counts and dukes of the Carolingian period, the emperor'sofficials, the subahdars and nawabs (nabobs), and the rajahs--i. E. , Hindu princes temporarily subjugated by the Mongols--had gradually gotthe power in their respective districts into their own hands. Althoughthe emperor, or Great Mogul, as the English called him, continued tomaintain himself in his capital of Delhi, he could no longer be said torule the country at the opening of the eighteenth century when theFrench and English were seriously beginning to turn their attention tohis coasts. [Sidenote: English and French settlements in India. ] In the time of Charles I (1639), a village had been purchased by theEnglish East India Company on the southeastern coast of Hindustan, whichgrew into the important English station of Madras. About a generationlater the district of Bengal was occupied and Calcutta founded. Bombaywas already an English station. The Mongolian emperor of India at firstscarcely deigned to notice the presence of a few foreigners on thefringe of his vast realms. But before the end of the seventeenth centuryhostilities began between the English East India Company and the nativerulers which made it plain that the foreigners would be forced to defendthemselves. The English had not only to face the opposition of the natives, but thatof a European power as well. France also had an East India Company, andPondicherry, at the opening of the eighteenth century, was its chiefcenter with a population of sixty thousand, of which two hundred onlywere Europeans. It soon became apparent that there was little dangerfrom the Great Mogul; moreover, the Portuguese and Dutch were out of therace. So the native princes and the French and English were left tofight among themselves for the supremacy. [Sidenote: England victorious in the struggle for supremacy in America. ] 206. Just before the general clash of European rulers known as the SevenYears' War came in 1756, the French and English had begun their strugglefor control in both America and India. In America the so-called Frenchand Indian War began in 1754 between the English and French colonists. General Braddock was sent from England to capture Fort Duquesne, whichthe French had established to keep their rivals out of the Ohio valley. Braddock knew nothing of border warfare, and he was killed and histroops routed. Fortunately for England, France, as the ally of Austria, was soon engaged in a war with Prussia that prevented her from givingproper attention to her American possessions. A famous statesman, theelder Pitt, was now at the head of the English ministry. He was able notonly to succor the hard-pressed king of Prussia with money and men, butalso to support the militia of the thirteen American colonies. TheFrench forts at Ticonderoga and Niagara were taken in 1759. Quebec waswon in Wolfe's heroic attack, and the following year all Canadasubmitted to the English. England's supremacy on the sea wasdemonstrated by three admirals, each of whom destroyed a French fleet inthe same year that Quebec was lost to France. [Sidenote: Dupleix and Clive in India. ] In India conflicts between the French and the English had occurredduring the War of the Austrian Succession. The governor of the Frenchstation of Pondicherry was Dupleix, a soldier of great energy, whoproposed to drive out the English and firmly establish the power ofFrance over Hindustan. His chances of success were greatly increased bythe quarrels among the native rulers, some of whom belonged to theearlier Hindu inhabitants and some to the Mohammedan Mongolians who hadconquered India in 1526. Dupleix had very few French soldiers, but hebegan the enlistment of the natives, a custom eagerly adopted by theEnglish. These native soldiers, whom the English called Sepoys, weretaught to fight in the manner of Europeans. [374] [Sidenote: Clive defeats Dupleix. ] But the English colonists, in spite of the fact that they were mainlytraders, discovered among the clerks in Madras a leader equal inmilitary skill and energy to Dupleix himself. Robert Clive, who was buttwenty-five years old at this time, organized a large force of Sepoysand gained a remarkable ascendency over them by his astonishing bravery. Dupleix paid no attention to the fact that peace had been declared inEurope at Aix-la-Chapelle, but continued to carry on his operationsagainst the English. But Clive proved more than his equal and in twoyears had established English supremacy in the southeastern part ofIndia. [Sidenote: Clive renders English influence supreme in India. ] [Sidenote: The 'Black Hole' of Calcutta. ] [Sidenote: Battle of Plassey, 1757. ] At the moment that the Seven Years' War was beginning, bad news reachedClive from the English settlement of Calcutta, about a thousand miles tothe northeast of Madras. The subahdar of Bengal had seized the propertyof some English merchants and imprisoned one hundred and forty-fiveEnglishmen in a little room, where most of them died of suffocationbefore morning. Clive hastened to Bengal, and with a little army of ninehundred Europeans and fifteen hundred Sepoys he gained a great victoryat Plassey over the subahdar's army of fifty thousand men. Clive thenreplaced the subahdar of Bengal by a man whom he believed to be friendlyto the English. Before the Seven Years' War was over the English had wonPondicherry and deprived the French of all their former influence in theregion of Madras. [Sidenote: England's gains in the Seven Years' War. ] When the Seven Years' War was brought to an end in 1763 by the Treaty ofParis, it was clear that England had gained far more than any otherpower. She was to retain her two forts commanding the Mediterranean, Gibraltar, and Port Mahon on the island of Minorca; in America, Franceceded to her the vast region of Canada and Nova Scotia, as well asseveral of the islands in the West Indies. The region beyond theMississippi was ceded to Spain by France, who thus gave up all herclaims to North America. In India, France, it is true, received back thetowns which the English had taken from her, but she had permanently losther influence over the native rulers, for Clive had made the Englishname greatly feared among them. [Sidenote: Beginning of trouble with the American colonies. ] 207. England, with the help of her colonists, had thus succeeded indriving the French from North America and in securing the continent, with the exception of Mexico, for the English race. She was not, however, long to enjoy her victory, for no sooner had the Peace of Parisbeen signed than she and her American colonies became involved in adispute over taxation, which led to a new war and the creation of anindependent English-speaking nation, the United States of America. [Sidenote: The Stamp Act and its repeal. ] It seemed right to England that the colonies should help pay theexpenses of the late war, which were very heavy, and also support asmall standing army of English soldiers. Parliament therefore passed theStamp Act in 1765, which required the colonists to pay for stamps to beused on legal documents. The Americans declared that Parliament had noright to tax them, since they were not represented in that body. Theopposition to the stamp tax was so great that Parliament repealed theact, but with the explicit assertion that it nevertheless had the rightto tax the colonies as well as to make laws for them. [Sidenote: Opposition to 'taxation without representation. '] The effort to make the Americans pay a very moderate import duty on teaproduced further trouble in 1773. The young men of Boston seditiouslyboarded a tea ship in the harbor and threw the cargo into the water. Burke, perhaps the most able member of the House of Commons, urged theministry to leave the Americans to tax themselves, but George III(1760-1820) and Parliament as a whole could not forgive the coloniststheir opposition. They believed that the trouble was largely confined toNew England and could be easily overcome. In 1774 acts were passedprohibiting the landing and shipping of goods at Boston, and the colonyof Massachusetts was deprived of its former right to choose its judgesand the members of the upper house of its legislature. Theseappointments were now placed in the hands of the king. [Sidenote: The Continental Congress. ] [Sidenote: Outbreak of war. ] [Sidenote: Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. ] Such measures, instead of bringing Massachusetts to terms, so roused theapprehension of the rest of the colonists that a congress was summoned, and met at Philadelphia. This decided that all trade with Great Britainshould cease until the grievances of the colonies had been redressed. The following year the Americans made a brave stand against Britishtroops at Lexington and in the battle of Bunker Hill. The new Congressdecided to prepare for war and raised an army which was put under thecommand of George Washington, a Virginia planter who had gained somedistinction in the late French and Indian War. Up to this time thecolonies had not intended to secede from the mother country, but theproposed compromises came to nothing, and in July, 1776, Congressdeclared that "these United States are, and of right ought to be, freeand independent. " [Sidenote: The United States seeks and receives aid from France. ] This occurrence naturally excited great interest in France. The outcomeof the Seven Years' War had been most lamentable for that country, andany trouble which came to her old enemy England could not but be asource of congratulation to the French. The United States regardedFrance as her natural ally and immediately sent Benjamin Franklin toVersailles with the hope of obtaining the aid of the new French king, Louis XVI. The king's ministers were doubtful whether the colonies couldlong maintain their resistance against the overwhelming strength of themother country. It was only after the Americans had defeated Burgoyne atSaratoga in 1777, that France concluded a treaty with the United Statesin which the independence of the new republic was recognized. This wastantamount to declaring war upon England. The enthusiasm for theAmericans was so great in France that a number of the younger nobles, the most conspicuous of whom was Lafayette, crossed the Atlantic tofight in the American army. [375] [Sidenote: Close of the war, 1783. ] [Sidenote: England acknowledges the independence of the United States. ] In spite of the skill and heroic self-sacrifice of Washington, theAmericans lost more battles than they gained. It is extremely doubtfulif they would have succeeded in bringing the war to a favorable close, by forcing the English general, Cornwallis, to capitulate at Yorktown(1781), had it not been for the aid of the French fleet. Before the warwas terminated by the Peace of Paris (1783), Spain had joined in thehostilities, and the Spanish and French fleets laid siege to Gibraltar. Their floating batteries were finally destroyed by the red-hot shot ofthe British, and the enemies of England gave up further attempts todislodge her from this important station. The chief result of the warwas the recognition by England of the United States, whose territory wasto extend to the Mississippi River. To the west of the Mississippi, thevast territory of Louisiana still remained in the hands of Spain. [Sidenote: Results in Europe of wars between Treaty of Utrecht and Peaceof Paris. ] 208. The results of the European wars during the sixty years whichelapsed between the Treaty of Utrecht and the Peace of Paris may besummarized as follows. In the northeast two new powers, Russia andPrussia, had come into the European family of nations. Prussia hadgreatly extended her territory by gaining Silesia and West Poland. Sheand Austria were, in the nineteenth century, to engage in a struggle forsupremacy in Germany, which was to result in substituting the presentGerman empire under the headship of the Hohenzollerns for the Holy RomanEmpire, of which the house of Hapsburg had so long been the nominalchief. [Sidenote: Origin of the 'eastern question. '] The power of the Sultan was declining so rapidly that Austria and Russiawere already considering the seizure of his European possessions. Thispresented a new problem to the European powers, which came to be knownin the nineteenth century as the "eastern question. " Were Austria andRussia permitted to aggrandize themselves by adding the Turkishterritory to their possessions, it would gravely disturb the balance ofpower which England had so much at heart. So it came about that, fromthis time on, Turkey was admitted in a way to the family of westernEuropean nations, for it soon appeared that some of the states ofwestern Europe were willing to form alliances with the Sultan, and evenaid him directly in defending himself against his neighbors. [Sidenote: England's colonial possessions. ] England had lost her American colonies, and by her perverse policy hadled to the creation of a sister state speaking her own language anddestined to occupy the central part of the North American continent fromthe Atlantic to the Pacific. She still retained Canada, however, and inthe nineteenth century added a new continent in the southern hemisphere, Australia, to her vast colonial empire. In India she had no furtherrivals among European nations, and gradually extended her influence overthe whole region south of the Himalayas. In 1877 Queen Victoria wasproclaimed Empress of India as the successor of the Grand Mogul. [Sidenote: France under Louis XV, 1715-1774. ] As for France, she had played a rather pitiful rôle during the longreign of Louis XIV's great grandson, Louis XV (1715-1774). She had, however, been able to increase her territory by the addition ofLorraine (1766) and, in 1768, of the island of Corsica. A year later achild was born in the Corsican town of Ajaccio, who one day, by hisgenius, was to make France the center for a time of an empire rivalingthat of Charlemagne in extent. When the nineteenth century opened Francewas no longer a monarchy, but a republic; and her armies were to occupyin turn every European capital, from Madrid to Moscow. In order tounderstand the marvelous transformations produced by the FrenchRevolution and the wars of Napoleon, we must consider somewhat carefullythe conditions in France which led to a great reform of her institutionsin 1789, and to the founding of a republic four years later. General Reading. --For the French in America, PARKMAN, _The Pioneers of France in the New World_ (Little, Brown & Co. , $2. 00), also _A Half Century of Conflict_ (same publisher, 2 vols. , $6. 00). For India, MALLESON, _Clive_ (Oxford, University Press, 60 cents), and Macaulay's Essay on Clive. For the growth of the British Empire, H. DE B. GIBBINS, _History of Commerce in Europe_ (The Macmillan Company, 90 cents), and SEELEY, _The Expansion of England_ (Little, Brown & Co. , $1. 75). CHAPTER XXXIV THE EVE OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 209. When we meet the words "French Revolution, " they are pretty sure tocall up before our mind's eye the guillotine and its hundreds ofvictims, the storming of the Bastile, the Paris mob shouting theMarseillaise hymn as they parade the streets with heads of unfortunate"aristocrats" on their pikes. Every one knows something of this terribleepisode in French history. Indeed, it has made so deep an impression onposterity that we sometimes forget that the Reign of Terror was _not_the French Revolution. Mere disorder and bloodshed never helped mankindalong; and the Revolution must assuredly have produced some great andlasting alteration in France and in Europe to deserve to be ranked--asit properly is--with the Renaissance and the Protestant Revolt, as oneof the three most momentous changes of the last six hundred years. TheReign of Terror was, in fact, only a sequel to the _real_ Revolution. [Sidenote: The _Ancien Régime_. ] The French Revolution, in the truest sense of the term, was a great andpermanent reform, which did away with many absurd and vexatious laws andcustoms, and with abuses of which the whole nation was heartily tired, from the king down to the humblest peasant. Whenever a Frenchman, in theeighteenth century, seriously considered the condition of his country, most of the institutions in the midst of which he lived appeared to himto be _abuses_, contrary to reason and humanity. These viciousinstitutions, --relics of bygone times and outlived conditions, --whichthe Revolution destroyed forever, are known by the general name _AncienRégime_, that is, "the old system. " Whole volumes have been writtenabout the causes of the French Revolution. The real cause is, however, easily stated; the old system was bad, and almost every one, both highand low, had come to realize that it was bad, and consequently theFrench did away with it and substituted a modern and more rational orderfor the long-standing disorder. [Sidenote: France not a well-organized state in the eighteenth century. ] Of the evils which the Revolution abolished, none was more importantthan the confusion due to the fact that France was not in the eighteenthcentury a well-organized, homogeneous state whose citizens all enjoyedthe same rights and privileges. A long line of kings had patched ittogether, adding bit by bit as they could. By conquest and bargain, bymarrying heiresses, and through the extinction of the feudal dynasties, the original restricted domains of Hugh Capet about Paris and Orleanshad been gradually increased by his descendants until, when Louis XVIcame to the throne in 1774, he found himself ruler of practically thewhole territory which makes up France to-day. Some of the districts which the kings of France brought under theirsway, like Languedoc, Provence, Brittany, and Navarre, were considerablestates in themselves, each with its own laws, customs, and system ofgovernment. When these provinces had come, at different times, into thepossession of the king of France, he had not changed their laws so as tomake them correspond with those of his other domains. He was satisfiedif his new provinces paid their due share of the taxes and treated hisofficials with respect. In some cases the provinces retained their localassemblies, and controlled, to a certain extent, their own affairs. Theprovinces into which France was divided before the Revolution were not, therefore, merely artificial divisions created for the purposes ofadministrative convenience, like the modern French departments, [376] butrepresented real historical differences. [Sidenote: Various systems of law. ] While in a considerable portion of southern France the Roman law stillprevailed, in the central parts and in the west and north there were noless than two hundred and eighty-five different local codes of law inforce; so that one who moved from his own to a neighboring town mightfind a wholly unfamiliar legal system. [Illustration: The Provinces of France in the Eighteenth Century, showing Interior Customs Lines] [Sidenote: Interior customs lines. ] Neither was France commercially a single state. The chief customs dutieswere not collected upon goods as they entered French territory from aforeign country; for the customs lines lay within France itself, so thatthe central provinces about Paris were cut off from the outlying ones asfrom a foreign land. [377] A merchant of Bordeaux sending goods to Pariswould have to see that the duties were paid on them as they passed thecustoms line, and, conversely, a merchant of Paris would have to pay alike duty on commodities sent to places without the line. [Sidenote: Inequalities of taxation illustrated by the salt tax. ] The monstrous inequalities in levying one of the oldest and heaviest ofthe taxes, i. E. , the salt tax, still better illustrates the strangedisorder that existed in France in the eighteenth century. Thegovernment raised this tax by monopolizing the sale of salt and thencharging a high price for it. There would have been nothing remarkablein this had the same price been charged everywhere, but as it was, thepeople in one town might be forced to pay thirty times as much as theirneighbors in an adjacent district. The accompanying map shows how Francewas arbitrarily divided. To take a single example: at Dijon, a certainamount of salt cost seven francs; a few miles to the east, on enteringFranche-Comté, one had to pay, for the same amount, twenty-five francs;to the north, in Burgundy, fifty-eight francs; to the south, in theregion of the little salt tax, twenty-eight francs; while still fartheroff, in Gex, there was no tax whatever. The government had to go togreat expense to guard the boundary lines between the various districts, for there was every inducement to smugglers to carry salt from thoseparts of the country where it was cheap into the land of the great salttax. [Sidenote: The privileged classes. ] 210. Besides these unfortunate local differences, there were classdifferences which caused great discontent. All Frenchmen did not enjoythe same rights as citizens. Two small but very important classes, thenobility and the clergy, were treated differently by the state from therest of the people. They did not have to pay one of the heaviest of thetaxes, the notorious _taille_, and on one ground or another they escapedother burdens which the rest of the citizens bore. For instance, theywere not required to serve in the militia or help build the roads. [Illustration: Map showing the Amount paid in the Eighteenth Century forSalt in Various Parts of France[378]] [Sidenote: The Church. ] We have seen how great and powerful the mediæval Church was. In France, as in other Catholic countries of Europe, it still retained in theeighteenth century a considerable part of the power that it hadpossessed in the thirteenth, and it still performed important publicfunctions. It took charge of education and of the relief of the sick andthe poor. It was very wealthy and is supposed to have owned one fifth ofall the land in France. The clergy still claimed, as Boniface VIII haddone, that their property, being dedicated to God, was not subject totaxation. They consented, however, to help the king from time to time bya "free gift, " as they called it. The church still collected the tithesfrom the people, and its vast possessions made it very independent. Those who did not call themselves Roman Catholics were excluded fromsome of the most important rights of citizenship. Since the revocationof the Edict of Nantes no Protestant could be legally married or havethe births of his children registered, or make a legal will. [Sidenote: The clergy. ] A great part of the enormous income of the church went into the pocketsof the higher clergy, the bishops, archbishops, and abbots. These wereappointed by the king, [379] often from among his courtiers, and theypaid but little attention to their duties as officers of the church andwere generally nothing but "great lords with a hundred thousand francsincome. " While they amused themselves at Versailles, the real work wasperformed--and well performed--by the lower clergy, who often receivedscarcely enough to keep soul and body together. We shall see that, whenthe Revolution began, the parish priests sided with the people insteadof with their ecclesiastical superiors. [380] [Sidenote: The privileges of the nobility. ] The privileges of the nobles, like those of the clergy, had originatedin the mediæval conditions described in an earlier chapter. [381] Adetailed study of their rights would reveal many survivals of theconditions which prevailed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, whenthe great majority of the people were serfs living upon the manors. While serfdom had largely disappeared in France long before theeighteenth century, and the peasants were generally free men who ownedor rented their land, the lords still enjoyed the right to collect avariety of time-honored dues from the inhabitants living within thelimits of the former manors. The privileges and dues enjoyed by the nobles varied greatly indifferent parts of France. It was quite common for the noble landownerto have a right to a certain portion of the peasants' crops;occasionally he could collect a toll on sheep and cattle driven past hishouse. In some cases the lord maintained, as he had done in the MiddleAges, the only mill, wine press, or oven within a certain district, andcould require every one to make use of these and pay him a share of theproduct. Even when a peasant owned his land, the neighboring lordusually had the right to exact one fifth of its value every time it wassold. The nobles, too, enjoyed the aristocratic privilege of the hunt. The game which they preserved for their amusement often did great damageto the crops of the peasants, who were forbidden to interfere withhares, deer, pigeons, etc. All these privileges were vestiges of the powers which the nobles hadenjoyed when they ruled their estates as feudal lords. Louis XIV had, aswe know, induced them to leave their domains and gather round him atVersailles, where all who could afford it lived for at least part of theyear. The higher offices in the army were reserved for the nobles, aswell as the easiest and most lucrative places in the church and aboutthe king's person. [382] [Sidenote: The third estate. ] 211. Everybody who did not belong to either the clergy or nobility wasregarded as being of the _third estate_. The third estate was thereforenothing more than the nation at large, which was made up in 1789 ofabout twenty-five million souls. The privileged classes can scarcelyhave counted altogether more than two hundred and seventy thousandindividuals. A great part of the third estate lived in the country andtilled the soil. Most historians have been inclined to make out theircondition as very bad indeed. They were certainly oppressed by anabominable system of taxation and were irritated by the dues which theyhad to pay to the lords. They also suffered frequently from localfamines. Yet there is no doubt that the evils of their situation havebeen greatly exaggerated. When Thomas Jefferson traveled through Francein 1787 he reports that the country people appeared to be comfortableand that they had plenty to eat. Arthur Young, a famous English travelerwho has left us an admirable account of his journeys in France duringthe years 1787-1789, found much prosperity and contentment, although hegives, too, some forlorn pictures of destitution. [Sidenote: Favorable situation of the peasant in France compared withother countries. ] [Sidenote: Rapid increase of population in the eighteenth century. ] The latter have often been unduly emphasized by historical writers; forit has commonly been thought that the Revolution was to be explained bythe misery and despair of the people who could tolerate the old systemno longer. If, however, instead of comparing the situation of the Frenchpeasant under the old régime with that of an English or American farmerto-day, we contrast his position with that of his fellow-peasant inPrussia, Austria, or Italy, it will be clear that in France theagricultural classes were really much better off than elsewhere on thecontinent. In Prussia, for example, the peasants were still serfs: theyhad to work three whole days in each week for their lord; they could notmarry or dispose of their land without his permission. Moreover, thefact that the population of France had steadily increased from seventeenmillion after the close of the wars of Louis XIV to about twenty-fivemillion at the opening of the Revolution, indicates that the generalcondition of the people was improving rather than growing worse. [Sidenote: Popular discontent, not the exceptionally miserablecondition of the French people, accounts for the Revolution. ] The real reason why France was the first among the European countries tocarry out a great reform and do away with the irritating survivals offeudalism was not that the nation was miserable and oppressed above allothers, but that it was sufficiently free and enlightened to realize theevils and absurdities of the old régime. Mere oppression and misery doesnot account for a revolution, there must also be active _discontent_;and of that there was a great abundance in France, as we shall see. TheFrench peasant no longer looked up to his lord as his ruler andprotector, but viewed him as a sort of legalized robber who demanded ashare of his precious harvest, whose officers awaited the farmer at thecrossing of the river to claim a toll, who would not let him sell hisproduce when he wished, or permit him to protect his fields from theravages of the pigeons which it pleased the lord to keep. [383] [Sidenote: France still a despotism in the eighteenth century. ] 212. In the eighteenth century France was still the despotism that LouisXIV had made it. [384] Louis XVI once described it very well in thefollowing words: "The sovereign authority resides exclusively in myperson. To me solely belongs the power of making the laws, and withoutdependence or coöperation. The entire public order emanates from me, andI am its supreme protector. My people are one with me. The rights andinterests of the nation are necessarily identical with mine and restsolely in my hands. " In short, the king still ruled "by the grace ofGod, " as Louis XIV had done. He needed to render account to no man forhis governmental acts; he was responsible to God alone. The followingillustrations will make clear the dangerous extent of the king's power. [Sidenote: The king's control of the government funds. ] In the first place, it was he who levied each year the heaviest of thetaxes, the hated _taille_, from which the privileged classes wereexempted. This tax brought in about one sixth of the whole revenue ofthe state. The amount collected was kept secret, and no report was madeto the nation of what was done with it or with any other part of theking's income. Indeed, no distinction was made between the king'sprivate funds and the state treasury, whereas in England the monarch wasgiven a stated allowance. The king of France could issue as many draftspayable to bearer as he wished; the royal officials must pay all suchorders and ask no questions. Louis XV is said to have spent no less thanseventy million dollars in this fashion in a single year. [Sidenote: _Lettres de cachet. _] But the king not only controlled his subjects' purses; he had a terribleauthority over their persons as well. He could issue orders for thearrest and arbitrary imprisonment of any one he pleased. Without trialor formality of any sort, a person might be cast into a dungeon for anindefinite period, until the king happened to remember him again or wasreminded of him by the poor man's friends. These notorious orders ofarrest were called _lettres de cachet_, i. E. , sealed letters. They werenot difficult to obtain for any one who had influence with the king orhis favorites, and they furnished a particularly easy and efficaciousway of disposing of an enemy. These arbitrary orders lead one toappreciate the importance of the provision of Magna Carta whichestablishes that "no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned except by thelawful sentence of his peers and in accordance with the law of theland. " Some of the most distinguished men of the time were shut up bythe king's order, often on account of books or pamphlets written by themwhich displeased the king or those about him. The distinguishedstatesman, Mirabeau, was imprisoned several times through _lettres decachet_ obtained by his father as a means of checking his recklessdissipation. [385] [Sidenote: Limitations placed upon the power of the French king. ] 213. Yet, notwithstanding the seemingly unlimited powers of the Frenchking, and in spite of the fact that France had no written constitutionand no legislative body to which the nation sent representatives, themonarch was by no means absolutely free to do just as he pleased. He hadnot the time nor inclination to carry on personally the government oftwenty-five million subjects, and he necessarily and willingly left muchof the work to his ministers and the numerous public officials, who werebound to obey the laws and regulations established for their control andguidance. [Sidenote: The _parlements_ and their protests. ] Next to the king's council the most important governmental bodies werethe higher courts of law, the _parlements_. These resembled the EnglishParliament in almost nothing but name. The French _parlements_--of whichthe most important one was at Paris and a dozen more were scatteredabout the provinces--did not, however, confine themselves strictly tothe business of trying lawsuits. They claimed, and quite properly, thatwhen the king decided to make a new law he must send it to them to beregistered, else they would have no means of knowing just what the lawwas of which they were to be the guardians. Now, although theyacknowledged that the right to make the laws belonged to the monarch, they nevertheless often sent a "protest" to the king instead ofregistering a law of which they disapproved. They would urge that theministers had abused His Majesty's confidence. They would see, too, thattheir protest was printed and sold on the streets at a penny or two acopy, so that people should get the idea that the _parlement_ wasdefending the nation against the oppressive measures of the king'sministers. When the king received one of these protests two alternatives were opento him. He might recall the distasteful decree altogether or modify itso as to suit the court; or he could summon the _parlement_ before himand in a solemn session (called a _lit de justice_) command it with hisown mouth to register the law in its books. The _parlement_ would thenreluctantly obey, but as the Revolution approached it began to claimthat a decree registered against its will was not valid. [Sidenote: The _parlements_ help to prepare the way for theRevolution. ] Struggles between the _parlements_ and the ministers were very frequentin the eighteenth century. They prepared the way for the Revolution, first, by bringing important questions to the attention of the people;for there were no newspapers and no parliamentary or congressionaldebates to enable the public to understand the policy of the government. Secondly, the _parlements_ not only frankly criticised the proposedmeasures of the king and his ministers, but they familiarized the nationwith the idea that the king was not really at liberty to alter what theycalled "the fundamental laws" of the state. By this they meant thatthere was an unwritten constitution, of which they were the guardiansand which limited the king's power. In this way they promoted thegrowing discontent with a government which was carried on in secret, andwhich left the nation at the mercy of the men in whom the king might forthe moment repose confidence. [Sidenote: Public opinion. ] It is a great mistake to suppose that public opinion did not exercise apowerful check upon the king, even under the autocratic old régime. Itwas, as one of Louis XVI's ministers declared, "an invisible powerwhich, without treasury, guards, or an army, ruled Paris and thecourt, --yes, the very palace of the king. " The latter half of theeighteenth century was a period of outspoken and acrid criticism of thewhole existing social and governmental system. Reformers, among whommany of the king's ministers were counted, loudly and eloquentlydiscussed the numerous abuses and the vicious character of thegovernment, which gradually came to seem just as bad to the people ofthat day as it would to us now. [Sidenote: Discussion of public questions. ] Although there were no daily newspapers to discuss public questions, large numbers of pamphlets were written and circulated by individualswhenever there was an important crisis, and they answered much the samepurpose as the editorials in a modern newspaper. These pamphlets and thebooks of the time sometimes treated the government, the clergy, or theCatholic religion, with such open contempt, that the king, the clergy, or the courts felt it necessary to prevent their circulation. The_parlement_ of Paris now and then ordered some offensive writing to beburned by the common hangman. Several distinguished writers were evenimprisoned for expressing themselves too freely, and some booksellersand printers banished. But the attempted suppression of free discussionseemed an outrage to the more thoughtful among the public, and ratherpromoted than prevented the consideration of the weaknesses of thechurch and of the king's government. [Illustration: Voltaire] [Sidenote: Voltaire, 1694-1778. ] 214. By far the most conspicuous and important reformer of theeighteenth century was Voltaire (1694-1778), who was born twenty yearsbefore Louis XIV died, and yet lived to see Louis XVI mount the throne. "When the right sense of historical proportion is more fully developedin men's minds, the name of Voltaire will stand out like the names ofthe great decisive movements in the European advance, like the Revivalof Learning or the Reformation. The existence, character, and career ofthis extraordinary person constituted in themselves a new and prodigiousera" (Morley). To understand Voltaire and the secret of his fame wouldbe to understand France before the Revolution. His mission was to exaltand popularize reason; and since a great part of the institutions of hisday were not based upon reason, but upon mere tradition, and wereutterly opposed to common sense, "the touch of reason was fatal to thewhole structure, which instantly began to crumble. " [Sidenote: Voltaire's wide influence and popularity. ] Voltaire had little respect for the past which had bequeathed to Franceher disorderly government and, above all, her church. His keen eye wascontinually discovering some new absurdity in the existing order, which, with incomparable wit and literary skill, he would expose to his eagerreaders. He was interested in almost everything; he wrote histories, dramas, philosophic treatises, romances, epics, and innumerable lettersto his innumerable admirers. He was a sort of intellectual arbiter ofEurope, such as Petrarch and Erasmus had been. The vast range of hiswritings enabled him to bring his bold questionings to the attention ofall sorts and conditions of men, --not only to the general reader, buteven to the careless playgoer. [Sidenote: Voltaire's attack upon the church. ] While Voltaire was successfully inculcating free criticism in general, he led in a relentless attack upon the most venerable, probably the mostpowerful, institution in France, the Roman Catholic church. The absolutepower of the king did not greatly trouble him, but the church, with, ashe deemed, its deep-seated opposition to a free exercise of reason andits hostility to reform, seemed to him fatally to block all humanprogress. He was wont to close his letters with the exhortation, "Crushthe infamous thing. " The church, as it fully realized, had neverencountered a more deadly enemy. Not only was Voltaire supremelyskillful in his varied methods of attack, but there were thousands ofboth the thoughtful and the thoughtless ready to applaud him; for manyhad reached the same conclusions, although they might not be able toexpress their thoughts so persuasively as he. Voltaire repudiated thebeliefs of the Protestant churches as well as of the Roman church. Hewas, however, no atheist, as his enemies--and they have been many andbitter--have so often asserted. He believed in God, and at his countryhome near Geneva he dedicated a temple to Him. Like many of hiscontemporaries he was a deist, and held that God had revealed Himself innature and in our hearts, not in Bible or church. Were there space at command a great many good things and plenty of badones might be told of this extraordinary man. He was often superficialin his judgments, and sometimes jumped to unwarranted conclusions. Hesaw only the evil in the church, and seemed incapable of understandingall that it had done for mankind during the bygone ages. He maliciouslyattributed to evil motives teachings which were accepted by the best andloftiest of men. He bitterly ridiculed even the holiest and purestaspirations, along with the alleged deceptions of the Jesuits and thequarrels of the theologians. He could, however, fight bravely againstwrong and oppression. [386] The abuses against which he fought were inlarge part abolished by the Revolution. It is extremely unfair to noticeonly his mistakes and exaggerations, as many writers, both Catholic andProtestant, have done, for he certainly did more than any one else toprepare the way for the great and permanent reform of the church, as apolitical and social institution, in 1789-1790. [Sidenote: Rousseau, 1712-1778. ] Next to Voltaire the writer who did most to cultivate discontent wasJean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). His famous little treatise, _TheSocial Contract_, takes up the great question, By what right does oneman rule over others? The book opens with the words: "Man is born freeand yet is now everywhere in chains. One man believes himself the masterof others and yet is after all more of a slave than they. How did thischange come about? I do not know. What can render it legitimate? Ibelieve that I can answer that question. " It is, Rousseau declares, thewill of the people that renders government legitimate. The realsovereign is the people. Although they may appoint a single person, aking, to manage the government for them, they should make the laws, since it is they who must obey them. We shall find that the first Frenchconstitution accepts Rousseau's doctrine and defines law as "theexpression of the general will, "--not the will of a king reigning by thegrace of God. [Sidenote: Montesquieu. ] Montesquieu, the most profound of the political writers of theeighteenth century, did his part in opening the eyes of thoughtfulFrenchmen to the disadvantages of their government by his eulogy of thelimited monarchy of England. He pointed out that the freedom whichEnglishmen enjoyed was due to the fact that the three powers ofgovernment--legislative, executive, and judicial--were not as in Francein the same hands. Parliament made the laws, the king executed them, andthe courts, independent of both, saw that they were observed. Hebelieved that the English would lose their liberties so soon as thesepowers fell under the control of one person or body of persons. Thisprinciple of "the separation of powers" is now recognized in many moderngovernments, notably in that of the United States. [Sidenote: The new science of political economy. ] 215. About the middle of the eighteenth century the science of politicaleconomy was born. Scholars began to investigate far more thoroughly thanever before the sources and distribution of the wealth of the nation. The unjust system of taxation, which tended to exempt the richer classesfrom their just share of the public burdens; the wasteful and irritatingmethods of collecting the taxes; the interior customs lines, preventingthe easy passage of goods from one part of France to another; theextravagance of the king's household; the pensions granted toundeserving persons; every evil of the bungling, iniquitous old régimewas brought under the scrutiny of the new thinkers, who tested theexisting system by the light of reason and the welfare of the great massof the people. [Sidenote: Economists argue against government restrictions on trade andmanufacture. ] The economists wrote treatises on taxation, scattered pamphlets about, and conducted a magazine or two. They not only brought the existingeconomic evils home to the intelligent reader, but suggested remediesfor them. The French government had been in the habit of regulating well-nigheverything. In order that the goods that were produced in France mightfind a ready sale abroad, the government fixed the quality and width ofthe cloth which might be manufactured and the character of the dyeswhich should be used. [387] The king's ministers kept a constant eye uponthe dealers in grain and breadstuffs, forbidding the storing up of theseproducts or their sale outside a market. In this way they had hoped toprevent speculators from accumulating grain in times of scarcity inorder to sell it at a high rate. It was now pointed out that these government restrictions produced somevery bad results. They failed to prevent famine, and in the case ofindustry they discouraged new inventions and the adoption of bettermethods. The economists claimed that it would be far better to leave themanufacturer to carry on his business in his own way. They urged theking to adopt the motto, _laissez faire_, "Let things alone, " if hewould see his realms prosper. [388] [Accession of Louis XVI. ] 216. In 1774 the old king, Louis XV, died after a long and disgracefulreign. His unsuccessful wars had brought France to the verge ofbankruptcy, and his ministers had been unable to meet the obligations ofthe government. The taxes were already so oppressive as to arouse greatdiscontent, and yet the government was running behind seventy milliondollars a year. His grandson and successor, Louis XVI (1774-1793), was ayoung man of excellent intentions. He was only twenty, and his wife, the beautiful Marie Antoinette, daughter of Maria Theresa, was stillyounger. The new king almost immediately summoned Turgot, the ablest ofthe economists, and placed him in the most important of the governmentoffices, that of controller general. [Sidenote: Turgot controller general, 1774-1776. ] Turgot was an experienced government official as well as a scholar. Forthirteen years he had been the king's representative in Limoges, one ofthe least prosperous portions of France. There he had had ampleopportunity to see the vices of the prevailing system of taxation. Hehad made every effort to induce the government to better its methods, and had tried to familiarize the people with the principles of politicaleconomy. Consequently, when he was put in charge of the nation'sfinances, it seemed as if he and the conscientious young king might findsome remedy for the long-standing abuses. [Sidenote: Turgot advocates economy. ] The first and most natural measure was economy, for only in that waycould the government be saved from bankruptcy, and the burden oftaxation be lightened. Turgot felt that the vast amount spent inmaintaining the luxury of the royal court at Versailles should bereduced. The establishments of the king, the queen, and the princes ofthe blood royal cost the state annually toward twelve million dollars. Then the French king had long been accustomed to grant "pensions" in areckless manner to his courtiers, and this required nearly twelvemillion dollars more. Any attempt, however, to reduce this amount wouldarouse the immediate opposition of the courtiers, and it was thecourtiers who really governed France. They had every opportunity toinfluence the king's mind against a man whose economies they disliked. They were constantly about the monarch from the moment when he awoke inthe morning until he went to bed at night; therefore they had an obviousadvantage over the controller general, who only saw him in businesshours. [389] Although the privileged class so stoutly opposed Turgot's reforms thathe did not succeed in abolishing the abuses himself, [390] he did a greatdeal to forward their destruction not many years after his retirement. Immediately after coming into power he removed a great part of therestrictions on the grain trade. He prefaced the edict with a very frankdenunciation of the government's traditional policy of preventingpersons from buying and selling their grain when and where they wished. He showed that this did not obviate famines, as the government hopedthat it might, and that it caused great loss and hardship. If thegovernment would only let matters alone the grain would always go tothose provinces where it was most needed, for there it would bring thebest price. Turgot seized this and every similar opportunity to impressimportant economic truths upon the minds of the people. [391] [Sidenote: Turgot's position. ] An Italian economist, when he heard of Turgot's appointment, wrote to afriend in France as follows: "So Turgot is controller general! He willnot remain in office long enough to carry out his plans. He will punishsome scoundrels; he will bluster about and lose his temper; he will beanxious to do good, but will run against obstacles and rogues at everyturn. Public credit will fall; he will be detested; it will be said thathe is not fitted for his task. Enthusiasm will cool; he will retire orbe sent off, and we shall have a new proof of the mistake of filling aposition like his in a monarchy like yours with an upright man and aphilosopher. " [Sidenote: Turgot dismissed, May 1776. ] The Italian could not have made a more accurate statement of the casehad he waited until after the dismissal of Turgot, which took place inMay, 1776, much to the satisfaction of the court. The king, althoughupright and well-intentioned, was not fond of the governmental dutiesto which Turgot was always calling his attention. It was much theeasiest way to let things go along in the old way; for reforms not onlyrequired much extra work, but they also forced him to refuse thecustomary favors to those around him. The discontent of his young queenor of an intimate companion outweighed the woes of the distant peasant. [Sidenote: Necker succeeds Turgot. ] [Sidenote: Necker's financial report. ] 217. Necker, who after a brief interval succeeded Turgot, contributed tothe progress of the coming revolution in two ways. He borrowed vast sumsof money in order to carry on the war which France, as the ally of theUnited States, had undertaken against England. This greatly embarrassedthe treasury later and helped to produce the financial crisis which wasthe immediate cause of the Revolution. Secondly, he gave the nation itsfirst opportunity of learning what was done with the public funds, bypresenting to the king (February, 1781) a _report_ on the financialcondition of the kingdom; this was publicly printed and eagerly read. There the people could see for the first time how much the _taille_ andthe salt tax actually took from them, and how much the king spent onhimself and his favorites. [392] [Sidenote: Calonne, controller general, 1783-1787. ] [Sidenote: Calonne informs the king that France is on the verge ofbankruptcy, August, 1786. ] Necker was soon followed by Calonne, who may be said to haveprecipitated the momentous reform which constitutes the FrenchRevolution. He was very popular at first with king and courtiers, for hespent the public funds far more recklessly than his predecessors. But, naturally, he soon found himself in a position where he could obtain nomore money. The _parlements_ would consent to no more loans in a periodof peace, and the taxes were as high as it was deemed possible to makethem. At last Calonne, finding himself desperately put to it, informedthe astonished king that the state was on the verge of bankruptcy andthat in order to save it a radical reformation of the whole public orderwas necessary. This report of Calonne's may be taken as the beginningof the French Revolution, for it was the first of the series of eventsthat led to the calling of a representative assembly which abolished theold régime and gave France a written constitution. General Reading. --For general conditions in France before the Revolution, LOWELL, _Eve of the French Revolution_ (Houghton, Mifflin & Co. , $2. 00). MACLEHOSE, _The Last Days of the French Monarchy_ (The Macmillan Company, $2. 25). DE TOCQUEVILLE, _State of Society in France before the Revolution of 1789_ (John Murray, $3. 00), a very remarkable work. TAINE, _The Ancient Régime_ (Henry Holt & Co. , $2. 50) contains excellent chapters on the life at the king's court and upon the literature of the period. ARTHUR YOUNG, _Travels in France in 1787-1789_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 00), very interesting and valuable. For Turgot's reforms, STEPHENS, _Life and Writings of Turgot_ (Longmans, Green & Co. , $4. 50), containing translations from Turgot's writings. MONTESQUIEU, _The Spirit of Laws_ (The Macmillan Company, 2 vols. , $2. 00). ROUSSEAU, _The Social Contract_ (G. P. Putnam's Sons, $1. 25, or Charles Scribner's Sons, $1. 00). _Translations and Reprints, _ Vol. VI, No. 1, gives short extracts from some of the most noted writers of the eighteenth century. In Vol. V, No. 2, of the same series, may be found a "Protest of the Cour des Aides, " one of the higher courts of France, issued in 1775, which casts a great deal of light upon the evils of the old régime. John Morley has written a number of works upon France before the Revolution: _Voltaire, Rousseau_, 2 vols. , _Diderot and the Encyclopædists_, 2 vols. (The Macmillan Company, $1. 50 a volume). CHAPTER XXXV THE FRENCH REVOLUTION [Sidenote: Reforms proposed by Calonne. ] 218. It was necessary, in order to avoid ruin, Calonne claimed, "toreform everything vicious in the state. " He proposed, therefore, toreduce the _taille_, reform the salt tax, do away with the interiorcustoms lines, correct the abuses of the guilds, etc. But the chiefreform, and by far the most difficult one, was to force the privilegedclasses to surrender their important exemptions from taxation. He hoped, however, that if certain concessions were made to them they might bebrought to consent to a land tax to be paid by all alike. So he proposedto the king that he should summon an assembly of persons prominent inchurch and state, called _Notables_, to ratify certain changes whichwould increase the prosperity of the country and give the treasury moneyenough to meet the necessary expenses. [Sidenote: Summoning of the Notables, 1786. ] The summoning of the Notables in 1786 was really a revolution in itself. It was a confession on the part of the king that he found himself in apredicament from which he could not escape without the aid of hispeople. The Notables whom he selected--bishops, archbishops, dukes, judges, high government officials--were practically all members of theprivileged classes; but they still represented the nation, after afashion, as distinguished from the king's immediate circle of courtiers. At any rate it proved an easy step from calling the Notables tosummoning the ancient Estates General, and that, in its turn, speedilybecame a modern representative body. [Sidenote: Calonne denounces the abuses. ] In his opening address Calonne gave the Notables an idea of the sadfinancial condition of the country. The government was running behindsome forty million dollars a year. He could not continue to borrow, andeconomy, however strict, would not suffice to cover the deficit. "What, then, " he asked, "remains to fill this frightful void and enable us toraise the revenue to the desired level? _The Abuses!_ Yes, gentlemen, the abuses offer a source of wealth which the state should appropriate, and which should serve to reëstablish order in the finances.... Theabuses which must now be destroyed for the welfare of the people are themost important and the best guarded of all, the very ones which have thedeepest roots and the most spreading branches. For example, those whichweigh on the laboring classes, the pecuniary privileges, exceptions tothe law which should be common to all, and many an unjust exemptionwhich can only relieve certain taxpayers by embittering the condition ofothers; the general want of uniformity in the assessment of the taxesand the enormous difference which exists between the contributions ofdifferent provinces and of the subjects of the same sovereign; theseverity and arbitrariness in the collection of the _taille_; theapprehensions, embarrassment, almost dishonor, associated with the tradein breadstuffs; the interior custom-houses and barriers which make thevarious parts of the kingdom like foreign countries to one another... , "--all these evils, which public-spirited citizens had longdeprecated, Calonne proposed to do away with forthwith. [Sidenote: Calonne and the Notables dismissed. ] The Notables, however, had no confidence in Calonne, and refused toratify his programme of reform. The king then dismissed him and soonsent them home, too (May, 1787). Louis XVI then attempted to carrythrough some of the more pressing financial reforms in the usual way bysending them to the _parlements_ to be registered. [Sidenote: The _parlement_ of Paris refuses to register new taxes andcalls for the Estates General. ] 219. The _parlement_ of Paris resolved, as usual, to make the king'sministry trouble and gain popularity for itself. This time it resortedto a truly extraordinary measure. It not only refused to register twonew taxes which the king desired, but asserted that "_Only the nationassembled in the Estates General can give the consent necessary to theestablishment of a permanent tax_. " "Only the nation, " the _parlement_continued, "after it has learned the true state of the finances candestroy the great abuses and open up important resources. " Thisdeclaration was followed in a few days by the humble request that theking assemble the Estates General of his kingdom. The refusal of the _parlement_ to register the new taxes led to one ofthe old struggles between it and the king's ministers. A compromise wasarranged in the autumn of 1787; the _parlement_ agreed to register agreat loan, and the king pledged himself to assemble the Estates Generalwithin five years. In the early months of 1788 many pamphlets appeared, criticising the system of taxation and the unjust privileges andexemptions enjoyed by a few of the citizens to the detriment of thegreat mass of the nation. [Sidenote: The _parlement_ of Paris protests against the 'reform' of thejudicial system. ] Suddenly the _parlement_ of Paris learned that the king's ministers wereplanning to put an end to its troublesome habit of opposing theirmeasures. The ministers proposed to remodel the whole judicial systemand take from the courts the right to register new decrees andconsequently the right to protest. This the _parlement_ loudlyproclaimed was in reality a blow at the nation itself. The ministerswere attacking the court simply because it had acknowledged its lack ofpower to grant new taxes and had requested the king to assemble therepresentatives of the nation. The ministers, it claimed, were bent uponestablishing an out-and-out despotism in which there should no longer beany check whatever on the arbitrary power of the king. [Sidenote: Protests from the provinces. ] Some of the provinces became very apprehensive when they learned thatthe king proposed to take from the local _parlements_ the right toexamine edicts before registering them. Might not the tyrannicallyinclined ministers proceed to make new laws for the whole realm andignore the special privileges which the king had pledged himself tomaintain when Brittany, Dauphiny, Bearn, and other important provinceswere originally added to France? The cause of the _parlements_ became inthis way the cause of the people. [Sidenote: The Estates General summoned. ] Meanwhile the ministers were becoming very hard pressed for funds tomeet the regular expenses of the government. The _parlements_ had notonly refused to register taxes but had done everything that they couldto embarrass the ministers and destroy the confidence of those who mightotherwise have lent money to the government. There seemed no otherresort except to call the representatives of the people together. TheEstates General were accordingly summoned to meet on May 1, 1789. [Sidenote: General ignorance in regard to the Estates General. ] [Sidenote: The old system of voting by classes in the Estates General. ] 220. It was now discovered that no one knew much about this body ofwhich every one was talking, for it had not met since 1614. The kingaccordingly issued a general invitation to scholars to find out all theycould about the customs observed in the former meetings of the Estates. The public naturally became very much interested in a matter whichtouched them so closely, and there were plenty of readers for thepamphlets which now began to appear in greater numbers than ever before. The old Estates General had been organized in a way appropriate enoughto the feudal conditions under which they originated. [393] All three ofthe estates of the realm--clergy, nobility, and third estate--each sentan equal number of representatives, who were expected to consider notthe interests of the nation but the special interests of the particularsocial class to which they respectively belonged. Accordingly, thedeputies of the three estates did not sit together, or vote as a singlebody. The members of each group first came to an agreement amongthemselves and then a single vote was cast for the whole order. [Sidenote: Objections to this system. ] It was natural that this system should seem preposterous to the averageFrenchman in 1788. If the estates should be convoked according to theancient forms, the two privileged classes would be entitled to twice thenumber of representatives allotted to the other twenty-five millioninhabitants of France. What was much worse, it seemed impossible thatany important reforms could be adopted in an assembly where those whohad every selfish reason for opposing the most necessary changes weregiven two votes out of three. Necker, whom the king had recalled in thehope that he might succeed in adjusting the finances, agreed that thethird estate might have as many deputies as both the other orders puttogether, namely six hundred, but he would not consent to having thethree orders sit and vote together like a modern representative body. [Sidenote: The _cahiers_. ] Besides the great question as to whether the deputies should vote byhead or by order, the pamphlets discussed what reforms the Estatesshould undertake. [394] We have, however, a still more interesting andimportant expression of public opinion in France at this time, in the_cahiers_, [395] or lists of grievances and suggestions for reform which, in pursuance of an old custom, the king asked the nation to prepare. Each village and town throughout France had an opportunity to tell quitefrankly exactly what it suffered from the existing system, and whatreforms it wished that the Estates General might bring about. These_cahiers_[396] were the "last will and testament" of the old régime, andthey constitute a unique historical document, of unparalleledcompleteness and authenticity. No one can read the _cahiers_ withoutseeing that the whole nation was ready for the great transformationwhich within a year was to destroy a great part of the social andpolitical system under which the French had lived for centuries. [Sidenote: Desire of the nation for a constitutional, instead of anabsolute, monarchy. ] Almost all the _cahiers_ agreed that the prevailing disorder and thevast and ill-defined powers of the king and his ministers were perhapsthe fundamental evils. One of the _cahiers_ says: "Since arbitrary powerhas been the source of all the evils which afflict the state, our firstdesire is the establishment of a really national constitution, whichshall define the rights of all and provide the laws to maintain them. "No one dreamed at this time of displacing the king or of taking thegovernment out of his hands. The people only wished to change anabsolute monarchy into a limited, or constitutional, one. All that wasnecessary was that the things which the government might _not_ do shouldbe solemnly and irrevocably determined and put upon record, and that theEstates General should meet periodically to grant the taxes, give theking advice in national crises, and expostulate, if necessary, againstany violations of the proposed charter of liberties. [397] [Sidenote: The Estates General meet May 5, 1789. ] [Sidenote: The representatives of the third estate declare themselves a'National Assembly. '] 221. With these ideas in mind, the Estates assembled in Versailles andheld their first session on May 5, 1789. The king had ordered thedeputies to wear the same costumes that had been worn at the lastmeeting of the Estates in 1614; but no royal edict could call back thespirit of earlier centuries. In spite of the king's commands therepresentatives of the third estate refused to organize themselves inthe old way as a separate order. They sent invitation after invitationto the deputies of the clergy and nobility, requesting them to join thepeople's representatives and deliberate in common on the great interestsof the nation. Some of the more liberal of the nobles--Lafayette, forexample--and a large minority of the clergy wished to meet with thedeputies of the third estate. But they were outvoted, and the deputiesof the third estate, losing patience, finally declared themselves, onJune 17, a "National Assembly. " They argued that, since theyrepresented at least ninety-six per cent of the nation, the deputies ofthe privileged orders might be neglected altogether. This usurpation ofpower on the part of the third estate transformed the old feudalEstates, voting by orders, into the first modern national representativeassembly on the continent of Europe. [Sidenote: The 'Tennis-Court' oath. ] Under the influence of his courtiers the king tried to restore the oldsystem by arranging a solemn joint session of the three orders, at whichhe presided in person. He presented a long programme of excellentreforms, and then bade the Estates sit apart, according to the oldcustom. But it was like bidding water to run up hill. Three days before, when the commons had found themselves excluded from their regular placeof meeting on account of the preparations for the royal session, theyhad betaken themselves to a neighboring building called the "TennisCourt. " Here, on June 20, they took the famous "Tennis-Court" oath, "tocome together wherever circumstances may dictate, until the constitutionof the kingdom shall be established. " They were emboldened in theirpurpose to resist all schemes to frustrate a general reform by thesupport of over half of the deputies of the clergy, who joined them theday before the royal session. [Sidenote: The nobility and clergy forced to join the third estate. ] Consequently, when the king finished his address and commanded the threeorders to disperse immediately in order to resume their separatesessions, most of the bishops, some of the parish priests, and a greatpart of the nobility obeyed; the rest sat still, uncertain what theyshould do. When the master of ceremonies ordered them to comply with theking's commands, Mirabeau, the most distinguished statesman among thedeputies, told him bluntly that they would not leave their places exceptat the point of the bayonet. The weak king almost immediately gave inand a few days later ordered all the deputies of the privileged orderswho had not already done so to join the commons. [Sidenote: The fall of the Bastille, July 14, 1789. ] 222. The National Assembly now began in earnest the great task ofpreparing a constitution and regenerating France. It was sooninterrupted, however, by events at Paris. The king had been advised bythose about him to gather together the Swiss and German troops whoformed the royal guard, so that if he decided to send the insolentdeputies home he would be able to put down any disorder which mightresult. He was also induced to dismiss Necker, who enjoyed a popularitythat he had done little to merit. When the people of Paris saw thetroops gathering and when they heard of the dismissal of Necker, therewas general excitement and some disorder. [Illustration: Mirabeau] On July 14 crowds of people assembled, determined to procure arms toprotect themselves and mayhap to perform some daring "deed ofpatriotism. " One of the bands, led by the old Parisian guards, turned tothe ancient fortress of the Bastile, on the parapets of which guns hadbeen mounted which made the inhabitants of that part of the city verynervous. The castle had long had a bad reputation as a place ofconfinement for prisoners of state and for those imprisoned by _lettresde cachet_. When the mob demanded admission, it was naturally deniedthem, and they were fired upon and nearly a hundred were killed. After abrief, courageous attack the place was surrendered, and the mob rushedinto the gloomy pile. They found only seven prisoners, but one poorfellow had lost his wits and another had no idea why he had been keptthere for years. The captives were freed amidst great enthusiasm, andthe people soon set to work to demolish the walls. [Sidenote: Formation of the 'national guard. '] The actual occurrences of this celebrated day were soon "disfigured andtransfigured by legends, " and the anniversary of the fall of the Bastileis still celebrated as the great national holiday of France. [398] Therising of the people to protect themselves against the machinations ofthe king's associates who, it was believed, wished to block reform, andthe successful attack on a monument of ancient tyranny appeared to bethe opening of a new era of freedom. The disorders of these July daysled to the formation of the "national guard. " This was made up ofvolunteers from among the more prosperous citizens, who organizedthemselves to maintain order and so took from the king every excuse forcalling in the regular troops for that purpose. Lafayette was put incommand of this body. [Sidenote: Establishment of communes in Paris and other cities. ] The government of Paris was reorganized, and a mayor, chosen from amongthe members of the National Assembly, was put at the head of the new_commune_, as the municipal government was called. The other cities ofFrance also began with one accord, after the dismissal of Necker and thefall of the Bastile, to promote the Revolution by displacing orsupplementing their old royal or aristocratic governments by committeesof their citizens. These improvised communes, or city governments, established national guards, as Paris had done, and thus maintainedorder. The news that the king had approved the Paris revolutionconfirmed the opinion that the citizens of other cities had done rightin taking the control into their own hands. We shall hear a good deal ofthe commune of Paris later, as it played a very important rôle in theReign of Terror. [Sidenote: Disorder in the country districts. ] By the end of the month of July the commotion reached the countrydistricts. A curious panic swept over the land, which the peasants longremembered as "the great fear. " A mysterious rumor arose that the"brigands" were coming! The terrified people did what they could toprepare for the danger; neighboring communities combined with oneanother for mutual protection. When the panic was over and people sawthat there were no brigands after all, they turned their attention to anenemy by no means imaginary, i. E. , the old régime. The peasantsassembled on the village common or in the parish church and voted to paythe feudal dues no longer. The next step was to burn the castles of thenobles in order to destroy the records of the peasants' obligations totheir feudal lords. [399] [Sidenote: The decree abolishing the survivals of serfdom and feudalism, August, 1789. ] 223. About the first of August news began to reach the National Assemblyof the serious disorders in the provinces. This led to the firstimportant reforms of the Assembly. A momentous decree abolishing thesurvivals of serfdom and feudalism was passed in a night session (August4-5) amid great excitement, the representatives of the privileged ordersvying with each other in surrendering their ancient privileges. Theexclusive right of the nobility to hunt and to maintain pigeon houseswas abolished, and the peasant was permitted to kill game which he foundon his land. The president of the Assembly was "commissioned to ask theking to recall those persons who had been sent to the galleys or exiledsimply for the violation of the hunting regulations. " The tithes of thechurch were done away with. Exemptions from the payment of taxes wereabolished forever. It was decreed that "taxes shall be collected fromall citizens and from all property in the same manner and in the sameform, " and that "all citizens, without distinction of birth, areeligible to any office or dignity. " Moreover, inasmuch as a nationalconstitution would be of more advantage to the provinces than theprivileges which some of these enjoyed, and, --so the decreecontinues, --"inasmuch as the surrender of such privileges is essentialto the intimate union of all parts of the realm, it is decreed that allthe peculiar privileges, pecuniary or otherwise, of the provinces, principalities, districts, cantons, cities and communes, are once forall abolished and are absorbed into the law common to allFrenchmen. "[400] [Illustration: FRANCE IN DEPARTMENTS] [Sidenote: Unification of France through the abolition of the ancientprovinces and the creation of the present departments. ] This decree established the equality and uniformity for which the Frenchpeople had sighed so long. The injustice of the former system oftaxation could never be reintroduced. All France was to have the samelaws, and its citizens were henceforth to be treated in the same way bythe state, whether they lived in Brittany or Dauphiny. The Assembly soonwent a step farther in consolidating and unifying France. It wiped outthe old provinces altogether, by dividing the whole country intodistricts of convenient size, called _departments_. These were much morenumerous than the ancient divisions, and were named after rivers andmountains. This obliterated from the map all reminiscences of the feudaldisunion. [Sidenote: The Declaration of the Rights of Man. ] 224. Many of the _cahiers_ had suggested that the Estates should draw upa clear statement of the rights of the individual citizen. It was urgedthat the recurrence of abuses and the insidious encroachments ofdespotism might in this way be forever prevented. The National Assemblyconsequently determined to prepare such a declaration in order togratify and reassure the people and to form a basis for the newconstitution. This Declaration (completed August 26) is one of the most notabledocuments in the history of Europe. It not only aroused generalenthusiasm when it was first published, but it appeared over and overagain, in a modified form, in the succeeding French constitutions downto 1848, and has been the model for similar declarations in many of theother continental states. It was a dignified repudiation of the abusesdescribed in the preceding chapter. Behind each article there was somecrying evil of long standing against which the people wished to beforever protected. [Sidenote: Contents of the Declaration. ] The Declaration sets forth that "Men are born and remain equal inrights. Social distinctions can only be founded upon the general good. ""Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right toparticipate, personally or through his representative, in its formation. It must be the same for all. " "No person shall be accused, arrested, orimprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed bylaw. " "No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, includinghis religious views, provided that their manifestation does not disturbthe public order established by law. " "The free communication of ideasand opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Everycitizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, beingresponsible, however, for such abuses of this freedom as shall bedefined by law. " "All citizens have a right to decide, either personallyor by their representative, as to the necessity of the publiccontribution, to grant this freely, to know to what uses it is put, andto fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection, and theduration of the taxes. " "Society has the right to require of everypublic agent an account of his administration. " Well might the Assemblyclaim, in its address to the people, that "the rights of man had beenmisconceived and insulted for centuries, " and boast that they were"reëstablished for all humanity in this declaration, which shall serveas an everlasting war cry against oppressors. " [Illustration: Louis XVI] [Sidenote: Suspicion aroused against the court. ] 225. The king hesitated to ratify the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and about the first of October rumors became current that, under theinfluence of the courtiers, he was calling together troops and preparingfor another attempt to put an end to the Revolution, similar to thatwhich the attack on the Bastile had frustrated. It was said that thenew national colors--red, white, and blue--had been insulted at abanquet at Versailles. These things, along with the scarcity of food dueto the poor crops of the year, aroused the excitable Paris populace. [Sidenote: A Paris mob invades the king's palace and carries him off toParis. ] On October 5 several thousand women and a number of armed men marchedout to Versailles to ask bread of the king, in whom they had greatconfidence personally, however suspicious they might be of his friendsand advisers. Lafayette marched after the mob with the national guard, but did not prevent some of the rabble from invading the king's palacethe next morning and nearly murdering the queen, who had become veryunpopular. She was believed to be still an Austrian at heart and to bein league with the counter-revolutionary party. The mob declared that the king must accompany them to Paris, and he wasobliged to consent. Far from being disloyal, they assumed that thepresence of the royal family would insure plenty and prosperity. So theygayly escorted the "baker and the baker's wife and the baker's boy, " asthey jocularly termed the king and queen and the little dauphin, to thePalace of the Tuilleries, where the king took up his residence, practically a prisoner, as it proved. The National Assembly soonfollowed him and resumed its sittings in a riding school near theTuilleries. This transfer of the king and the Assembly to the capital was the firstgreat misfortune of the Revolution. At a serious crisis the governmentwas placed at the mercy of the leaders of the disorderly elements ofParis. We shall see how the municipal council of Paris finally usurpedthe powers of the national government. [401] [Sidenote: Unjust apportionment of the revenue of the church. ] 226. As we have seen, the church in France was very rich and retainedmany of its mediæval prerogatives and privileges. Its higher officials, the bishops and abbots, received very large revenues and often a singleprelate held a number of rich benefices, the duties of which he utterlyneglected. The parish priests, on the other hand, who really performedthe manifold and important functions of the church, were scarcely ableto live on their incomes. This unjust apportionment of the vast revenueof the church naturally suggested the idea that, if the stateconfiscated the ecclesiastical possessions, it could see that those whodid the work were properly paid for it, and might, at the same time, secure a handsome sum which would help the government out of itsfinancial troubles. Those who sympathized with Voltaire's views werenaturally delighted to see their old enemy deprived of its independenceand made subservient to the state, and even many good Catholics couldnot but hope that the new system would be an improvement upon the old. [Sidenote: The property of the church confiscated by the government. ] The tithes had been abolished in August along with the feudal dues. Thatdeprived the church of perhaps thirty million dollars a year. OnNovember 2 a decree was passed providing that "All the ecclesiasticalpossessions are at the disposal of the nation on condition that itprovides properly for the expenses of maintaining religious services, for the support of those who conduct them and for the succor of thepoor. " This decree deprived the bishops and priests of their beneficesand made them dependent on salaries paid by the state. The monks, monasteries, and convents, too, lost their property. [Sidenote: The _assignats_, or paper currency. ] The National Assembly resolved to issue a paper currency for which thenewly acquired lands should serve as security. Of these _assignats_, asthis paper money was called, we hear a great deal during therevolutionary period. They soon began to depreciate, and ultimately agreat part of the forty billions of francs issued during the next sevenyears was repudiated. [Sidenote: The Civil Constitution of the Clergy. ] The Assembly set to work completely to reorganize the church. Theanxiety for simplification and complete uniformity shows itself in thereckless way that it dealt with this most venerable institution ofFrance, the customs of which were hallowed not only by age, but byreligious veneration. The one hundred and thirty-four ancientbishoprics, some of which dated back to the Roman Empire, were replacedby the eighty-three new departments into which France had already beendivided. [402] Each of these became the diocese of a bishop, who waslooked upon as an officer of the state and was to be elected by thepeople. The priests, too, were to be chosen by the people, and theirsalaries were much increased, so that even in the smallest villages theyreceived over twice the minimum amount paid under the old régime. This Civil Constitution of the Clergy[403] was the first serious mistakeon the part of the National Assembly. While the half-feudalized churchhad sadly needed reform, the worst abuses might have been remediedwithout shocking and alienating thousands of those who had hithertoenthusiastically applauded the great reforms which the Assembly hadeffected. The king gave his assent to the changes, but with the feelingthat he might be losing his soul by so doing. From that time on, hebecame at heart an enemy of the Revolution. [Sidenote: Harsh treatment of the 'non-juring' clergy. ] The discontent with the new system on the part of the clergy led toanother serious error on the part of the Assembly. It required theclergy to take an oath to be faithful to the law and "to maintain withall their might the constitution decreed by the assembly. " Only six ofthe bishops consented to this and but a third of the lower clergy, although they were much better off under the new system. Forty-sixthousand parish priests refused to sacrifice their religious scruples, and before long the pope forbade them to take the required oath to theConstitution. As time went on, the "non-juring" clergy were dealt withmore and more harshly by the government, and the way was prepared forthe horrors of the Reign of Terror. The Revolution ceased to stand forliberty, order, and the abolition of ancient abuses, and came to mean, in the minds of many besides those who had lost their former privileges, irreligion, violence, and a new kind of oppression worse than the old. General Reading. --There are a great many histories of the French Revolution. The best and most modern account is STEPHENS, _The French Revolution_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, 3 vols. , $2. 50 each). SHAILER MATHEWS, _The French Revolution_ (Longmans, Green & Co. , $1. 25), is an excellent short account. See also the brief but admirable chapters in ROSE, _The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 25). CARLYLE'S famous _French Revolution_ is hardly a history but rather a series of vivid pictures, valuable only to those who already have some knowledge of the course of events. For Mirabeau see WILLERT, _Mirabeau_ (The Macmillan Company, 75 cents). CHAPTER XXXVI THE FIRST FRENCH REPUBLIC [Sidenote: The permanent reforms of 1789. ] 227. We have now studied the progress and nature of the revolution whichdestroyed the old régime and created modern France. Through it theunjust privileges, the perplexing irregularities, and the localdifferences were abolished, and the people admitted to a share in thegovernment. This vast reform had been accomplished without seriousdisturbance and, with the exception of some of the changes in thechurch, it had been welcomed with enthusiasm by the French nation. [Sidenote: The second revolution. ] This permanent, peaceful revolution, or reformation, was followed by asecond revolution of unprecedented violence, which for a time destroyedthe French monarchy. It also introduced a series of further changes manyof which were absurd and unnecessary and could not endure since theywere approved by only a few fanatical leaders. France, moreover, becameinvolved in a war with most of the powers of western Europe. Theweakness of her government which permitted the forces of disorder andfanaticism to prevail, combined with the imminent danger of an invasionby the united powers of Europe, produced the Reign of Terror. After aperiod of national excitement and disorder, France gladly accepted therule of a foreigner, who proved himself far more despotic than itsformer kings had been. Napoleon did not, however, undo the great work of1789; his colossal ambition was, indeed, the means of extending, directly or indirectly, many of the benefits of the Revolution to otherparts of western Europe. When, after Napoleon's fall, the brother ofLouis XVI came to the throne, the first thing that he did was solemnlyto assure the people that all the great gains of the first revolutionshould be maintained. [Sidenote: The emigration of the nobles. ] 228. While practically the whole of the nation heartily rejoiced in theearlier reforms introduced by the National Assembly and celebrated thegeneral satisfaction and harmony by a great national festival held atParis on the first anniversary of the fall of the Bastile, some of thehigher nobility refused to remain in France. The king's youngestbrother, the count of Artois, set the example by leaving the country. Hewas followed by others who were terrified or disgusted by the burning ofthe châteaux, the loss of their privileges, and the unwise abolition ofhereditary nobility by the National Assembly in June, 1790. Before longthese emigrant nobles (_émigrés_), among whom were many militaryofficers, organized a little army across the Rhine, and the count ofArtois began to plan an invasion of France. He was ready to ally himselfwith Austria, Prussia, or any other foreign government which he couldinduce to help undo the Revolution and give back to the French king hisformer absolute power and to the nobles their old privileges. [Sidenote: The conduct of the emigrant nobles discredits the king andqueen. ] The threats and insolence of the emigrant nobles and their shamefulnegotiations with foreign powers discredited the members of their classwho still remained in France. The people suspected that the plans of therunaways met with the secret approval of the king, and more especiallyof the queen, whose brother was now emperor and ruler of the Austriandominions. This, added to the opposition of the non-juring clergy, produced a bitter hostility between the so-called "patriots" and thosewho, on the other hand, were supposed to be secretly hoping for acounter revolution which would reëstablish the old régime. [Sidenote: The flight to Varennes, June 21, 1791. ] The worst fears of the people appeared to be justified by the secretflight of the royal family from Paris, in June, 1791. Ever since theking had reluctantly signed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, flight had seemed to him his only resource. There was a body of regulartroops on the northeastern boundary; if he could escape from Paris andjoin them he hoped that, aided by a demonstration on the part of thequeen's brother, he might march back and check the further progress ofthe revolutionary movement with which he could no longer sympathize. Hehad, it is true, no liking for the emigrants and heartily disapproved oftheir policy, nor did he believe that the old régime could ever berestored. But, unfortunately, his plans led him to attempt to reach theboundary just at that point where the emigrants were collected. He andthe queen were, however, arrested on the way, at Varennes, and speedilybrought back to Paris. [Sidenote: Effect of the king's flight. ] The desertion of the king appears to have terrified rather than angeredthe nation. The grief of the people at the thought of losing, and theirjoy at regaining, a poor weak ruler like Louis XVI clearly shows thatFrance was still profoundly royalist in its sympathies. The NationalAssembly pretended that the king had not fled, but that he had beencarried off. This gratified France at large; still in Paris there weresome who advocated the deposition of the king, and for the first time a_republican_ party appeared, though it was still small. [Sidenote: The constitution completed, 1791. ] The National Assembly at last put the finishing touches to the newconstitution upon which it had been working for two years, and the kingreadily swore to observe it faithfully. A general amnesty was thenproclaimed. All the discord and suspicion of the past months were to beforgotten. The National Assembly had completed its appointed task, perhaps the greatest that a single body of men ever undertook. It hadmade France over and had given her an elaborate constitution. It was nowready to give way to the regular Legislative Assembly provided for inthe constitution. This held its first session October 1, 1791. [404] [Sidenote: Sources of danger at the opening of the LegislativeAssembly, October, 1791. ] 229. In spite of the great achievements of the National Assembly it leftFrance in a critical situation. Besides the emigrant nobles abroad, there were the non-juring clergy at home, and a king who was secretlycorresponding with foreign powers with the hope of securing their aid. When the news of the arrest of the king and queen at Varennes reachedthe ears of Marie Antoinette's brother, the Austrian ruler, Leopold II, he declared that the violent arrest of the king sealed with unlawfulnessall that had been done in France and "compromised directly the honor ofall the sovereigns and the security of every government. " He thereforeproposed to the rulers of Russia, England, Prussia, Spain, Naples, andSardinia that they should come to some understanding between themselvesas to how they might "reëstablish the liberty and honor of the mostChristian king and his family, and place a check upon the dangerousexcesses of the French Revolution, the fatal example of which itbehooves every government to repress. " [Sidenote: The Declaration of Pillnitz, August 27, 1791. ] On August 27 Leopold had issued, in conjunction with the king ofPrussia, the famous Declaration of Pillnitz. In this the two sovereignsstate that, in accordance with the wishes of the king's brothers (theleaders of the emigrant nobles), they are ready to join the otherEuropean rulers in an attempt to place the king of France in a positionto establish a form of government "that shall be once more in harmonywith the rights of sovereigns and shall promote the welfare of theFrench nation. " In the meantime they promised to prepare their troopsfor active service. [Sidenote: Effect of the Declaration. ] The Declaration was little more than an empty threat; but it seemed tothe French people a sufficient proof that the monarchs were ready tohelp the seditious French nobles to reëstablish the old régime againstthe wishes of the nation and at the cost of infinite bloodshed. The ideaof foreign rulers intermeddling with their internal affairs would initself have been intolerable to a proud people like the French, even ifthe permanence of the new reforms had not been endangered. Had it beenthe object of the allied monarchs to hasten instead of to prevent thedeposition of Louis XVI, they could hardly have chosen a more efficientmeans than the Declaration of Pillnitz. [Sidenote: The newspapers. ] 230. The political excitement and the enthusiasm for the Revolution werekept up by the newspapers which had been established, especially inParis, since the meeting of the Estates General. The people did not needlonger to rely upon an occasional pamphlet, as was the case before 1789. Many journals of the most divergent kinds and representing the mostdiverse opinions were published. Some were no more than a periodicaleditorial written by one man; for example, the notorious "Friend of thePeople, " by the insane Marat. Others, like the famous "Moniteur, " weremuch like our papers of to-day and contained news, reports of thedebates in the assembly, announcements of theaters, etc. Some of thepapers were illustrated, and the representations of contemporaneousevents, especially the numerous caricatures, are highly diverting. [Illustration: Caricature representing Louis XVI as a ConstitutionalMonarch[405]] [Sidenote: The Jacobins. ] Of the numerous political clubs, by far the most famous was that of the_Jacobins_. When the Assembly moved into Paris, some of the provincialrepresentatives of the third estate rented a large room in themonastery of the Jacobin monks, not far from the building where theNational Assembly itself met. A hundred deputies perhaps were present atthe first meeting. The next day the number had doubled. The aim of thissociety was to discuss questions which were about to come before theNational Assembly. The club decided beforehand what should be the policyof its members and how they should vote; and in this way theysuccessfully combined to counteract the schemes of the aristocraticparty in the assembly. The club rapidly grew and soon admitted some whowere not deputies to its sessions. In October, 1791, it decided topermit the public to attend its discussions. Gradually similar societies were formed in the provinces. [406] Theseaffiliated themselves with the "mother" society at Paris and kept inconstant communication with it. In this way the Jacobins of Parisstimulated and controlled public opinion throughout France, and kept theopponents of the old régime alert. When the Legislative Assembly met, the Jacobins had not as yet become republicans, but they believed thatthe king should have hardly more power than the president of a republic. They were even ready to promote his deposition if he failed to stand bythe Revolution. [Sidenote: The emigrant nobles declared traitors. ] 231. The growing discord in the nation was increased by the severeedicts that the Legislative Assembly directed against the emigrantnobles and the non-juring clergy. "The Frenchmen assembled on thefrontier" were declared under suspicion of conspiring against theircountry. If they did not return to France by January 1, 1792, they wereto be regarded as convicted traitors, to be punished, if caught, withdeath; their property was to be confiscated. [Sidenote: Harsh measures of the Assembly toward non-juring clergy. ] The harsh treatment of the emigrant nobles was perhaps justified bytheir desertion and treasonable intrigues; but the conduct of theAssembly toward the clergy was both unstatesmanlike and iniquitous. Those who had refused to take the oath to support a system which was inconflict with their religious convictions and which had been condemnedby the pope, were commanded to do so within a week on penalty of losingtheir income from the state and being put under surveillance assuspects. As this failed to bring the clergy to terms, the Assemblylater (May, 1792) ordered the deportation from the country of those whosteadily persisted in their refusal to accept the Civil Constitution ofthe Clergy. In this way the Assembly aroused the active hostility of agreat part of the most conscientious among the lower clergy, who hadloyally supported the commons in their fight against the privilegedorders. It also lost the confidence of the great mass of faithfulCatholics, --merchants, artisans, and peasants, --who had gladly acceptedthe abolition of the old abuses, but who would not consent to deserttheir religious leaders. [Sidenote: The Legislative Assembly precipitate a war with Europe. ] 232. By far the most important act of the Legislative Assembly duringthe one year of its existence was its precipitation of a war betweenFrance and Austria. It little dreamed that this was the beginning of awar between revolutionary France and the rest of western Europe, whichwas to last, with slight interruptions, for over twenty years. To many of the leaders in the Assembly it seemed that the existingconditions were intolerable. The emigrant nobles were forming littlearmies on the boundaries of France and had, as we have seen, inducedAustria and Prussia to consider interfering in French affairs. TheAssembly suspected that Louis was negotiating with foreign rulers andwould be glad to have them intervene and reëstablish him in his olddespotic power. The deputies argued, therefore, that a war against thehated Austria would unite the sympathies of the nation and force theking to show his true character; for he would be obliged either tobecome the nation's leader or show himself the traitor they suspectedhim to be. [Sidenote: France declares war upon Austria, April, 1792. ] [Sidenote: The king suspected and his life threatened. ] It was with a heavy heart that the king, urged on by the clamors of theAssembly, declared war upon Austria in April, 1792. The unpopularity ofthe king only increased, however. He refused to ratify certain popularmeasures of the Assembly and dismissed the ministers who had been forcedupon him. In June a mob of Parisians invaded the Palace of theTuilleries, and the king might have been killed had he not consented todon the "cap of liberty, " the badge of the "citizen patriots. " [Sidenote: Growth of republican feeling. ] When France declared war, Prussia immediately allied itself withAustria. Both powers collected their forces and, to the great joy of theemigrant nobles, who joined them, prepared to march upon France. Theearly attempts of the French to get a footing in the AustrianNetherlands were not successful, and the troops and people accused thenobles, who were in command of the French troops, of treason. As theallies approached the boundaries it became clearer and clearer that theking was utterly incapable of defending France, and the Assembly beganto consider the question of deposing him. The duke of Brunswick, who wasat the head of the Prussian forces, took the very worst means of helpingthe king, by issuing a manifesto in which he threatened utterly todestroy Paris should the king suffer any harm. [Sidenote: Insurrection of August 10, 1792. ] Angered by this declaration and aroused by the danger, the populace ofParis again invaded the Tuilleries, August 10, 1792, and the king wasobliged to take refuge in the building in which the Assembly was insession. Those who instigated the attack were men who had set theirheart upon doing away with the king altogether and establishing arepublic. A group of them had taken possession of the city hall, pushedthe old members of the municipal council off from their seats, and takenthe government in their own hands. In this way the members of the Pariscommune became the leaders in the revolution which established the firstFrench republic. [Sidenote: France proclaimed a republic, September 22, 1792. ] 233. The Assembly agreed with the commune in desiring a republic. If, aswas proposed, France was henceforth to do without a king, it wasobviously necessary that the monarchical constitution so recentlycompleted should be replaced by a republican one. Consequently, theAssembly arranged that the people should elect delegates to aconstitutional _Convention_, which should draw up a new system ofgovernment. The Convention met on the 21st of September, and its firstact was to abolish the ancient monarchy and proclaim France a republic. It seemed to the enthusiasts of the time that a new era of liberty haddawned, now that the long oppression by "despots" was ended forever. Thetwenty-second day of September, 1792, was reckoned as the first day ofthe Year One of French liberty. [407] [Sidenote: The September massacres, 1792. ] Meanwhile the usurping Paris commune had taken matters into its ownhands and had brought discredit upon the cause of liberty by one of themost atrocious acts in history. On the pretext that Paris was full oftraitors, who sympathized with the Austrians and the emigrant nobles, they had filled the prisons with three thousand innocent citizens. OnSeptember 2 and 3 hundreds of these were executed with scarcely apretense of a trial. The members of the commune who perpetrated thisdeed probably hoped to terrify those who might still dream of returningto the old system of government. [Sidenote: Progress of the war with Austria and Prussia. ] Late in August the Prussians crossed the French boundary and onSeptember 2 took the fortress of Verdun. It now seemed as if there wasnothing to prevent their marching upon Paris. The French general, Dumouriez, blocked their advance, however, and without a pitched battlecaused the enemy to retreat. Notwithstanding the fears of the French, the king of Prussia had but little interest in the war; the Austriantroops were lagging far behind, and both powers were far more absorbedin a second partition of Poland, which was approaching, than in the fateof the French king. The French now invaded Germany and took severalimportant towns on the Rhine, including Mayence, which gladly opened itsgates to them. They also occupied the Spanish Netherlands and Savoy. [Sidenote: Trial and execution of the king, January, 1793. ] Meanwhile the new Convention was puzzled to determine what would best bedone with the king. A considerable party felt that he was guilty oftreason in secretly encouraging the foreign powers to come to his aid. He was therefore brought to trial, and when it came to a final vote, hewas, by a small majority, condemned to death. He mounted the scaffold onJanuary 21, 1793, with the fortitude of a martyr. Nevertheless, onecannot but feel that through his earlier weakness and indecision hebrought untold misery upon his own kingdom and upon Europe at large. TheFrench people had not dreamed of a republic until his absoluteincompetence forced them, in self-defense, to abolish the monarchy inthe hope of securing a more efficient government. [Sidenote: The Convention proposes to aid other countries to ridthemselves of their monarchs. ] [Sidenote: France declares war on England, February 1, 1793. ] 234. The exultation of the Convention over the conquests which theirarmies were making, encouraged them to offer the assistance of the newrepublic to any country that wished to establish its freedom by throwingoff the yoke of monarchy. They even proposed a republic to the Englishpeople. One of the French ministers declared, "We will hurl thitherfifty thousand caps of liberty, we will plant there the sacred tree ofliberty. " February 1, 1793, France greatly added to her embarrassmentsby declaring war on England, a country which proved her most inveterateenemy. [Sidenote: The allies settle their differences and renew the war againstFrance. ] The war now began to go against the French. The allies had hitherto beensuspicious of one another and fearful lest Russia should take advantageof their preoccupation with France to seize more than her share ofPoland. They now came to an agreement. It was arranged that Prussia andRussia should each take another piece of Poland, while Austria agreed togo without her share if the powers would aid her in inducing the electorof Bavaria to exchange his possessions for the Spanish Netherlands. [Illustration: The Partitions of Poland] [Sidenote: French driven from the Netherlands; desertion of Dumouriez. ] This adjustment of the differences between the allies gave a wholly newaspect to the war with France. When in March, 1793, Spain and the HolyRoman Empire joined the coalition, France was at war with all herneighbors. The Austrians defeated Dumouriez at Neerwinden and drove theFrench out of the Netherlands. Thereupon Dumouriez, disgusted by thefailure of the Convention to support him and by their execution of theking, deserted to the enemy with a few hundred soldiers who consented tofollow him. [Sidenote: French government put in the hands of the Committee ofPublic Safety, April, 1793. ] The loss of the Netherlands and the treason of their best general made adeep impression upon the members of the Convention. If the new Frenchrepublic was to defend itself against the "tyrants" without and its manyenemies within, it could not wait for the Convention to draw up anelaborate, permanent constitution. An efficient government must bedevised immediately to maintain the loyalty of the nation to therepublic, and to raise and equip armies and direct their commanders. TheConvention accordingly put the government into the hands of a smallcommittee, consisting originally of nine, later of twelve, of itsmembers. This famous Committee of Public Safety was given practicallyunlimited powers. "We must, " one of the leaders exclaimed, "establishthe despotism of liberty in order to crush the despotism of kings. " [Sidenote: The Girondists. ] 235. Within the Convention itself there were two groups of active menwho came into bitter conflict over the policy to be pursued. There was, first, the party of the Girondists, so called because their leaders camefrom the department of Gironde, in which the great city of Bordeaux lay. They were moderate republicans and counted among their numbers somespeakers of remarkable eloquence. The Girondists had enjoyed the controlof the Legislative Assembly in 1792 and had been active in bringing onthe war with Austria and Prussia. They hoped in that way to complete theRevolution by exposing the bad faith of the king and his sympathy withthe emigrant nobles. They were not, however, men of sufficient decisionto direct affairs in the terrible difficulties in which France foundherself after the execution of the king. They consequently lost theirinfluence, and a new party, called the "Mountain" from the high seatsthat they occupied in the Convention, gained the ascendency. [Sidenote: The extreme republicans, called the 'Mountain. '] This was composed of the most vigorous and uncompromising republicans. They believed that the French people had been depraved by the slavery towhich their kings had subjected them. Everything, they argued, whichsuggested the former rule of kings must be wiped out. A new Franceshould be created, in which liberty, equality, and fraternity shouldtake the place of the tyranny of princes, the insolence of nobles, andthe impostures of the priests. The leaders of the Mountain held that themass of the people were by nature good and upright, but that there werea number of adherents of the old system who would, if they could, undothe great work of the Revolution and lead the people back to slaveryunder king and church. All who were suspected by the Mountain of havingthe least sympathy with the nobles or persecuted priests were branded ascounter-revolutionary. The Mountain was willing to resort to anymeasures, however shocking, to rid the nation of those suspected ofcounter-revolutionary tendencies, and its leaders relied upon thepopulace of Paris to aid them in reaching their ends. [Sidenote: Girondist leaders expelled from the Convention, June 2, 1793. ] The Girondists, on the other hand, abhorred the furious Paris mob andthe cruel fanatics who composed the commune of the capital. They arguedthat Paris was not France, and that it had no right to assume a despoticrule over the nation. They proposed that the commune should be dissolvedand that the Convention should remove to another town where they wouldnot be subject to the intimidation of the Paris mob. The Mountainthereupon accused the Girondists of an attempt to break up the republic, "one and indivisible, " by questioning the supremacy of Paris and theduty of the provinces to follow the lead of the capital. The mob, thusencouraged, rose against the Girondists. On June 2 it surrounded themeeting place of the Convention, and deputies of the commune demandedthe expulsion from the Convention of the Girondist leaders, who wereplaced under arrest. [Sidenote: France threatened with civil war. ] [Sidenote: The revolt of the peasants of Brittany against theConvention. ] The conduct of the Mountain and its ally, the Paris commune, now beganto arouse opposition in various parts of France, and the country wasthreatened with civil war at a time when it was absolutely necessarythat all Frenchmen should combine in the loyal defense of their countryagainst the invaders who were again approaching its boundaries. Thefirst and most serious opposition came from the peasants of Brittany, especially in the department of La Vendée. There the people still lovedthe monarchy and their priests and even the nobles; they refused to sendtheir sons to fight for a republic which had killed their king and waspersecuting the clergymen who declined to take an oath which theirconscience forbade. The Vendean royalists defeated several corps of thenational guard which the Convention sent against them, and it was notuntil autumn that the distinguished general, Kléber, was able to putdown the insurrection. [Sidenote: Revolt of the cities against the Convention. ] The great cities of Marseilles and Bordeaux were indignant at thetreatment to which the Girondist deputies were subjected in Paris, andorganized a revolt against the Convention. In the manufacturing city ofLyons the merchants hated the Jacobins and their republic, since thedemand for silk and other luxuries produced at Lyons had come from thenobility and clergy, who were now no longer in a position to buy. Theprosperous classes were therefore exasperated when the commissioners ofthe Convention demanded money and troops. The citizens gathered an armyof ten thousand men and placed it under a royalist leader. TheConvention, however, called in troops from the armies on the frontier, bombarded and captured the city, and wreaked a terrible vengeance uponthose who had dared to revolt against the Mountain. Frightened by theexperience of Lyons, Bordeaux and Marseilles decided that resistance wasfutile and admitted the troops of the Convention. Some of the Girondistdeputies had escaped from Paris and attempted to gather an army inNormandy; but they failed, too. The Convention's Committee of PublicSafety showed itself far more efficient than the scattered and disunitedopponents who questioned its right to govern France. [Sidenote: The French repulse the English and Austrians. ] While the Committee of Public Safety had been suppressing the revoltswithin the country, it had taken active measures to meet its foreignenemies. The distinguished military organizer, Carnot, had become amember of the Committee in August and immediately called for a generallevy of troops. He soon had five hundred and fifty thousand men; thesehe divided into thirteen armies and dispatched them against the allies. The English and Hanoverians, who were besieging Dunkirk, were driven offand the Austrians were defeated, so that by the close of the year 1793all danger from invasion was past, for the time being at least. [Sidenote: The Reign of Terror. ] [Sidenote: The Revolutionary Tribunal. ] 236. In spite of the marvelous success with which the Committee ofPublic Safety had crushed its opponents at home and repelled the forcesof the coalition, it continued its policy of stifling all opposition byterror. Even before the fall of the Girondists a special court had beenestablished in Paris, known as the Revolutionary Tribunal. Its duty wasto try all those who were suspected of treasonable acts. At first thecases were very carefully considered and few persons were condemned. InSeptember, after the revolt of the cities, two new men, who had beenimplicated in the September massacres, were added to the Committee ofPublic Safety. They were selected with the particular purpose ofintimidating the counter-revolutionary party by bringing all thedisaffected to the guillotine. [408] A terrible law was passed, declaringall those to be suspects who by their conduct or remarks had shownthemselves enemies of liberty. The former nobles, including the wives, fathers, mothers, and children of the "emigrants, " unless they hadconstantly manifested their attachment to the Revolution, were orderedto be imprisoned. [Sidenote: Execution of Marie Antoinette, October, 1793. ] In October, the queen, Marie Antoinette, after a trial in which the mostfalse and atrocious charges were brought against her, was executed inParis, and a number of high-minded and distinguished persons suffered alike fate. But the most horrible acts of the Reign of Terror wereperpetrated in the provinces. A representative of the Convention hadthousands of the people of Nantes shot down or drowned. The conventionproposed to destroy the great city of Lyons altogether, and though thisdecree was only partially carried out, thousands of its citizens wereexecuted. [409] [Sidenote: Schism in the party of the Mountain. ] [Sidenote: Robespierre as dictator. ] Soon the radical party which was conducting the government began todisagree among themselves. Danton, a man of fiery zeal for the republic, who had hitherto enjoyed great popularity with the Jacobins, becametired of bloodshed, and believed that the system of terror was no longernecessary. On the other hand, Hébert the leader of the commune felt thatthe revolution was not yet complete. He proposed, for example, that theworship of Reason should be substituted for the worship of God, andarranged a service in the great church of Notre Dame, where Reason, inthe person of a handsome actress, took her place on the altar. The mostpowerful member of the Committee of Public Safety was Robespierre, who, although he was insignificant in person and a tiresome speaker, enjoyeda great reputation for republican virtue. He disapproved alike ofDanton's moderation and of the worship of Reason advocated by thecommune. Through his influence the leaders of both the moderate and theextreme party were arrested and executed (March and April, 1794). [Sidenote: Fall of Robespierre, July 27, 1794. ] It was, of course, impossible for Robespierre to maintain hisdictatorship permanently. He had the revolutionary tribunal divided intosections, and greatly increased the rapidity of the executions with aview of destroying all his enemies; but his colleagues in the Conventionbegan to fear that he would demand their heads next. A coalition wasformed against him, and the Convention ordered his arrest. [410] Hecalled upon the commune to defend him, but the Convention roused Parisagainst the commune, which was no longer powerful enough to intimidatethe whole city, and he and his supporters were sent to the guillotine. [Sidenote: Reaction after the overthrow of Robespierre. ] 237. In successfully overthrowing Robespierre the Convention andCommittee of Public Safety had rid the country of the only man, who, owing to his popularity and his reputation for uprightness, could haveprolonged the Reign of Terror. There was an immediate reaction after hisdeath, for the country was weary of executions. The RevolutionaryTribunal henceforth convicted very few indeed of those who were broughtbefore it. It made an exception, however, of those who had themselvesbeen the leaders in the worst atrocities, for example, as the publicprosecutor, who had brought hundreds of victims to the guillotine inParis, and the brutes who had ordered the massacres at Nantes and Lyons. Within a few months the Jacobin Club at Paris was closed by theConvention, and the commune abolished. [Sidenote: Constitution of the year III. ] The Convention now at last turned its attention to the great work forwhich it had originally been summoned, and drew up a constitution forthe republic. This provided that the lawmaking power should be vested ina legislative assembly consisting of two houses. The lower house wascalled the Council of the Five Hundred, and the upper chamber theCouncil of the Elders. Members of the latter were required to be atleast forty years of age. The executive powers were put in the hands ofa _Directory_ of five persons to be chosen by the two chambers. [Sidenote: The dissolution of the Convention, October, 1795, itsachievements. ] In October, 1795, the Convention finally dissolved itself, havinggoverned the country during three years of unprecedented excitement, danger, and disorder. While it was responsible for the horrors of theReign of Terror, its committees had carried France through the terriblecrisis of 1793. The civil war had been brought to a speedy end, and thecoalition of foreign powers had been defeated. Meanwhile othercommittees appointed by the Convention had been quietly working upon theproblem of bettering the system of education, which had been taken bythe state out of the hands of the clergy. Progress had also been madetoward establishing a single system of law for the whole country toreplace the old confusion. The new republican calendar was not destinedto survive many years, but the metric system of weights and measuresintroduced by the Convention has now been adopted by most Europeancountries, and is used by men of science in England and America. On the other hand, the Reign of Terror, the depreciated papercurrency, [411] and many hasty and unwise laws passed by the Conventionhad produced all sorts of disorder and uncertainty. The Directory didlittle to better conditions, and it was not until Napoleon's strong handgrasped the helm of government in the year 1800 that order was reallyrestored. General Reading. --In addition to the references given at the end of the preceding chapter, BELLOC, _Danton_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, $2. 50) and _Robespierre_ by the same author (same publisher, $2. 00). CHAPTER XXXVII NAPOLEON BONAPARTE [Sidenote: The Napoleonic Period. ] 238. The aristocratic military leaders of old France had either run awayor been discredited along with the noble class to which they belonged. Among the commanders who, through exceptional ability, arose in theirstead, one was soon to dominate the history of Europe as no man beforehim had ever done. For fifteen years, his biography and the politicalhistory of Europe are so nearly synonymous that the period that we arenow entering upon may properly be called after him, the NapoleonicPeriod. [Sidenote: Napoleon Bonaparte (b. 1769), a Corsican by birth, an Italianby descent. ] Napoleon Bonaparte was hardly a Frenchman in origin. It is true that theisland of Corsica, where he was born August 15, 1769, had at that timebelonged to France for a year. But Napoleon's native language wasItalian, he was descended from Italian ancestors who had come to theisland in the sixteenth century, and his career revives, on amagnificent scale, the ambitions and the policy of a _condottiere_despot of the fifteenth century. [412] [Sidenote: The young Bonaparte in a French military school. ] When he was ten years old he was taken to France by his father. Afterlearning a little of the French language, which he is said never to havemastered perfectly, he was put into a military school where he remainedfor six years. He soon came to hate the young French aristocrats withwhom he was associated. He wrote to his father, "I am tired of exposingmy poverty and seeing these shameless boys laughing over it, who aresuperior to me only in their wealth, but infinitely beneath me in noblesentiments. " Gradually the ambition to free his little island countryfrom French control developed in him. [Sidenote: His political intrigues in Corsica. ] [Sidenote: The Bonapartes banished from Corsica, 1793. ] On completing his course in the military school he was made secondlieutenant. Poor and without influence, he had little hope of anyconsiderable advance in the French army, and he was drawn to his owncountry both by a desire to play a political rôle there and to help hisfamily, which had been left in straitened circumstances by his father'sdeath. He therefore absented himself from his command as often and aslong as he could, and engaged in a series of intrigues in Corsica with ahope of getting control of the forces of the island. He fell out, however, with the authorities, and he and his family were banished in1793, and fled to France. [Sidenote: Napoleon made commander-in-chief of the army of Italy, 1796. ] The following three years were for Bonaparte a period of greatuncertainty. He had lost his love for Corsica and as yet he had nofoothold in France. He managed, however, to demonstrate his militaryskill and decision on two occasions and gained thereby the friendship ofthe Directory. In the spring of 1796 he was made by the Directorycommander-in-chief of the army of Italy. This important appointment atthe age of twenty-seven forms the opening of a military career which inextent and grandeur hardly finds a parallel in history, except that ofAlexander the Great. And of all Bonaparte's campaigns, none is moreinteresting perhaps than his first, that in Italy in 1796-1797. [Sidenote: Prussia and Spain conclude peace with the French republic, 1795. ] [Sidenote: The campaign in Italy, 1796-1797. ] 239. After the armies raised by the Committee of Public Safety haddriven back their enemies in the autumn of 1793, the French occupied theAustrian Netherlands, Holland, and that portion of Germany which lies onthe left, or west, bank of the Rhine. Austria and Prussia were againbusy with a new, and this time final, partition of Poland. As Prussiahad little real interest in the war with France, she soon concludedpeace with the new republic, April, 1795. Spain followed her example andleft Austria, England, and Sardinia to carry on the war. GeneralBonaparte had to face the combined armies of Austria and of the king ofSardinia. By marching north from Savona he skillfully separated his twoenemies, forced the Sardinian troops back toward Turin, and compelledthe king of Sardinia to conclude a truce with France. [Illustration: Napoleon Bonaparte during the Italian Campaign] This left him free to advance against the Austrians. These he outflankedand forced to retreat. On May 15, 1796, he entered Milan. The Austriancommander then shut himself up in the impregnable fortress of Mantua, where Bonaparte promptly besieged him. There is no more fascinatingchapter in the history of warfare than the story of the audaciousmaneuvers by which Bonaparte successfully repulsed four attempts on thepart of the Austrians to relieve Mantua, which was finally forced tocapitulate at the beginning of February of the following year. As soonas he had removed all danger of an attack in the rear, the young Frenchgeneral led his army toward Vienna, and by April, 1797, the Austriancourt was glad to sign a preliminary peace. [Sidenote: The treaty of Campo-Formio, 1797. ] [Sidenote: Creation of the Cisalpine republic. ] The provisions of the definitive peace which was concluded atCampo-Formio, October 17, 1797, illustrate the unscrupulous manner inwhich Austria and the French republic disposed of the helpless lesserstates. It inaugurated the bewilderingly rapid territorialredistribution of Europe, which was so characteristic of the Napoleonicperiod. Austria ceded to France the Austrian Netherlands and secretlyagreed to use its good offices to secure for France a great part of theleft bank of the Rhine. Austria also recognized the Cisalpine republicwhich Bonaparte had created out of the smaller states of northern Italy, and which was under the "protection" of France. This new state includedMilan, Modena, some of the papal dominions, and, lastly, a part of thepossessions of the venerable and renowned but defenseless republic ofVenice which Napoleon had iniquitously destroyed. Austria received as apartial indemnity the rest of the possessions of the Venetian republic, including Venice itself. [Sidenote: General Bonaparte holds court; his analysis of the Frenchcharacter and of his own aims. ] 240. While the negotiations were going on at Campo-Formio, the younggeneral had established a brilliant court. "His salons, " an observerinforms us, "were filled with a throng of generals, officials, andpurveyors, as well as the highest nobility and the most distinguishedmen of Italy, who came to solicit the favor of a glance or a moment'sconversation. " He appears already to have conceived the rôle that he wasto play later. We have a report of a most extraordinary conversationwhich occurred at this time. "What I have done so far, " he declared, "is nothing. I am but at theopening of the career that I am to run. Do you suppose that I havegained my victories in Italy in order to advance the lawyers of theDirectory?... Do you think either that my object is to establish arepublic? What a notion!... What the French want is Glory and thesatisfaction of their vanity; as for Liberty, of that they have noconception. Look at the army! The victories that we have just gainedhave given the French soldier his true character. I am everything tohim. Let the Directory attempt to deprive me of my command and they willsee who is the master. The nation must have a head, a head who isrendered illustrious by glory and not by theories of government, finephrases, or the talk of idealists, of which the French understand not awhit. " There is no doubt whom General Bonaparte had in mind when he spoke ofthe needed head of the French nation who should be "rendered illustriousby glory. " This son of a poor Corsican lawyer, but yesterday a mereunlucky adventurer, had arranged his programme; two years and a halflater he was the master of the French republic. [Sidenote: Personal characteristics. ] We naturally ask what manner of person this was who could frame suchaudacious schemes at twenty-eight and realize them at thirty years ofage. He was a little man, less than five feet two inches in height. Atthis time he was extremely thin, but his striking features, quick, searching eye, abrupt, animated gestures and rapid speech, incorrect asit was, made a deep impression upon those who came in contact with him. He possessed in a supreme degree two qualities that are ordinarilyincompatible. He was a dreamer, and at the same time a man whosepractical skill and mastery of detail amounted to genius. He once told afriend that he was wont, when a poor lieutenant, to allow hisimagination full play and fancy things just as he would have them. Thenhe would coolly consider the exact steps to be taken if he were to tryto make his dream come true. [Sidenote: Sources of power in Napoleon's character. ] In order to explain Bonaparte's success it must be remembered that hewas not hampered or held back by the fear of doing wrong. He was utterlyunscrupulous, whether dealing with an individual or a nation, andappears to have been absolutely without any sense of moralresponsibility. Affection for his friends and relatives never stood inthe way of his personal aggrandizement. To these traits must be addedunrivaled military genius and the power of intense and almostuninterrupted work. [Sidenote: The political conditions which rendered Napoleon's wonderfulsuccesses possible. ] But even Bonaparte, unexampled as were his abilities, could never haveextended his power over all of western Europe, had it not been for thepeculiar political weakness of most of the states with which he had todeal. There was no strong German empire in his day, no united Italy, noBelgium whose neutrality was guaranteed--as it now is--by the otherpowers of Europe. The French republic was surrounded by pettyindependent, or practically independent, principalities which weredefenseless against an unscrupulous invader. Prussia, much smaller thanit now is, offered, as we shall see, no efficient opposition to theextension of French control. Austria had been forced to capitulate, after a short campaign, by an enemy far from its source of supplies andled by a young and inexperienced general. [Sidenote: Napoleon conceives the idea of an expedition to Egypt. ] 241. After arranging the Peace of Campo-Formio, General Bonapartereturned to Paris. He at once perceived that France, in spite of herenthusiasm for him, was not yet ready to accept him as her ruler. Hesaw, too, that he would soon sacrifice his prestige if he lived quietlyin Paris like an ordinary person. His active mind soon conceived a planwhich would forward his interests. France was still at war with England, its most persevering enemy during this period. Bonaparte convinced theDirectory that England could best be ruined in the long run by seizingEgypt and threatening her commerce through the Mediterranean, andperhaps ultimately her dominion in the East. Bonaparte, fascinated bythe career of Alexander the Great, pictured himself riding to India onthe back of an elephant and dispossessing England of her most preciouscolonial dependencies. He had, however, still another and acharacteristic reason for undertaking the expedition. France was on theeve of a new war with the European powers. Bonaparte foresaw that, if hecould withdraw with him some of France's best officers, the Directorymight soon find itself so embarrassed that he could return as a nationalsavior. And even so it fell out. [Sidenote: The campaign in Egypt, 1798-1799. ] [Sidenote: Nelson destroys the French fleet. ] The French fleet left Toulon, May 19, 1798. It was so fortunate as toescape the English squadron under Nelson, which sailed by it in thenight. Bonaparte arrived at Alexandria, July 1, and easily defeated theTurkish troops in the famous battle of the Pyramids. Meanwhile Nelson, who did not know the destination of the enemy's fleet, had returned fromthe Syrian coast where he had looked for the French in vain. Hediscovered Bonaparte's ships in the harbor of Alexandria and completelyannihilated them in the first battle of the Nile (August 1, 1798). TheFrench troops were now completely cut off from Europe. [413] [Sidenote: Syrian campaign. ] [Sidenote: Bonaparte deserts the army in Egypt and returns to Paris. ] The Porte (i. E. , the Turkish government) declared war against France, and Bonaparte resolved to attack Turkey by land. He accordingly marchedinto Syria in the spring of 1799, but was repulsed at Acre, where theTurkish forces were aided by the English fleet. Pursued by pestilence, the army regained Cairo in June after terrible suffering and loss. Itwas still strong enough to annihilate a Turkish army that landed atAlexandria; but news now reached Bonaparte from Europe which convincedhim that the time had come for him to hasten back. Northern Italy, whichhe had won, was lost; the allies were about to invade France, and theDirectory was completely demoralized. Bonaparte accordingly secretlydeserted his army and managed, by a series of happy accidents, to reachFrance by October 9, 1799. [Sidenote: The _coup d'état_ of the 18th Brumaire, November 9, 1799. ] [Sidenote: Bonaparte made First Consul. ] 242. The Directory, one of the most corrupt and inefficient governmentalbodies that the world has ever seen, had completely disgraceditself. [414] Bonaparte readily found others to join with him in aconspiracy to overthrow it. A plan was formed for abruptly destroyingthe old government and replacing it by a new one without observing anyconstitutional forms. This is a procedure so familiar in France duringthe past century that it is known even in English as a _coup d'état_(literally translated, a "stroke of state"). The conspirators had a goodmany friends in the two assemblies, especially among the "Elders. "Nevertheless Bonaparte had to order his soldiers to invade the hall inwhich the Assembly of the Five Hundred was in session and scatter hisopponents before he could accomplish his purpose. A chosen few were thenreassembled under the presidency of Lucien Bonaparte, one of Napoleon'sbrothers, who was a member of the assembly. They voted to put thegovernment in the hands of General Bonaparte and two others, to becalled _Consuls_. These were to proceed, with the aid of a commissionand of the "Elders, " to draw up a new constitution. [415] [Sidenote: The constitution of the year VIII. ] [Sidenote: The Council of State. ] The new constitution[416] was a very cumbrous and elaborate one. Itprovided for no less than four assemblies, one to propose the laws, oneto consider them, one to vote upon them, and one to decide on theirconstitutionality. But Bonaparte saw to it that as First Consul hehimself had practically all the power in his own hands. The Council ofState, to which he called talented men from all parties and over whichhe presided, was the most important of the governmental bodies. Thisbody and the administrative system which he soon established haveendured, with a few changes, down to the present day. There is no surerproof of Napoleon's genius than that, with no previous experience, hecould conceive a plan of government that should serve a great state likeFrance, through all its vicissitudes, for a century. [Sidenote: The administrative system instituted by Napoleon. ] In each department he put an officer called a _prefect_, in eachsubdivision of the department a _subprefect_. These, together with themayors and police commissioners of the towns, were all appointed by theFirst Consul. The prefects, "little First Consuls, " as Bonaparte calledthem, resembled the intendants--the king's officers under the oldrégime. Indeed, the new government suggested in several importantrespects that of Louis XIV. [Sidenote: The new government accepted by a plebiscite. ] The new ruler objected as decidedly as Louis XIV had done to the idea ofbeing controlled by the people, who, he believed, knew nothing of publicaffairs. It was enough, he thought, if they were allowed to say whetherthey wished a certain form of government or not. He therefore introducedwhat he called a _plebiscite_. The new constitution when completed wassubmitted to the nation at large, and all were allowed to vote "yes" or"no" on the expediency of its adoption. Over three million voted infavor of it and only fifteen hundred and sixty-two against it. This didnot necessarily mean, however, that practically the whole nation wishedto have General Bonaparte as its ruler. A great many may have preferredwhat seemed to them an objectionable form of government to the risk ofrejecting it. Herein lies the injustice of the plebiscite. There aremany questions that cannot be answered by a simple "yes" or "no. " [Sidenote: Bonaparte generally acceptable to France as First Consul. ] Yet the accession of the popular young general to power was undoubtedlygrateful to the majority of citizens, who longed above all for a stablegovernment. The Swedish envoy wrote just after the _coup d'état_: "Alegitimate monarch has perhaps never found a people more ready to do hisbidding than Bonaparte, and it would be inexcusable if this talentedgeneral did not take advantage of this to introduce a better form ofgovernment upon a firmer basis. It is literally true that France willperform impossibilities in order to aid him in this. The people (withthe exception of a despicable horde of anarchists) are so sick and wearyof revolutionary horrors and folly that they believe that any changecannot fail to be for the better.... Even the royalists, whatever theirviews may be, are sincerely devoted to Bonaparte, for they attribute tohim the intention of gradually restoring the old order of things. Theindifferent element cling to him as the one most likely to give Francepeace. The enlightened republicans, although they tremble for their formof government, prefer to see a single man of talent possess himself ofthe power than a club of intriguers. " [Sidenote: Necessity of renewing the war. ] 243. Upon becoming First Consul, General Bonaparte found France at warwith England, Russia, Austria, Turkey, and Naples. These powers hadformed a coalition in December, 1798, had defeated the armies that theDirectory sent against them, and undone Bonaparte's work in Italy. Itnow devolved upon him to reëstablish the prestige of France abroad, aswell as to restore order and prosperity at home. A successful campaignwould, moreover, fill the empty treasury of the state; for Bonapartealways exacted large contributions from the defeated enemy and fromthose of his allies, like the ephemeral Cisalpine republic, who wereunder the "protection" of France. Besides, he must keep himself beforethe people as a military hero if he wished to maintain his supremacy. [Sidenote: Napoleon crosses the Alps and surprises the Austrians. ] Early in the year 1800 Bonaparte began secretly to collect an army nearDijon. This he proposed to direct against an Austrian army which wasbesieging the French general, Masséna, in Genoa. Instead of marchingstraight into Italy, as would have been most natural, the First Consulresolved to take the Austrian forces in the rear. Emulating Hannibal, heled his troops over the famous Alpine pass of the Great St. Bernard, dragging his cannon over in the trunks of trees which had been hollowedout for the purpose. He arrived safely in Milan on the 2d of June to theutter astonishment of the Austrians, who were taken completely bysurprise. [Sidenote: The battle of Marengo, June 14, 1800. ] Bonaparte now moved westward, but in his uncertainty as to the exactwhereabouts of the Austrians, he divided his force when near the villageof Marengo (June 14) and sent a contingent under Desaix southward tohead off the enemy in that direction. In the meantime the whole Austrianarmy approached from Alessandria and the engagement began. The Austriansat first repulsed the French, and Bonaparte saw all his great plans injeopardy as he vainly besought his soldiers to make another stand. Thedefeat was soon turned, however, into one of the most brilliantvictories; for Desaix had heard the firing and returned with hisdivision. Meanwhile the aged and infirm Austrian commander had returnedto Alessandria, supposing that the battle was won. The result was thatthe French troops, reënforced, returned to the attack and carried allbefore them. The brave Desaix, who had really saved the day, was killed;Bonaparte simply said nothing of his own temporary defeat, and added onemore to the list of his great military successes. A truce was signednext day, and the Austrians retreated behind the Mincio River, leavingBonaparte to restore French influence in Lombardy. The districts that hehad "freed" had to support his army, and the reëstablished Cisalpinerepublic was forced to pay a monthly tax of two million francs. [Sidenote: A general pacification, 1801. ] A victory gained by the French at Hohenlinden in December of the sameyear brought Austria to terms, and she agreed to conclude a separatepeace with the French republic. This was the beginning of a generalpacification. During the year 1801 treaties were signed with all thepowers with which France had been at war, even with England, who had notlaid down her arms since war was first declared in 1793. [Sidenote: Two most important provisions of the treaties of 1801. ] [Sidenote: Bonaparte sells Louisiana to the United States, 1803. ] Among many merely transitory results of these treaties there were twoprovisions of momentous import. The first of these, Spain's cession ofLouisiana to France in exchange for certain advantages in Italy, doesnot concern us here directly. When war again broke out, Bonaparte soldthe district to the United States, and among the many transfers ofterritory that he made during his reign, none was more important thanthis. We must, however, treat with some detail the second of the greatchanges, which led to the complete reorganization of Germany andultimately rendered possible the establishment of the present powerfulGerman empire. [Sidenote: Cession of the left bank of the Rhine to France and theresults for Germany. ] 244. In the treaty signed by Austria at Lunéville in February, 1801, theemperor agreed, on his own part and on the part of the Holy RomanEmpire, that the French republic should thereafter possess in fullsovereignty the territories lying on the left bank of the Rhine whichbelonged to the empire, and that thereafter the Rhine should form theboundary of France from the point where it left Switzerland to where itflowed into Dutch territory. As a natural consequence of this cession, various princes and states of the empire found themselves dispossessed, either wholly or in part, of their lands. The empire bound itself tofurnish the hereditary princes who had lost possessions on the left bankof the Rhine with "an indemnity within the empire. " [Sidenote: Secularization of church lands. ] This provision implied a veritable territorial metamorphosis of the oldHoly Roman Empire, which, except for the development of Prussia, wasstill in pretty much the same condition as in Luther's time. [417] Therewas no unoccupied land to give the dispossessed princes; but there weretwo classes of states in the empire that did not belong to _hereditary_princes, namely, the ecclesiastical states and the free towns. As thechurchmen, --archbishops, bishops, and abbots, --who ruled over theecclesiastical states, were forbidden by the rules of the church tomarry, they could of course have no lawful heirs. Should anecclesiastical ruler be deprived of his realms, he might, therefore, beindemnified by a pension for life, with no fear of any injustice toheirs, since there could be none. The transfer of the lands of anecclesiastical prince to a lay, i. E. , hereditary, prince was called_secularization_. The towns, once so powerful and important, had losttheir former influence, and seemed as much of an anomaly in the GermanConfederation as the ecclesiastical states. [Sidenote: Decree of the German diet redistributing German territory, 1803. ] [Sidenote: Disappearance of the imperial cities. ] [Sidenote: Fate of the knights. ] _Reichsdeputationshauptschluss_ was the high-sounding German name of thegreat decree issued by the imperial diet in 1803, redistributing theterritory so as to indemnify the hereditary princes dispossessed by thecession of the left bank of the Rhine to France. All the ecclesiasticalstates, except the electorate of Mayence, were turned over to layrulers. Of the forty-eight imperial cities, only six were left. Three ofthese still exist as republican members of the present Germanfederation; namely, the Hanseatic towns, --Hamburg, Bremen, and Lübeck. Bavaria received the bishoprics of Würzburg, Bamberg, Augsburg, Freising, and a number of the imperial cities. Baden received thebishoprics of Constance, Basel, Speyer, etc. The knights who had losttheir possessions on the left bank were not indemnified, and those onthe right bank were deprived of their political rights within the nexttwo or three years, by the several states within whose boundaries theylay. [418] [Sidenote: Importance of the extinction of the smaller German states. ] The final distribution was preceded by a bitter and undignified scrambleamong the princes for additional bits of territory. All turned to Parisfor favors, since the First Consul, and not the German diet, was reallythe arbiter in the matter. Germany never sank to a lower degree ofnational degradation than at this period. But this amalgamation was, nevertheless, the beginning of her political regeneration; for withoutthe consolidation of the hundreds of practically independent littlestates into a few well-organized monarchies, such a union as the presentGerman empire would have been impossible, and the country must haveremained indefinitely in its traditional impotency. [Sidenote: Extension of French territory. ] [Sidenote: French dependencies. ] The treaties of 1801 left France in possession of the AustrianNetherlands and the left bank of the Rhine, to which increase ofterritory Piedmont was soon added. Bonaparte found a further resource inthe dependencies, which it was his consistent policy to create. Hollandbecame the Batavian republic, and, with the Italian (originally theCisalpine) republic, came under French control and contributed moneyand troops for the forwarding of French interests. The constitution ofSwitzerland was improved in the interests of the First Consul and, incidentally, to the great advantage of the country itself. CHAPTER XXXVIII EUROPE AND NAPOLEON [Sidenote: The demoralized condition of France, and Bonaparte'sreforms. ] 245. The activity of the extraordinary man who had placed himself at thehead of the French republic was by no means confined to the importantalterations of the map of Europe described in the previous chapter. Hewas indefatigable in carrying out a series of internal reforms, secondonly in importance to those of the great Revolution of 1789. The Reignof Terror and the incompetence of the Directory's government had leftFrance in a very bad plight. [419] Bonaparte's reorganization of thegovernment has already been noticed. The finances, too, were in aterrible condition. These the First Consul adjusted with great skill andquickly restored the national credit. [Sidenote: The adjustment of relations with the pope and the church. ] [Sidenote: The Concordat of 1801. ] He then set about settling the great problem of the non-juring clergy, who were still suffering for refusing to sanction the Civil Constitutionof the Clergy. [420] All imprisoned priests were now freed, on promisingnot to oppose the constitution. Their churches were given back to them, and the distinction between "non-juring" and "constitutional" clergymenwas obliterated. Sunday, which had been abolished by the republicancalendar, was once more observed, and all the revolutionary holidaysexcept July 14, --the anniversary of the fall of the Bastile, --and thefirst day of the republican year, were done away with. A formal treatywith the pope, the Concordat of 1801, was concluded, which revoked someof the provisions of the Civil Constitution, especially the election ofthe priests and bishops by the people, and recognized the pope as thehead of the church. It is noteworthy, however, that Bonaparte did notrestore to the church its ancient possessions, and that he reserved tohimself the right to appoint the bishops, as the former kings had done. [Sidenote: The emigrant nobles permitted to return. ] As for the emigrant nobles, Bonaparte decreed that no more names shouldbe added to the lists. The striking of names from the list and thereturn of confiscated lands that had not already been sold, he madefavors to be granted by himself. Parents and relatives of emigrants wereno longer to be regarded as incapable of holding public offices. InApril, 1802, a general amnesty was issued, and no less than fortythousand families returned to France. [Sidenote: Old habits resumed. ] [Sidenote: The grateful reliance of the nation on Bonaparte. ] There was a gradual reaction from the fantastic innovations of the Reignof Terror. The old titles of address, Monsieur and Madame, were againused instead of the revolutionary "Citizen. " Streets which had beenrebaptized with republican names resumed their former ones. Old titlesof nobility were revived, and something very like a royal court began todevelop at the Palace of the Tuilleries; for, except in name, Bonapartewas already a king, and his wife, Josephine, a queen. It had been clearfor some years that the nation was weary of political agitation. Howgreat a blessing after the anarchy of the past to put all responsibilityupon one who showed himself capable of concluding a long war withunprecedented glory for France and of reëstablishing order and thesecurity of person and property, the necessary conditions for renewedprosperity! How natural that the French should welcome a despotism towhich they had been accustomed for centuries, after suffering as theyhad under nominally republican institutions! [Sidenote: The _Code Napoléon_. ] One of the greatest and most permanent of Bonaparte's achievements stillremains to be noted. The heterogeneous laws of the old régime had beenmuch modified by the legislation of the successive assemblies. All thisneeded a final revision, and Bonaparte appointed a commission toundertake this great task. Their draft of the new code was discussed inthe Council of State, and the First Consul had many suggestions to make. The resulting codification of the civil law--the _Code Napoléon_--isstill used to-day, not only in France, but also, with somemodifications, in Rhenish Prussia, Bavaria, Baden, Holland, Belgium, Italy, and even in the state of Louisiana. The criminal and commerciallaw was also codified. These codes carried with them into foreign landsthe principles of equality upon which they were based, and thus diffusedthe benefits of the Revolution beyond the borders of France. [421] [Sidenote: Napoleon made Consul for life, 1802; and Emperor, 1804. ] Bonaparte was able gradually to modify the constitution so that hispower became more and more absolute. In 1802 he was appointed Consul forlife and given the right to name his successor. Even this did notsatisfy his insatiable ambition, which demanded that his actual powershould be clothed with all the attributes and surroundings appropriateto an hereditary ruler. In May, 1804, he was accordingly given the titleof Emperor, and (in December) crowned, as the successor of Charlemagne, with great pomp in the cathedral of Notre Dame. He at once proceeded toestablish a new nobility to take the place of that abolished by thefirst National Assembly in 1790. [Sidenote: Napoleon's censorship of the press. ] From this time on he became increasingly tyrannical and hostile tocriticism. At the very beginning of his administration he had suppresseda great part of the numerous political newspapers and forbidden theestablishment of new ones. As emperor he showed himself still moreexacting. His police furnished the news to the papers and carefullyomitted all that might offend their suspicious master. He ordered thejournals to "put in quarantine all news that might be disadvantageous ordisagreeable to France. " His ideal was to suppress all newspapers butone, which should be used for official purposes. [Illustration: Napoleon] [Sidenote: Napoleon on the necessity of war for France. ] 246. A great majority of the French undoubtedly longed for peace, butNapoleon's position made war a personal necessity for him. No one sawthis more clearly than he. "If, " he said to his Council of State in thesummer of 1802, "the European states intend ever to renew the war, thesooner it comes the better. Every day the remembrance of their defeatsgrows dimmer and at the same time the prestige of our victoriespales.... France needs glorious deeds, and hence war. She must be thefirst among the states, or she is lost. I shall put up with peace aslong as our neighbors can maintain it, but I shall regard it as anadvantage if they force me to take up my arms again before they arerusted.... In our position I shall look on each conclusion of peace assimply a short armistice, and I regard myself as destined during my termof office to fight almost without intermission. " [Sidenote: Napoleon dreams of becoming emperor of Europe. ] On another occasion, in 1804, Napoleon said, "There will be no rest inEurope until it is under a single chief--an emperor who shall have kingsfor officers, who shall distribute kingdoms to his lieutenants, andshall make this one king of Italy, that one of Bavaria; this one rulerof Switzerland, that one governor of Holland, each having an office ofhonor in the imperial household. " This was the ideal that he now foundhimself in a situation to carry out with marvelous exactness. [Sidenote: Reasons for England's persistent opposition to Napoleon. ] There were many reasons why the peace with England (concluded at Amiensin March, 1802) should be speedily broken, especially as the FirstConsul was not averse to a renewal of the war. The obvious intention ofNapoleon to bring as much of Europe under his control as he could, andthe imposition of high duties on English goods in those territories thathe already controlled, filled commercial and industrial England withapprehension. The English people longed for peace, but peace appearedonly to offer an opportunity to the Corsican usurper to ruin England bya continuous war upon her commerce. This was the secret of England'spertinacity. All the other European powers concluded peace with Napoleonat some time during his reign. England alone did not lay down her arms asecond time until the emperor of the French was a prisoner. [Sidenote: War between France and England renewed in 1803. ] [Sidenote: Napoleon institutes a coast blockade. ] 247. War was renewed between England and France in 1803. Bonapartepromptly occupied Hanover, of which it will be remembered that theEnglish king was elector, and declared the coast blockaded from Hanoverto Otranto. Holland, Spain, Portugal, and the Ligurianrepublic--formerly the republic of Genoa--were, by hook or by crook, induced to agree to furnish each their contingent of men or money to theFrench army and to exclude English ships from their ports. [Sidenote: Napoleon threatens to invade England. ] To cap the climax, England was alarmed by the appearance of a Frencharmy at Boulogne, just across the Channel. A great number of flatboatswere collected, and troops trained to embark and disembark. ApparentlyNapoleon harbored the firm purpose of invading the British Isles. Yetthe transportation of a large body of troops across the English Channel, trifling as is the distance, would have been very hazardous, and by manyit was deemed downright impossible. No one knows whether Napoleon reallyexpected to make the trial. It is quite possible that his main purposein collecting an army at Boulogne was to have it in readiness for thecontinental war which he saw immediately ahead of him. He succeeded, atany rate, in terrifying England, who prepared to defend herself. [Sidenote: Coalition of Russia, Austria, England, and Sweden. ] [Sidenote: Napoleon king of Italy. ] The Tsar, Alexander I, had submitted a plan for the reconciliation ofFrance and England in August, 1803. The rejection of this and theevident intention of Napoleon to include the eastern coast of theAdriatic in his sphere of influence, led Russia to join a new coalitionwhich, by July, 1805, included Austria, Sweden, and, of course, England. Austria was especially affected by the increase of Napoleon's power inItaly. He had been crowned king of Italy in May, 1805, had created alittle duchy in northern Italy for his sister, and had annexed theLigurian republic to France. There were rumors, too, that he wasplanning to seize the Venetian territories of Austria. [Sidenote: The war of 1805. ] [Sidenote: Occupation of Vienna. ] [Sidenote: Battle of Austerlitz, December 2, 1805. ] War was declared against Austria, August 23, and four days later thearmy at Boulogne was ordered eastward. One of the Austrian commandersexhibited the most startling incapacity in allowing himself to be shutup in Ulm, where he was forced to capitulate with all his troops(October 20). Napoleon then marched down the Danube with littleopposition, and before the middle of November Vienna was in thepossession of French troops. Napoleon thereupon led his forces north tomeet the allied armies of Austria and Russia; these he defeated onDecember 2, in the terrible winter battle of Austerlitz. Russia thenwithdrew for a time and signed an armistice; and Austria was obliged tosubmit to a humiliating peace, the Treaty of Pressburg. [Sidenote: The Treaty of Pressburg. ] By this treaty Austria recognized all Napoleon's changes in Italy, andceded to his kingdom of Italy that portion of the Venetian territorythat she had received at Campo-Formio. Moreover, she ceded Tyrol toBavaria, which was friendly to Napoleon, and other of her possessions toWürtemberg and Baden, also friends of the French emperor. She furtheragreed to ratify the assumption, on the part of the rulers of Bavariaand Würtemberg, of the titles of King. Napoleon was now in a positionstill further to reorganize western Europe, with a view to establishinga great international federation of which he should be the head. [422] [Sidenote: The dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, 1806. ] 248. Napoleon had no desire to unify Germany; he merely wished tomaintain a certain number of independent states, or groups of states, which he could conveniently control. He had provided, in the Treaty ofPressburg, that the newly created sovereigns should enjoy the "plenitudeof sovereignty" and all the rights derived therefrom, precisely as didthe rulers of Austria and Prussia. This, by explicitly declaring several of the most important of theGerman states altogether independent of the emperor, rendered thefurther existence of the Holy Roman Empire impossible. The emperor, Francis II, accordingly abdicated, August 6, 1806. Thus the mostimposing and enduring political office known to history was formallyabolished. [Sidenote: Francis II assumes the title of 'Emperor of Austria. '] Francis II did not, however, lose his title of Emperor. Shortly afterthe First Consul had received that title, Francis adopted the formula"Emperor of Austria, " to designate him as the ruler of all thepossessions of his house. Hitherto he had been officially known as Kingof Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Galicia, and Laodomeria, Duke ofLorraine, Venice, Salzburg, etc. , Grand Duke of Transylvania, Margraveof Moravia, etc. [Sidenote: The Confederation of the Rhine. ] Meanwhile Napoleon had organized a union of the southern German states, called the Confederation of the Rhine, and had assumed its headship as"Protector. " This he had done, he assured Europe, "in the dearestinterests of his people and of his neighbors, " adding the pious hopethat the French armies had crossed the Rhine for the last time, and thatthe people of Germany would witness no longer, "except in the annals ofthe past, the horrible pictures of disorder, devastation, and slaughterthat war invariably brings with it. "[423] Immediately after the battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon proclaimed that theking of Naples, who had allied himself with the English, had ceased toreign, and French generals were ordered to occupy Naples. In March, 1806, he made his brother Joseph king of Naples and Sicily, his brotherLouis king of Holland, and his brother-in-law, Murat, duke of Cleves andBerg. These states and those of his German allies constituted what hecalled "the real French Empire. " [Sidenote: Prussia forced into war with France. ] 249. One of the most important of the continental states, it will havebeen noticed, had taken no part as yet in the opposition to theextension of Napoleon's power. Prussia, the first power to concludepeace with the new French republic in 1795, had since that timemaintained a strict neutrality. Had it yielded to Tsar Alexander'spersuasions and joined the coalition in 1805, it might have turned thetide at Austerlitz, or at any rate have encouraged further resistance tothe conqueror. The hesitation of Frederick William III cost him dear, for Napoleon now forced him into war at a time when he could look for noefficient assistance from Russia or the other powers. The immediatecause of the declaration of war was the disposal of Hanover. Thiselectorate Frederick William had consented to hold provisionally, pending its possible transfer to him should the English king give hisassent. Prussia was anxious to get possession of Hanover because it layjust between her older possessions and the territory which she hadgained in the redistribution of 1803. [424] [Sidenote: Napoleon's insolent behavior toward Prussia. ] Napoleon, as usual, did not fail either to see or to use his advantage. His conduct toward Prussia was most insolent. After setting her atenmity with England and promising that she should have Hanover, heunblushingly offered to restore the electorate to George III. Hisinsults now began to arouse the national spirit in Prussia, and thereluctant Frederick William was forced by the party in favor of war, which included his beautiful queen Louise, and the great statesmanStein, to break with Napoleon. [Illustration: EUROPE AT THE HEIGHT OF NAPOLEON'S POWER] [Sidenote: Decisive defeat of the Prussian army at Jena, 1806. ] Her army was, however, as has been well said, "only that of Frederickthe Great grown twenty years older"; one of Frederick's generals, theaged duke of Brunswick, who had issued the famous manifesto in1792, [425] was its leader. A single defeat, near Jena (October 14, 1806), put Prussia completely in the hands of her enemy. This onedisaster produced complete demoralization throughout the country. Fortresses were surrendered without resistance, and the king fled to theuttermost parts of his realm on the Russian boundary. [Sidenote: The campaign in Poland. ] [Sidenote: Territorial changes of the treaties of Tilsit, July, 1807. ] [Sidenote: Creation of the grand duchy of Warsaw and the kingdom ofWestphalia. ] Napoleon now led his army into Poland, where he spent the winter inoperations against Russia and her feeble Prussian ally. He closed anarduous campaign by a signal victory at Friedland (June 14, 1807), whichwas followed by the treaties of Tilsit with Russia and Prussia (July 7and 9). Napoleon had no mercy on Prussia. Frederick William III lost allhis possessions to the west of the Elbe and all that Prussia had gainedin the second and third partitions of Poland. The Polish territoryNapoleon made into a new subject kingdom called the grand duchy ofWarsaw, and chose his friend, the king of Saxony, as its ruler. Out ofthe western lands of Prussia, which he later united with Hanover, hecreated the kingdom of Westphalia for his brother Jerome. Russia, on theother hand, was treated with marked consideration. The Tsar finallyconsented to recognize all the sweeping territorial changes thatNapoleon had made, and secretly agreed to enforce the blockade againstEngland should that country refuse to make peace. [Sidenote: The continental blockade. ] 250. Napoleon's most persevering enemy still remained unconquered andinaccessible. Just as Napoleon was undertaking his successful campaignagainst Austria in 1805, Nelson had annihilated the French fleet for thesecond time in the renowned naval engagement of Trafalgar, off the coastof Spain. It seemed more than ever necessary, therefore, to ruin Englandcommercially and industrially, since there was obviously no likelihoodof subduing it by arms. [Sidenote: The Berlin Decree and Napoleon's 'paper' blockade. ] In May, 1806, England had declared the coast from the Elbe to Brest tobe blockaded. Napoleon replied to this with the Berlin Decree (November21, 1806), in which he proclaimed it a monstrous abuse of the right forEngland to declare great stretches of coast in a state of blockade whichher whole fleet would be unable to enforce. He retaliated with a"paper"[426] blockade of the British Isles, which forbade all commercewith them. Letters or packages directed to England or to an Englishmanor written in the English language were not to be permitted to passthrough the mails in the countries he controlled. Every English subjectin countries occupied by French troops or in the territory of Napoleon'sallies was to be regarded as a prisoner of war and his property as alawful prize. All trade in English goods was forbidden. [Sidenote: Disastrous effects of the blockades on the commerce of theUnited States. ] A year later England established a similar paper blockade of the portsof the French empire and its allies, but permitted the ships of neutralpowers to proceed, provided that they touched at an English port, secured a license from the English government, and paid a heavy exportduty. Napoleon promptly declared all ships that submitted to thesehumiliating regulations to be lawful prizes of French privateers. Theships of the United States were at this time the most numerous andimportant of the neutral carriers. The disastrous results of theserestrictions led to the various embargo acts (the first of which waspassed by Congress in December, 1807), and ultimately to the destructionof the flourishing carrying trade of the United States. [Sidenote: Napoleon's attempt to make the continent independent ofEnglish colonial products. ] Napoleon tried to render Europe permanently independent of the colonialproductions brought from English colonies and by English ships. Heencouraged the substitution of chicory for coffee, the cultivation ofthe sugar beet, and the discovery of new dyes to replace those comingfrom the tropics. But the distress caused by the disturbance in tradeproduced great discontent, especially in Russia; it rendered thedomination of Napoleon more and more distasteful, and finallycontributed to his downfall. [427] [Sidenote: Napoleon's policy in France. ] 251. France owed much to Napoleon, for he had restored order andguaranteed many of the beneficent achievements of the Revolution of1789. His boundless ambition was, it is true, sapping her strength byforcing younger and younger men into his armies in order to build up thevast international federation of which he dreamed. But his victories andthe commanding position to which he had raised France could not but fillthe nation with pride. [Sidenote: Public works. ] He sought to gain popular approval by great public improvements. Hebuilt marvelous roads across the Alps and along the Rhine, which stillfill the traveler with admiration. He beautified Paris by opening upwide streets and quays, and building magnificent bridges and triumphalarches that kept fresh in the people's mind the recollection of hisvictories. By these means he gradually converted a mediæval town intothe most beautiful of modern capitals. [Sidenote: Reorganization of education. ] The whole educational system was reorganized and made as highlycentralized and as subservient to the aims of the emperor as anydepartment of government. Napoleon argued that one of the chief aims ofeducation should be the formation of loyal subjects who would befaithful to the emperor and his successors. An imperial catechism wasprepared, which not only inculcated loyalty to Napoleon, but actuallythreatened with eternal perdition those who should fail in theirobligations to him, including military service. [428] [Sidenote: The new nobility and the Legion of Honor. ] Napoleon created a new nobility, and he endeavored to assure the supportof distinguished individuals by making them members of the Legion ofHonor which he founded. The "Princes" whom he nominated received anannual income of two hundred thousand francs. The ministers of state, senators, members of his Council of State, and the archbishops receivedthe title of Count and a revenue of thirty thousand francs, and so on. The army was not forgotten, for Napoleon felt that to be his chiefsupport. The incomes of his marshals were enormous, and brave actionsamong the soldiers were rewarded with the decoration of the Legion ofHonor. [Sidenote: Napoleon's despotism in France. ] As time went on Napoleon's despotism grew more and more oppressive. Noless than thirty-five hundred prisoners of state were arrested at hiscommand, one because he hated Napoleon, another because in his lettershe expressed sentiments adverse to the government, and so on. Nogrievance was too petty to attract the attention of the emperor'sjealous eye. He ordered the title of a _History of Bonaparte_ to bechanged to the _History of the Campaigns of Napoleon the Great_. [429] Heforbade the performance of certain of Schiller's and Goethe's plays inGerman towns, as tending to arouse the patriotic discontent of thepeople with his rule. [Sidenote: Napoleon's European power threatened by the growth ofnational opposition to him. ] 252. Up to this time Napoleon had had only the opposition of the severalEuropean courts to overcome in the extension of his power. The people ofthe various states which he had conquered showed an extraordinaryindifference toward the political changes. It was clear, however, thatas soon as the national spirit was once awakened, the highly artificialsystem created by the French emperor would collapse. His first seriousreverse came from the people and from an unexpected quarter. [Sidenote: Napoleon makes his brother Joseph king of Spain. ] Napoleon decided, after Tilsit, that the Spanish peninsula must bebrought more completely under his control. Portugal was too friendly tothe English, and Spain, owing to serious dissensions in the royalfamily, seemed an easy prey. In the spring of 1808 Napoleon induced boththe king and the crown prince of Spain to meet him at Bayonne. Here hewas able to persuade or force both of them to surrender their rights tothe throne; on June 6 he appointed his brother Joseph king of Spain, making Murat king of Naples in his stead. [Sidenote: Revolt in Spain against the foreign ruler. ] Joseph entered Madrid in July, armed with excellent intentions and a newconstitution. The general rebellion in favor of the crown prince whichimmediately broke out had an element of religious enthusiasm in it, forthe monks stirred up the people against Napoleon, on the ground that hewas oppressing the pope and depriving him of his dominions. One Frencharmy was captured at Baylen, and another capitulated to the Englishforces which had landed in Portugal. Before the end of July Joseph andthe French troops had been compelled to retreat behind the Ebro River. [Sidenote: Spain subdued by arms. ] In November the French emperor himself led a magnificent army intoSpain, two hundred thousand strong, in the best of condition andcommanded by his ablest marshals. The Spanish troops, perhaps onehundred thousand in number, were ill clad and inadequately equipped;what was worse, they were over-confident in view of their late victory. They were, of course, defeated, and Madrid surrendered December 4. Napoleon immediately abolished the Inquisition, the feudal dues, theinternal customs lines, and two thirds of the cloisters. This is typicalof the way in which the French Revolution went forth in arms to spreadits principles throughout western Europe. The next month Napoleon was back in Paris, as he saw that he had anotherwar with Austria on his hands. He left Joseph on his insecure throne, after assuring the Spanish that God had given the French emperor thepower and the will to overcome all obstacles. [430] He was soon todiscover, however, that these very Spaniards could maintain a guerillawarfare against which his best troops and most distinguished generalswere powerless. His ultimate downfall was in no small measure due to thepersistent hostility of the Spanish people. [Sidenote: War with Austria, 1809. ] [Sidenote: Battle of Wagram. ] [Sidenote: Extension of the boundaries of France. ] In April, 1809, Austria ventured to declare war once more on the "enemyof Europe, " but this time she found no one to aid her. The great battleof Wagram, near Vienna (July 5-6), was not perhaps so unconditional avictory for the French as that of Austerlitz, but it forced Austria intojust as humiliating a peace as that of Pressburg. Austria's object hadbeen to destroy Napoleon's system of dependencies and "to restore totheir rightful possessors all those lands belonging to them respectivelybefore the Napoleonic usurpations. " Instead of accomplishing this end, Austria was obliged to cede more territory to Napoleon and his allies, and he went on adding to his dependencies. After incorporating intoFrance the kingdom of Etruria and the papal dominions (1808-1809), Napoleon was encouraged by his victory over Austria to annexHolland[431] and the German districts to the north, including theHanseatic towns. Consequently, in 1810 France stretched from theconfines of Naples to the Baltic. One might travel from Lübeck to Romewithout leaving Napoleon's realms. Napoleon was anxious to have an heir to whom he could transmit his vastdominions. As Josephine bore him no children, he decided to divorce her, and after considering a Russian princess, he married the ArchduchessMaria Louisa, the daughter of the Austrian emperor and a grandniece ofMarie Antoinette. In this way the former Corsican adventurer gainedadmission to one of the oldest and proudest of reigning families, theHapsburgs. His new wife soon bore him a son, who was styled King ofRome. [Sidenote: Relations between Napoleon and Alexander I of Russia. ] 253. Among the continental states Russia alone was entirely out ofNapoleon's control. There were plenty of causes for misunderstandingbetween the ardent young Tsar Alexander I and Napoleon. Up to this timethe agreement of Tilsit had been maintained. Napoleon was, however, secretly opposing Alexander's plans for adding the Danubian provincesand Finland to his possessions. Then the possibility of Napoleon'sreëstablishing Poland as a national kingdom which might threatenRussia's interests, was a constant source of apprehension to Alexander. By 1812 Napoleon believed himself to be in a condition to subdue thisdoubtful friend, who might at any moment become a dangerous enemy. Against the advice of his more far-sighted counselors, the emperorcollected on the Russian frontier a vast army of four hundred thousandmen, composed to a great extent of young conscripts and the contingentsfurnished by his allies. [Sidenote: Napoleon's campaign in Russia, 1812. ] The story of the fearful Russian campaign which followed cannot be toldhere in detail. Napoleon had planned to take three years to conquerRussia, but he was forced on by the necessity of gaining at least onesignal victory before he closed the season's campaign. The Russianssimply retreated and led him far within a hostile and devastated countrybefore they offered battle at Borodino (September 7). Napoleon won thebattle, but his army was reduced to something over one hundred thousandmen when he entered Moscow a week later. The town had been set on fireby the Russians before his arrival; he found his position untenable, andhad to retreat as winter came on. The cold, the want of food, and theharassing attacks of the people along the route made that retreat themost signal military tragedy on record. Napoleon regained Poland earlyin December with scarcely twenty thousand of the four hundred thousandwith which he had started less than six months before. [432] [Sidenote: Napoleon collects a new army. ] Napoleon hastened back to Paris, where he freely misrepresented the truestate of affairs, even declaring that the army was in a good conditionup to the time that he turned it over to Murat in December. While theloss of men in the Russian campaign was enormous, just those few hadnaturally survived who would be most essential in the formation of a newarmy, namely, the officers. With their help, Napoleon soon had a forceof no less than six hundred thousand men with which to return to theattack. This contained one hundred and fifty thousand conscripts whoshould not have been called into service until 1814, besides older menwho had been hitherto exempted. [Sidenote: Social conditions in Prussia before 1806. ] 254. By the end of February, 1813, the timid Frederick William had beeninduced by public sentiment in Prussia to break with his oppressor andjoin Russia. On March 17, he issued a famous address "To my People, " inwhich he called upon them to assist him in the recovery of Prussianindependence. Up to the defeat of Jena, Prussia was far more backward inits social organization than France had been before 1789. Theagricultural classes were serfs, who were bound to the land andcompelled to work a certain part of each week for the lord withoutremuneration. [433] The population was divided into strict social castes. Moreover, no noble could buy citizen or peasant land; no citizen, nobleor peasant land; no peasant, noble or citizen land. [Sidenote: Reform of the social system in Prussia. ] The disaster of Jena and the losses at Tilsit convinced theclearer-sighted statesmen of Prussia, especially Stein, that thecountry's only hope of recovery was a complete social and politicalrevolution, not unlike that which had taken place in France. They sawthat the feudal system must be abolished, the peasants freed, and therestrictions which hedged about the different classes done away with, before it would be possible to arouse public spirit to a point where agreat popular uprising might expel the intruder forever. The first great step toward this general reform was the royal decree ofOctober 9, 1807, [434] intended to "remove every obstacle that hashitherto prevented the individual from attaining such a degree ofprosperity as he was capable of reaching. " Serfdom was abolished and therestrictions on landholding removed, so that any one, regardless ofclass, was at liberty to purchase and hold landed property of everykind. In some cases the principles of the French Revolution had beenintroduced by Napoleon or the rulers that he set up. In this case it wasthe necessity of preparing the country to throw off his yoke and regainits independence that led to the same result. [Sidenote: Napoleon defeated by the allied Russians, Prussians, andAustrians, October, 1813. ] [Sidenote: Battle of Leipsic, October 16-19, 1813. ] 255. Napoleon had therefore to face now, not only the cabinets of Europeand the regular armies that they directed, but a people who were beingorganized to defend their country. His soldiers were, however, stilltriumphant for a time. He met with no successful opposition, and on May14, 1813, he occupied Dresden in the territory of his faithful ally, theking of Saxony. This he held during the summer, and inflicted severaldefeats upon the allies, who had been joined by Austria in August. Hegained his last great victory, the battle of Dresden, August 26-27. Finding that the allied armies of the Russians, Prussians, andAustrians, which had at last learned the necessity of coöperatingagainst their powerful common enemy, were preparing to cut him off fromFrance, he retreated early in October and was totally defeated in thetremendous "Battle of the Nations, " as the Germans love to call it, inthe environs of Leipsic (October 16-19). [Sidenote: Germany, Holland, and Spain throw off the Napoleonic yoke. ] As the defeated emperor crossed the Rhine with the remnants of his army, the whole fabric of his political edifice in Germany and Hollandcollapsed. The members of the Confederation of the Rhine joined theallies. Jerome Bonaparte fled from his kingdom of Westphalia, and theDutch drove the French officials from Holland. During the year 1813 theSpanish, with the aid of the English under Wellington, had practicallycleared their country of the French intruders. [Sidenote: Occupation of Paris by the allies, March 31, 1814. ] [Sidenote: Napoleon abdicates and is banished to the island of Elba. ] In spite of these disasters, Napoleon refused the propositions of peacemade on condition that he would content himself henceforth with hisdominion over France. The allies consequently marched into France, andthe almost superhuman activity of the hard-pressed emperor could notprevent their occupation of Paris (March 31, 1814). Napoleon was forcedto abdicate, and the allies, in seeming derision, granted him fullsovereignty over the tiny island of Elba and permitted him to retain hisimperial title. In reality he was a prisoner on his island kingdom, andthe Bourbons reigned again in France. [Sidenote: Return of Napoleon. ] Within a year, encouraged by the dissensions of the allies and theunpopularity of the Bourbons, he made his escape, landed in France(March 1, 1815), and was received with enthusiasm by a portion of thearmy. Yet France as a whole was indifferent, if not hostile, to hisattempt to reëstablish his power. Certainly no one could placeconfidence in his talk of peace and liberty. Moreover, whateverdisagreement there might be among the allies on other matters, there wasperfect unanimity in their attitude toward "the enemy and destroyer ofthe world's peace. " They solemnly proclaimed him an outlaw, and devotedhim to public vengeance. [Sidenote: Battle of Waterloo, June, 1815. ] [Sidenote: Exile to Saint Helena. ] Upon learning that English troops under Wellington and a Prussian armyunder Blücher had arrived in the Netherlands, Napoleon decided to attackthem with such troops as he could collect. In the first engagements hedefeated and drove back the Prussians. Wellington then took his stationsouth of Brussels, at Waterloo. Napoleon advanced against him (June 18, 1815) and might have defeated the English had they not been opportunelyreënforced by Blücher's Prussians, who had recovered themselves. As itwas, Napoleon lost the most memorable of modern battles. Yet, even if hehad not been defeated at Waterloo, he could not long have opposed thevast armies which were being concentrated to overthrow him. This time hewas banished to the remote island of Saint Helena, where he could onlybrood over the past and prepare his _Memoirs_, in which he carefullystrove to justify his career of ambition. [435] General Reading. --Of the many lives of Napoleon the best and most recent are the following: FOURNIER, _Life of Napoleon_ (a translation of this work from the original German, edited by E. G. Bourne, is announced by Holt & Co. ); ROSE, _Life of Napoleon the First_ (The Macmillan Company, 2 vols. , $4. 00). The fullest biography of Napoleon is that of SLOANE, _Life of Napoleon Bonaparte_ (The Century Co. , 4 vols. , $18). An excellent sketch of the military history may be found in ROPES, _The First Napoleon_ (Houghton, Mifflin & Co. , $2. 00). CHAPTER XXXIX EUROPE AFTER THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA [Sidenote: Problem of the reconstruction of Europe after Napoleon'sfall. ] 256. There is no more important chapter in the political history ofEurope than the reconstruction of the map after Napoleon's abdication. The allies immediately reinstated the Bourbon dynasty on the throne ofFrance in the person of Louis XVI's younger brother, the count ofProvence, who became Louis XVIII. [436] They first restricted France tothe boundaries that she had had at the beginning of 1792, but laterdeprived her of Savoy as a punishment for yielding to the domination ofNapoleon after his return from Elbe. A great congress of the Europeanpowers was summoned to meet at Vienna, where the allies proposed tosettle all those difficult problems that faced them. They had no idea ofreëstablishing things just as they were before the Napoleonic cataclysm, for the simple reason that Austria, Russia, and Prussia all had schemesfor their own advantage that precluded so simple an arrangement. [Sidenote: Provisions of the Congress of Vienna in regard to theNetherlands, Switzerland, Italy, and Germany. ] The Congress of Vienna began its sessions November 1, 1814. The alliesquickly agreed that Holland should become an hereditary kingdom underthe house of Orange, which had long played so conspicuous a rôle in thenominal republic. In order that Holland might be the better able tocheck any new encroachments on the part of France, the former AustrianNetherlands were given to her. Switzerland was declared independent, aswere all the small Italian states which had existed prior to theinnovations of Napoleon, except the ancient republics of Venice andGenoa, neither of which was restored. Genoa was given to the king ofSardinia; Venetia to Austria, as an indemnity for her losses in theNetherlands. Austria also received back her former territory of Milan, and became, by reason of her control of northern Italy, a powerfulfactor in determining the policy of the whole Italian peninsula. As toGermany, no one desired to undo the great work of 1803 and restore theold anarchy. The former members of the Rhine Confederation were bentupon maintaining the "sovereignty" which Napoleon had secured for them;consequently the allies determined that the several states of Germanyshould be independent, but "united in a federal union. " [Illustration: EUROPE IN 1815] [Sidenote: Dispute over disposal of the Polish territory and the fate ofthe kingdom of Saxony. ] So far all was tolerably harmonious. Nevertheless, serious differencesof opinion developed at the congress, which nearly brought on war amongthe allies themselves, and encouraged Napoleon's return from Elba. Theseconcerned the disposition of the Polish territory that Napoleon hadconverted into the grand duchy of Warsaw. Prussia and Russia were agreedthat the best way would be to let the Tsar make a separate state of thisterritory, and unite it in a personal union with his Russian realms. Prussia was then to be indemnified for her losses in the East byannexing the lands of the king of Saxony, who, it was argued, meritedthis retribution for remaining faithful to Napoleon after the othermembers of the Confederation of the Rhine had repudiated him. Austria and England, on the other hand, were bitterly opposed to thisarrangement. They approved neither of dispossessing the king of Saxonynor of extending the Tsar's influence westward by giving him Poland. Thegreat diplomatist, Talleyrand, who represented Louis XVIII at thecongress, now saw his chance. The allies had resolved to treat France asa black sheep, and permit the other four great powers to arrangematters to suit themselves. But they were now hopelessly at odds, andAustria and England found France a welcome ally in their opposition tothe northern powers. So in this way the disturber of the peace of Europefor the last quarter of a century was received back into the family ofnations. [Sidenote: The compromise. ] A compromise was at last reached. The Tsar was allowed to create akingdom of Poland out of the grand duchy of Warsaw, but only half of thepossessions of the king of Saxony were ceded to Prussia. As a furtherindemnity, Frederick William III was given certain districts on the leftbank of the Rhine which had belonged to ecclesiastical and petty layprinces before the Treaty of Lunéville. The great importance of thisarrangement we shall see later when we come to trace the development ofthe present German empire. [Sidenote: Changes in the map of Europe since 1815. ] If one compares the map of Europe in 1815 with that of the presentday, [437] he will be struck with the following differences. In 1815there was no German empire, and Prussia was a much smaller and lesscompact state than now. It has evidently grown at the expense of itsneighbors, as several of the lesser German states of 1815, --Hanover, Nassau, and Hesse-Cassel, --no longer appear on the map, and SchleswigHolstein, which then belonged to Denmark, is now Prussian. It will benoted that the present German empire does not include any part of theAustrian countries, as did the Confederation of 1815, and that, on theother hand, it does include all of Prussia. The kingdom of Poland hasbecome an integral part of the Russian dominions. Austria, excluded fromthe German union, has entered into a dual union with Hungary, in whichthe two countries are placed upon the same footing. There was no kingdom of Italy in 1815. Now Austria has lost all hold onLombardy and Venetia, and all the little states reëstablished by theCongress of Vienna, including the Papal States, have disappeared. A newkingdom, Belgium, has been created out of the old Austrian Netherlandswhich the congress gave to the king of Holland. France, now a republicagain, has recovered Savoy, but has lost all her possessions on theRhine by the cession of Alsace and Lorraine to the German empire. Lastly, Turkey in Europe has nearly disappeared, and several new states, Greece, Servia, Roumania, and Bulgaria, have appeared in southeasternEurope. It is the purpose of the following chapters to show how thegreat changes indicated on the map took place and explain theaccompanying internal changes, in so far as they represent the generaltrend of modern development or have an importance for Europe at large. [Sidenote: Influence of Napoleon in spreading the reforms achieved bythe Revolution. ] [Sidenote: Reactionary policy in the smaller states of Europe. ] 257. Napoleon had been as thoroughly despotic in his government as anyof the monarchs who regained their thrones after his downfall, but hewas a son of the Revolution and had no sympathy with the ancient abusesthat it had done away with. In spite of his despotism the people of thecountries that had come under his influence had learned the greatlessons of the French Revolution. Nevertheless, the restored monarchs inmany of the smaller European states proceeded to reëstablish the ancientfeudal abuses and to treat their subjects as if there had been no FrenchRevolution and no such man as Napoleon. In Spain, for example, theInquisition and the monasteries were restored and the clergy exemptedanew from taxation. In Hesse-Cassel, which had formed a part of thekingdom of Westphalia, all the reforms introduced by Napoleon and hisbrother were abolished. The privileges of the nobility, and also thefeudal burdens of the peasantry, were restored. The soldiers were evenrequired to assume the discarded pigtails and powdered wigs of theeighteenth century. In Sardinia and Naples the returning monarchspursued the same policy of reaction. The reaction was not so sudden andobvious in the greater European states, --France, Prussia, Austria, andRussia. [Sidenote: The restoration of the Bourbons in France. ] [Sidenote: Policy of Louis XVIII, 1814-1824. ] 258. The French had aroused themselves in 1793-1794 to repel the foreignpowers, Austria and Prussia, who threatened to intervene in the domesticconcerns of the country, and to reëstablish the old régime. Twenty yearslater, in 1814, when the allies entered Paris, there was no dangereither of a popular uprising, or of the reëstablishment of the oldabuses. It is true that the Bourbon line of kings was restored; butFrance had always been monarchical at heart. It was only the ill-advisedconduct of Louis XVI in the peculiar circumstances of 1791-1792 that hadled to his deposition and the establishment of a republic, whichNapoleon had easily converted into a monarchy. The new king, LouisXVIII, left the wonderful administrative system of Napoleon intact andmade no effort to destroy the great achievements of the Revolution. Hegranted the nation a constitution called the "Charter, " which is a mostinteresting document from two standpoints. [Sidenote: The Charter of 1814. ] In the first place, the provisions of the Charter of 1814 furnish uswith a statement of the permanent results of the Revolution. Theconcessions that Louis XVIII found it expedient to make, "in view of theexpectations of enlightened Europe, " help us to measure the distancethat separates his time from that of his elder brother. In the secondplace, no other constitution has yet lasted the French so long as didthe Charter. [438] Although somewhat modified in 1830, it was maintaineddown to 1848. All Frenchmen are declared by the Charter to be equal before the law, and equally eligible to civil and military positions. Personal andreligious liberty is insured, and all citizens, without distinction ofrank, are required to contribute to the taxes in proportion to theirmeans. In short, almost all the great reforms proclaimed by the firstDeclaration of the Rights of Man are guaranteed. The laws are to be madeby the king in coöperation with a House of Peers and a popular body, the Chamber of Deputies; the latter may impeach the king's ministers. [Sidenote: Policy of the reactionary party in France. ] In spite of these enlightened provisions attempts were made by the oldemigrant nobles--still led by their original leader, the king's brother, the count of Artois--and by the clergy, to further a reaction in France. This party induced the French _parlement_ to pass certain oppressivemeasures, and, as we shall see, persuaded Louis XVIII to coöperate withthe other reactionary rulers in interfering to quell the revolutionarymovements in Italy and Spain. THE LAST BOURBON KINGS Louis XIII (d. 1643) | +------------------+---------------------------------+ | | Louis XIV (d. 1715) Philip, Duke of Orleans | | Louis XV (d. 1774), |great-grandson of Louis XIV | | | Louis the Dauphin (d. 1765) | | | +------------------+-----------------+ | | | | | Louis XVI Louis XVIII Charles X | (d. 1793) (d. 1824), (deposed 1830), | | Count of Provence Count of Artois | | | Louis XVII (d. 1795) Louis Philippe I, great-great-grandson of Philip (deposed 1848) [Sidenote: Charles X deposed in 1830 and replaced by Louis Philippe. ] In 1824 Louis XVIII died and was succeeded by the count of Artois, whotook the title of Charles X. Under his rule the reactionary policy ofthe government naturally became more pronounced. A bill was passedindemnifying the nobility for the property they had lost during theRevolution. Other less just measures led to the dethronement of theunpopular king in 1830, by a revolution. Louis Philippe, the descendantof Henry IV through the younger, or Orleans, branch of the Bourbonfamily, was put upon the throne. [439] [Sidenote: Three chief results of Napoleon's influence in Germany. ] [Sidenote: Disappearance of most of the little states. ] 259. The chief effects of the Napoleonic occupation of Germany werethree in number. First, the consolidation of territory that followed thecession of the left bank of the Rhine to France had, as has beenexplained, done away with the anomalous ecclesiastical states, theterritories of knights, and most of the free towns. Only thirty-eightGerman states, including four towns, were left when the Congress ofVienna took up the question of forming a confederation to replace thedefunct Holy Roman Empire. [Sidenote: Advantageous position of Prussia. ] Second, the external and internal conditions of Prussia had been sochanged as to open the way for it to replace Austria as the controllingpower in Germany. A great part of the Slavic possessions gained in thelast two partitions of Poland had been lost, but as an indemnity Prussiahad received half of the kingdom of Saxony, in the very center ofGermany, and also the Rhine provinces, where the people were thoroughlyimbued with the revolutionary doctrines that had prevailed in France. Prussia now embraced all the various types of people included in theGerman nation and was comparatively free from the presence of non-Germanraces. In this respect it offered a marked contrast to the heterogeneousand mongrel population of its great rival Austria. The internal changes were no less remarkable. The reforms carried outafter Jena by the distinguished minister Stein and his successor, Hardenberg, had done for Prussia somewhat the same that the firstNational Assembly had done for France. The abolition of the feudalsocial castes, and the liberation of the serfs made the economicdevelopment of the country possible. The reorganization of the wholemilitary system prepared the way for Prussia's great victories in 1866and 1870, which led to the formation of a new German empire under herheadship. [Sidenote: Demand for constitutional government. ] Third, the agitations of the Napoleonic period had aroused the nationalspirit. The appeal to the people to aid in the freeing of their countryfrom foreign oppression, and the idea of their participation in agovernment based upon a written constitution, had produced widespreaddiscontent with the old absolute monarchy. [Sidenote: The German Confederation of 1815. ] When the form of union for the German states came up for discussion atthe Congress of Vienna, two different plans were advocated. Prussia'srepresentatives submitted a scheme for a firm union like that of theUnited States, in which the central government should control theindividual states in all matters of general interest. This idea wassuccessfully opposed by Austria, supported by the other German rulers. Austria realized that her possessions, as a whole, could never beincluded in any real German union, for even in the western portion ofher territory there were many Slavs, while in Hungary and the southernprovinces there were practically no Germans at all. On the other hand, she felt that she might be the leader in a very loose union in which allthe members should be left practically independent. Her ideal of aninternational union of sovereign princes under her own headship wasalmost completely realized in the constitution adopted. [Sidenote: Character of the German constitution. ] The confederation was not a union of the various _countries_ involved, but of "The Sovereign Princes and Free Towns of Germany, " including theemperor of Austria and the king of Prussia for such of their possessionsas were formerly included in the German empire; the king of Denmark forHolstein; and the king of the Netherlands for the grand duchy ofLuxembourg. The union thus included two sovereigns who were out-and-outforeigners, and did not include all the possessions of its two mostimportant members. [440] The diet which met at Frankfort was composed (as was perfectly logical), not of representatives of the people, but of plenipotentiaries of therulers who were members of the confederation. The members reserved tothemselves the right of forming alliances of all kinds, but pledgedthemselves to make no agreement prejudicial to the safety of the unionor of any of its members, or to make war upon any member of theconfederation on any pretense whatsoever. The constitution could not beamended without the approval of _all_ the governments concerned. Inspite of its obvious weaknesses, the confederation of 1815 lasted for ahalf a century, until Prussia finally expelled Austria from the union byarms, and began the formation of the present German federation. [Sidenote: Political associations of German students. ] 260. The liberal and progressive party in Germany was sadly disappointedby the failure of the Congress of Vienna to weld Germany into a reallynational state. They were troubled, too, by the delay of the king ofPrussia in granting the constitution that he had promised to hissubjects. Other indications were not wanting that the German princesmight not yet be ready to give up their former despotic power and adoptthe principles of the French Revolution advocated by the liberals. A"League of Virtue" had been formed after the disastrous battle of Jenato arouse and keep alive the zeal of the nation for expelling theinvader. This began to be reënforced, about 1815, by studentassociations organized by those who had returned to their studies fromthe war of independence. The students anathematized the reactionaryparty in their meetings, and drank to the freedom of Germany. October18, 1817, they held a celebration in the Wartburg to commemorate bothLuther's revolt and the anniversary of the battle of Leipsic. Speecheswere made in honor of the brave who had fallen in the war ofindependence, and of the grand duke of Weimar, who was the first of theNorth German princes to give his people a constitution. The day closedwith the burning of certain reactionary pamphlets. This innocent burst of enthusiasm excited great apprehension in theminds of the conservative statesmen of Europe, the leader among whom wasthe Austrian minister, Metternich. The murder by a fanatical student ofa journalist, who was supposed to have influenced the Tsar to desert hisformer liberal policy, cast discredit upon the liberal party. It alsogave Metternich an opportunity to emphasize the terrible results whichhe anticipated would come from the students' associations, liberalgovernments, and the freedom of the press. [Illustration: Metternich] [Sidenote: The 'Carlsbad Resolutions, ' 1819. ] The extreme phase in the progress of reaction in Germany was reachedwhen, with this murder as an excuse, Metternich called together therepresentatives of the larger states of the confederation at Carlsbad inAugust, 1819. Here a series of resolutions were drawn up with the aim ofchecking the free expression of opinions hostile to existinginstitutions, and of discovering and bringing to justice therevolutionists who were supposed to exist in dangerous numbers. These"Carlsbad Resolutions" were laid before the diet by Austria and adopted, though not without protest. They provided that there should be a special official in each universityto watch the professors. Should any of them be found "abusing theirlegitimate influence over the youthful mind and propagating harmfuldoctrines hostile to the public order or subversive of the existinggovernmental institutions, " the offenders were to lose their positions. The general students' union, which was suspected of being toorevolutionary, was to be suppressed. Moreover, no newspaper, magazine, or pamphlet was to go to press without the previous approval ofgovernment officials, who were to determine whether it containedanything tending to foster discontent with the government. Lastly, aspecial commission was appointed to investigate the revolutionaryconspiracies which Metternich and his sympathizers supposed to existthroughout Germany. [441] The attack upon the freedom of the press, and especially theinterference with the liberty of teaching in the great institutions oflearning, which were already becoming the home of the highestscholarship in the world, scandalized all the progressive spirits inGermany. Yet no successful protest was raised, and Germany as a whole, acquiesced for a generation in Metternich's system of discouragingreform of all kinds. [Sidenote: The southern German states receive constitutions, 1818-1820. ] [Sidenote: Formation of a customs union--_zollverein_--with Prussia atits head. ] Nevertheless, important progress was made in southern Germany. As earlyas 1818 the king of Bavaria granted his people a constitution in whichhe stated their rights and admitted them to a share in the government byestablishing a parliament. His example was followed within two years bythe rulers of Baden, Würtemberg, and Hesse. Another change for thebetter was the gradual formation of a customs union, which permittedgoods to be sent freely from one German state to another without thepayment of duties at each boundary line. This yielded some of theadvantages of a political union. This economic union, of which Prussiawas the head, and from which Austria was excluded, was a harbinger ofthe future German empire. [442] [Sidenote: Metternich opposes revolutionary movements in Spain andItaly. ] 261. Metternich had met with signal success in his efforts to keepGermany at a standstill. When, in 1820, the kings of Spain and Napleswere compelled by popular uprisings to accept constitutions, and sosurrender their ancient right to rule their subjects despotically, itwas but natural that Metternich should urge the European powers tounite for the purpose of suppressing such manifestations. He urged thatrevolts of this kind set a dangerous example and threatened thetranquillity and security of all the other absolute monarchs. [Sidenote: Italy only 'a geographical expression' in 1820. ] Italy was at this time what Metternich called only "a geographicalexpression"; it had no political unity whatever. Lombardy and Venetia, in the northern part, were in the hands of Austria, and Parma, Modena, and Tuscany belonged to members of the Austrian family. In the south, the considerable kingdom of the Two Sicilies was ruled over by a branchof the Spanish Bourbons. In the center, cutting the peninsula in twain, were the Papal States, which extended north to the Po. The presence ofAustria, and the apparent impossibility of inducing the pope to submitto any government but his own, seemed to preclude all hope of makingItaly into a true nation. Yet fifty years later the kingdom of Italy, asit now appears on the map of Europe, came into existence through thefinal exclusion of Austria from the peninsula and the extinction of thepolitical power of the pope. [Sidenote: Reforms introduced in Italy during the Napoleonicoccupation. ] Although Napoleon had governed Italy despotically he had introduced agreat many important reforms. He had established political equality andan orderly administration, and had forwarded public improvements; thevestiges of the feudal régime had vanished at his approach. Moreover, hehad held out the hope of a united Italy, from which the foreign powerswho had plagued and distracted her for centuries should be banished. Buthis unscrupulous use of Italy to advance his personal ambitionsdisappointed those who at first had placed their hopes in him, and theycame to look for his downfall as eagerly as did the nobility and thedispossessed clergy, whose hopes were centered in Austria. It becameclear to the more thoughtful Italians that Italy must look to herselfand her own resources if she were ever to become an independent Europeanstate. [Sidenote: Reaction in Italy after Napoleon's downfall. ] [Sidenote: The _Carbonari_. ] The downfall of Napoleon left Italy seemingly in a worse state than thatin which he had found it. The hold of Austria was strengthened by heracquisition of Venice. The petty despots of Parma, Modena, and Tuscany, reseated on their thrones by the Congress of Vienna, hastened to sweepaway the reforms of the Corsican and to reëstablish all the abuses ofthe old régime, now doubly conspicuous and obnoxious by reason of theirtemporary abolition. The lesser Italian princes, moreover, showedthemselves to be heartily in sympathy with the hated Austria. Populardiscontent spread throughout the peninsula and led to the formation ofnumerous secret societies, which assumed strange names, practicedmysterious rites, and plotted darkly in the name of Italian liberty andindependence. By far the most noted of these associations was that ofthe _Carbonari_, i. E. , charcoal burners. Its objects were individualliberty, constitutional government, and national independence and unity;these it undertook to promote by agitation, conspiracy, and, ifnecessary, by revolution. [Sidenote: Temporary constitutions in Spain and Naples, 1820. ] The Italian agitators had a superstitious respect for a constitution;they appear to have regarded it not so much as a form of government tobe carefully adapted to the needs of a particular country and time, as aspecies of talisman which would insure liberty and prosperity to itshappy possessor. So when the Neapolitans heard that the king of Spainhad been forced by an insurrection to grant a constitution, they madethe first attempt on the part of the Italian people to gainconstitutional liberty by compelling their king to agree to accept theSpanish constitution (July, 1820). However, at the same time that he wasinvoking the vengeance of God upon his own head should he violate hisoath of fidelity to the constitution, he was casting about for foreignassistance to suppress the revolution and enable him to return to hisold ways. [Sidenote: Austria intervenes in Italy (1821), in support ofabsolutism. ] 262. He had not long to wait. The alert Metternich invited Russia, Prussia, France, and England to unite in order to check the developmentof "revolt and crime. " He declared that the liberal movements, ifunrestrained, would prove "not less tyrannical and fearful" in theirresults than that against which the allies had combined in the person ofNapoleon. "Revolution" appeared to him and his conservative sympathizersas heresy appeared to Philip II, --it was a fearful disease that not onlydestroyed those whom it attacked directly, but spread contagion whereverit appeared and justified prompt and sharp measures of quarantine andeven violent intervention with a view of stamping out the devastatingplague. To the great joy of the king of Naples, Austria marched its troops intohis territory (March, 1821) and, meeting but an ill-organizedopposition, freed him from the limitations which his subjects had forthe moment imposed upon him. An attempt on the part of the subjects ofthe king of Sardinia to win a constitution was also repressed byAustrian troops. [Sidenote: Hopeful signs in Italy. ] The weakness of the liberal movement in both southern and northern Italyappeared to be conclusively demonstrated. A new attempt ten years later, in Piedmont, [443] Modena, and the Papal States, to get rid of theexisting despotism was quite as futile as the revolution of 1820-1821. Yet there were two hopeful signs. England protested as early as 1820against Metternich's theory of interfering in the domestic affairs ofother independent states in order to prevent reforms of which hedisapproved, and France emphatically repudiated the doctrine ofintervention on the accession of Louis Philippe in 1830. A second andfar more important indication of progress was the increasing convictionon the part of the Italians that their country ought to be a singlenation and not, as hitherto, a group of small independent states underforeign influence. [Sidenote: Mazzini, 1805-1872. ] A great leader arose in the person of the delicately organized andhighly endowed Mazzini. He quickly became disgusted with theinefficiency and the silly mystery of the Carbonari, and founded a newassociation, called "Young Italy. " This aimed to bring about theregeneration of Italy through the education of the young men in loftyrepublican principles. Mazzini had no confidence in princes and treatiesand foreign aid. "We are of the people and will treat with the people. They will understand us, " he said. He was not the man to organize asuccessful revolution, but he inspired the young Italians with an almostreligious enthusiasm for the cause of Italy's liberation. His writings, which were widely read throughout the peninsula, created a feeling ofloyalty to a common country among the patriots who were scatteredthrough the different states of Italy. [444] [Sidenote: Plan of uniting Italy under the headship of the pope. ] [Sidenote: Early reforms of Pius IX (pope, 1846-1878). ] There was a great diversity of opinion among the reformers as to thebest way to make Italy into a nation. Mazzini's party saw no hope exceptin republican institutions, but others were confident that anenlightened pope could form an Italian federation, of which he should bethe head. And when Pius IX, upon his accession in 1846, immediatelybegan to consult the interests and wishes of his people by subjectingpriests to taxation, admitting laymen to his councils and tribunals, granting greater liberty of the press, and even protesting againstAustrian encroachments, there seemed to be some ground for the beliefthat the pope might take the lead in the regeneration of Italy. But hesoon grew suspicious of the liberals, and the outcome furnished one moreproof of the sagacity of Machiavelli, who had pointed out over threecenturies earlier that the temporal possessions of the pope constitutedthe chief obstacle to Italian unity. The future belonged neither to the republicans nor to the papal party, but to those who looked for salvation in the gradual reformation of theexisting monarchies, especially of the kingdom of Sardinia. Only in thisway was there any prospect of ousting Austria, and without that nounion, whether federal or otherwise, could possibly be formed. [Sidenote: Reason of Austria's influence after the Congress of Vienna. ] From 1815 to 1848 those who believed in keeping things as they were atany cost were able, under the leadership of Metternich, to oppose prettysuccessfully those who from time to time attempted to secure for thepeople a greater control of the government and to satisfy the cravingfor national life. This did not mean, of course, that no progress wasmade during this long period in realizing the ideals of the liberalparty in the various European states, or that one man can block theadvance of nations for a generation. The very fact that Austria had, after the Congress of Vienna, assumed the leading rôle in Europe thatFrance had played during the period following the Revolution of 1789, isa sufficient indication that Metternich's aversion to changecorresponded to a general conviction that it was best, for the timebeing, to let well enough alone. [Sidenote: Creation of the kingdom of Greece, 1829. ] Two events, at least, during the period of Metternich's influence servedto encourage the liberals of Europe. In 1821 the inhabitants of Greecehad revolted against the oppressive government of the Turks. The Turkishgovernment set to work to suppress the revolt by atrocious massacres. Itis said that twenty thousand of the inhabitants of the island of Chioswere slaughtered. The Greeks, however, succeeded in arousing thesympathy of western Europe, and they held out until England, Russia, andFrance intervened and forced the Sultan to recognize the independence ofGreece in 1829. [445] [Sidenote: Belgium becomes an independent kingdom in 1831. ] Another little kingdom was added to the European states by the revolt ofthe former Austrian Netherlands from the king of Holland, to whom theyhad been assigned by the Congress of Vienna. The southern Netherlandswere still as different from the northern as they had been in the timeof William the Silent. [446] Holland was Protestant and German, while thesouthern provinces, to whom the union had always been distasteful, wereCatholic and akin to the French in their sympathies. Encouraged by therevolution at Paris in 1830, the people of Brussels rose in revoltagainst their Dutch king, and forced his troops to leave the city. Through the influence of England and France the European powers agreedto recognize the independence of the Belgians, who established a kingdomand introduced an excellent constitution providing for a limitedmonarchy modeled upon that of England. CHAPTER XL THE UNIFICATION OF ITALY AND GERMANY [Sidenote: The general revolutionary movement in western Europe in1848. ] 263. In 1848 the gathering discontent and the demand for reform suddenlyshowed their full strength and extent; it seemed for a time as if allwestern Europe was about to undergo as complete a revolution as Francehad experienced in 1789. With one accord, and as if obeying apreconcerted signal, the liberal parties in France, Italy, Germany, andAustria, during the early months of 1848, overthrew or gained control ofthe government, and proceeded to carry out their programme of reform inthe same thoroughgoing way in which the National Assembly in France haddone its work in 1789. The general movement affected almost every statein Europe, but the course of events in France, and in that part ofcentral Europe which had so long been dominated by Austria, meritsespecial attention. [Sidenote: The revolution of 1848 in France. ] [Sidenote: Unpopularity of Louis Philippe among the republicans. ] The revolutionary movements of 1848 did not begin in France, but inItaly; yet it was the dethronement of Louis Philippe and theestablishment of a second French republic that gave the signal for thegeneral European revolt. The Charter of 1814 had been only slightlymodified after the revolution of 1830, in spite of the wishes of therepublicans who had been active in bringing about the deposition ofCharles X. They maintained that the king had too much power and couldinfluence the _parlement_ to make laws contrary to the wishes of thepeople at large. They also protested against the laws which excluded thepoorer classes from voting (only two hundred thousand among a populationof thirty million enjoyed that right), and demanded that everyFrenchman should have the right to vote so soon as he reached maturity. As Louis Philippe grew older he became more and more suspicious of theliberal parties which had helped him to his throne. He not only opposedreforms himself, but also did all he could to keep the _parlement_ andthe newspapers from advocating any changes which the progressive partiesdemanded. Nevertheless the strength of the republicans graduallyincreased. They found allies in a new group of socialistic writers whodesired a fundamental reorganization of the state. [Sidenote: The second French republic proclaimed February 27, 1848. ] On February 24, 1848, a mob attacked the Tuilleries. The king abdicatedin favor of his grandson, but it was too late; he and his whole familywere forced to leave the country. The mob invaded the assembly, as inthe time of the Reign of Terror, crying, "Down with the Bourbons, oldand new! Long live the Republic!" A provisional government wasestablished which included the writer, Lamartine, Louis Blanc, aprominent socialist, two or three editors, and several otherpoliticians. The first decree of this body, ratifying the establishmentof the republic, was solemnly proclaimed on the former site of theBastile, February 27. [Sidenote: The social democrats and the 'red republic. '] [Sidenote: National workshops established. ] The provisional government was scarcely in session before it wasthreatened by the "red republic. " Its representatives, the socialdemocrats, desired to put the laboring classes in control of thegovernment and let them conduct it in their own interests. Someadvocated community of property, and wished to substitute the red flagfor the national colors. The government went so far as to concede theso-called "right to labor, " and established national workshops, in whichall the unemployed were given an opportunity to work. [Sidenote: The insurrection in Paris, June, 1848. ] A National Assembly had been convoked whose members were elected by apopular vote of all Frenchmen above the age of twenty-one. The result ofthe election was an overwhelming defeat for the social democrats. Theirleaders then attempted to overthrow the new assembly on the pretextthat it did not represent the people; but the national guard frustratedthe attempt. The number of men now enrolled in the national workshopshad reached one hundred and seventeen thousand, each of whom receivedtwo francs a day in return for either useless labor or mere idleness. The abolition of this nuisance led to a serious revolt. Battle raged inthe streets of Paris for three days, and over ten thousand persons werekilled. [Sidenote: Louis Napoleon elected president. ] [Sidenote: Establishment of the second empire, 1852. ] This wild outbreak of the forces of revolution resulted in a generalconviction that a strong hand was essential to the maintenance of peace. The new constitution decreed that the president of the republic shouldbe chosen by the people at large. Their choice fell upon the nephew ofNapoleon Bonaparte, Louis Napoleon, who had already made two futileattempts to make himself the ruler of France. Before the expiration ofhis four years' term he succeeded, by a _coup d'état_ on the anniversaryof the coronation of his uncle (December 2, 1851), in setting up a newgovernment. He next obtained, by means of a plebiscite, [447] the consentof the people to his remaining president for ten years. A year later(1852) the second empire was established, and Napoleon III became"Emperor of the French by the grace of God and the will of the people. " [Sidenote: Austria's commanding position in central Europe. ] 264. When Metternich heard of the February revolution of 1848 in France, he declared that "Europe finds herself to-day in the presence of asecond 1793. " This was not true, however. It was no longer necessary forFrance to promote liberal ideas by force of arms, as in 1793. For sixtyyears ideas of reform had been spreading in Europe, and by the year 1848they were accepted by a great majority of the people, from Berlin toPalermo. The Europe of 1848 was no longer the Europe of 1793. The overthrow of Louis Philippe encouraged the opponents of Metternichin Germany, Austria, and Italy to attempt to make an end of his systemat once and forever. In view of the important part that Austria hadplayed in central Europe since the fall of Napoleon I, it was inevitablethat she should appear the chief barrier to the attainment of nationalunity and liberal government in Italy and Germany. As ruler of Lombardyand Venetia she practically controlled Italy, and as presiding member ofthe German Confederation she had been able to keep even Prussia in line. It is not strange that Austria felt that she could make no concessionsto the spirit of nationality, for the territories belonging to the houseof Hapsburg, some twenty in number, were inhabited by four differentraces, --Germans, Slavs, Hungarians, and Italians. [448] The Slavs(especially the Bohemians) and the Hungarians longed for nationalindependence, as well as the Italians. [Sidenote: Overthrow of Metternich, March, 1848. ] On March 13 the populace of Vienna rose in revolt against theirold-fashioned government. Metternich fled, and all his schemes foropposing reform appeared to have come to naught. Before the end of themonth the helpless Austrian emperor had given his permission to thekingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia to draw up constitutions for themselvesincorporating the longed-for reforms (equality of all classes in thematter of taxation, religious freedom, liberty of the press, and therest), and providing that each country should have a parliament of itsown, which should meet annually. The Austrian provinces were promisedsimilar advantages. None of these regions, however, showed any desire tothrow off their allegiance to the Austrian ruler. [Sidenote: Beginning of Italian war of independence. ] The rising in northern Italy, on the contrary, was directed to thatparticular end. Immediately on the news of Metternich's fall theMilanese expelled the Austrian troops from their city, and soon Austriahad evacuated a great part of Lombardy. The Venetians followed the leadof Milan and set up a republic once more. The Milanese, anticipating astruggle, appealed to Charles Albert, King of Sardinia, for aid. Bythis time a great part of Italy was in revolt. Constitutions weregranted to Naples, Rome, Tuscany, and Piedmont by their rulers. The kingof Sardinia was forced by public opinion to assume the leadership in theattempt to expel the interloping Austria and ultimately, perhaps, tofound some sort of an Italian union which should satisfy the longingsfor national unity. The pope and even the Bourbon king of Naples wereinduced to consent to the arming and dispatch of troops in the cause ofItalian freedom, and Italy began its first war for independence. [Sidenote: The liberal movement in Germany in 1848. ] The crisis at home and the Italian war made it impossible for Austria toprevent the progress of revolution in Germany. So spontaneous was themovement, that before the fall of Metternich reform movements had begunin Baden, Würtemberg, Bavaria, and Saxony. The opportunity seemed tohave come, now that Austria was hopelessly embarrassed, to reorganizethe German Confederation. [Sidenote: Frederick William IV (1840-1861) of Prussia takes the lead inthe reform movement in Germany. ] The king of Prussia, seeing his opportunity, suddenly reversed hispolicy of obedience to the dictates of Austria, and determined to takethe lead in Germany. He agreed to summon an assembly to draw up aconstitution for Prussia. Moreover, a great national assembly wasconvoked at Frankfurt to draft a constitution for Germany at large. 265. By the end of March, 1848, the prospects of reform were brightindeed. Hungary and Bohemia had been guaranteed constitutionalindependence; the Austrian provinces awaited their promisedconstitution; Lombardy and Venetia had declared their independence ofAustria; four Italian states had obtained their longed-forconstitutions, and all were ready for a war with Austria; Prussia waspromised a constitution, and lastly, the National Assembly at Frankfurtwas about to prepare a constitution for a united Germany. [Sidenote: Conservatives and radicals both help to frustrate therealization of the proposed reforms. ] The moderate reformers who had gained these seeming victories had, however, only just reached the most difficult part of their task. Theyhad two kinds of enemies, who abhorred each other but who effectuallycombined to undo the work of the moderates. These were, first, theconservative party, represented by Austria and the Italian rulers whohad been forced most reluctantly to grant constitutions to theirsubjects; and, secondly, the radicals, who were not satisfied with theprospect of a liberal monarchy and desired a republican or socialisticform of government. While the princes were recovering from theastonishing humiliations of March, the radicals began to discredit therevolutionary movement and alienate public opinion by fantasticprogrammes and the murder of hostile ministers. [Sidenote: Defeat of the Italians under Charles Albert of Sardinia, July, 1848. ] For the moment Austria's chief danger lay in Italy, which was the onlyone of her dependencies that had actually taken up arms against her. TheItalians had been unable to drive out the Austrian army, which, underthe indomitable general, Radetzky, had taken refuge in the so-calledQuadrilateral, in the neighborhood of Mantua, where it was protected byfour great fortresses. Charles Albert of Sardinia found himself, withthe exception of a few volunteers, almost unsupported by the otherItalian states. The best ally of Austria was the absence of unitedaction upon the part of the Italians, and the jealousy and indifferencethat they showed as soon as war had actually begun. The pope decidedthat his mission was one of peace and that he could not afford to joinin a war against Austria, the stoutest ally of the Roman church. Theking of Naples easily found a pretext for recalling the troops thatpublic opinion had compelled him to send to the aid of the king ofSardinia. Charles Albert was defeated at Custozza, July 25, andcompelled to sign a truce with Austria and withdraw his forces fromLombardy. [Sidenote: Policy of the Italian republicans. ] The Italian republicans, who had imputed to Charles Albert merelypersonal motives in his efforts to free Italy, now attempted to carryout their own programme. Florence, as well as Venice, proclaimed itselfa republic. At Rome the liberal and enlightened Rossi, whom the pope hadput at the head of affairs, was assassinated in November just as he wasready to promulgate his reforms. The pope fled from the city and puthimself under the protection of the king of Naples. A constitutionalassembly was then convoked by the revolutionists, and under theinfluence of Mazzini, in February, 1849, it declared the temporal powerof the pope abolished and proclaimed the Roman republic. [Sidenote: Hostility between the Germans and Czechs in Bohemia. ] 266. Meanwhile the conditions in Austria began to be favorable to areëstablishment of the emperor's former influence. Race rivalry provedhis friend in his Austrian domains just as republicanism tended to hisultimate advantage in Italy. The Czechs[449] in Bohemia hated theGermans in 1848, much as they had hated them in the time of Huss. TheGerman part of the population naturally opposed the plan of makingBohemia practically independent of the government at Vienna, for it wasto German Vienna that they were wont to look for protection against theenterprises of their Czechish fellow-countrymen. The Germans wanted tosend delegates to the Frankfurt convention, and to maintain the unionbetween Bohemia and the German states. [Sidenote: The Pan-Slavic Congress of 1848. ] [Sidenote: Beginnings of revolt in Bohemia suppressed. ] The Czechs determined to offset the movement toward German consolidationby a Pan-Slavic Congress, which should bring together the various Slavicpeoples comprised in the Austrian empire. To this assembly, which met inPrague in June, 1848, came delegates from the Czechs, Moravians, Ruthenians, and Poles in the north, and the Servians and Croatians inthe south. Its deliberations were interrupted by an insurrection thatbroke out among the people of Prague and gave the commander of theAustrian forces a sufficient excuse for intervening. He established amilitary government, and the prospect of independence for Bohemiavanished. This was Austria's first real victory. [Sidenote: The Slavic peoples revolt against Hungary. ] The eastern and southern portion of the Hapsburg domains were not morehomogeneous than the west and north. When a constitution was granted toHungary it was inevitable that the races which the Hungarians (Magyars)had long dominated should begin to consider how they might gain theright to govern themselves. The Slavs inhabiting Carniola, Carinthia, Istria, Croatia, Slavonia, Bosnia, and Servia had long meditated uponthe possibility of a united Slavic kingdom in the south. Both theServians and Croatians now revolted against Hungary. Like the Germans inBohemia, the Servians and Croatians were on the whole friendly to theVienna government, from which they had less to fear than from theestablishment of Hungarian independence, which would put them at themercy of the Magyars. It was, therefore, with the support of theAustrian ministry that an army of Servians and Croatians crossed intoHungary in September. [Illustration: The Various Races of Austro-Hungary] [Sidenote: Insurrection of the radicals in Vienna suppressed. ] [Sidenote: Accession of Francis Joseph I, 1848-. ] In October, 1848, the radical party rose in Vienna as it had in Parisafter the deposition of Louis Philippe. The minister of war was brutallymurdered and the emperor fled. The city was, however, besieged by thesame commander who had put down the insurrection in Prague, and wasforced to surrender. The imperial government was now in a position stillfurther to strengthen itself. The emperor, a notoriously inefficientperson, was forced to abdicate (December 2, 1848) in favor of hisyouthful nephew, Francis Joseph I, who still sits upon the Austrianthrone. Moreover, a new Metternich appeared in the person ofSchwarzenberg. [Sidenote: Suppression of Hungarian republic. ] [Sidenote: Final peaceful union between Austria and Hungary, 1867. ] A vigorous campaign was begun against Hungary, which, under theinfluence of the patriotic Kossuth, had deposed its Hapsburg king anddeclared itself an independent republic under the presidency of Kossuth. The Tsar placed his forces at the disposal of Francis Joseph, and withthe aid of an army of one hundred and fifty thousand Russians, whomarched in from the east, the Hungarians were compelled, by the middleof August, to surrender. Austria took terrible vengeance upon therebels. Thousands were hung, shot, and imprisoned, and many, includingKossuth, fled to the United States or elsewhere. But within a few yearsHungary won its independence by peaceful measures, and it is now onexactly the same footing as the western dominions of Francis Joseph inthe dual federation of Austria-Hungary. [Sidenote: Austria defeats the king of Sardinia at Novara, March, 1849. ] [Sidenote: Accession of Victor Emmanuel as king of Sardinia. ] It remained for Austria to reëstablish her prestige in Italy and in theGerman Confederation. In March, 1849, Charles Albert renewed the warwhich had been discontinued after the defeat at Custozza. The campaignlasted but five days and closed with his crushing and definitive defeatat Novara (March 23), which put an end to the hopes of Italian libertyfor the time being. Charles Albert abdicated in favor of his son, VictorEmmanuel, who was destined before many years to become king of Italy. [Sidenote: Austria reëstablishes the former conditions in Italy, exceptin Piedmont. ] After bringing the king of Sardinia to terms, Austria pushed southward, reëstablishing the old order as she went. The ephemeral Italianrepublics were unable to offer any effectual resistance. The formerrulers were restored in Rome, Tuscany, and Venice, and the constitutionswere swept away from one end of the peninsula to the other, except inPiedmont, the most important part of the king of Sardinia's realms. There Victor Emmanuel not only maintained the representative governmentintroduced by his father, but, by summoning to his councils d'Azeglioand others known throughout Italy for their liberal sentiments, heprepared to lead Italy once more against her foreign oppressors. [Sidenote: Question of the extent of the proposed union. ] [Sidenote: Impossibility of a German state which should include bothAustria and Prussia. ] 267. In Germany, as elsewhere, Austria profited by the dissensions amongher opponents. On May 18, 1848, the National Assembly, consisting ofnearly six hundred representatives of the German people, had met atFrankfurt. It immediately began the consideration of a new constitutionthat should satisfy the popular longings for a great free German state, to be governed by and for the people. But what were to be the confinesof this new German state? The confederation of 1815 did not include allthe German inhabitants of Prussia, and did include the heterogeneouswestern possessions of Austria, --Bohemia and Moravia, for example, wherea great part of the people were Slavs. There was no hesitation indeciding that all the Prussian territories should be admitted to the newunion. As it appeared impossible to exclude Austria altogether, theAssembly agreed to include those parts of her territory which hadbelonged to the confederation formed in 1815. This decision rendered thetask of founding a real German state practically impossible; for the newunion was to include two great European powers who might at any momentbecome rivals, since Prussia would hardly consent to be led forever byAustria. So heterogeneous a union could only continue to be, as it hadbeen, a loose confederation of practically independent princes. [Sidenote: The Assembly at Frankfurt gives Austria time to recover. ] The improbability that the Assembly at Frankfurt would succeed in itsundertaking was greatly increased by its unwise conduct. Instead ofproceeding immediately to frame a new form of government, it devotedseveral months to the formulation of the general rights of the Germancitizen. This gave a fine opportunity to the theorists, of which therewere many in the Assembly, to ventilate their views, and by the timethat the constitution itself came up for discussion, Austria had begunto regain her influence and was ready to lead the conservative forcesonce more. She could rely upon the support of the rulers of SouthGermany, for they were well satisfied with the old confederation and theindependence that it gave them. [Sidenote: The Assembly asks the king of Prussia to become emperor ofGermany. ] [Sidenote: Frederick William IV refuses the imperial crown. ] In spite of her partiality for the old union, Austria could not preventthe Assembly from completing its new constitution. This provided thatthere should be an hereditary emperor at the head of the government, andthat exalted office was tendered to the king of Prussia. FrederickWilliam IV had been alienated from the liberal cause, which he had atfirst espoused, by an insurrection in Berlin. He was, moreover, timidand conservative at heart; he hated revolution and doubted if theNational Assembly had any right to confer the imperial title. He alsogreatly respected Austria, and felt that a war with her, which waslikely to ensue if he accepted the crown, would not only be dangerous toPrussia, since Francis Joseph could rely upon the assistance of theTsar, but dishonorable as well, in Austria's present embarrassment. Sohe refused the honor of the imperial title and announced his rejectionof the new constitution (April, 1849). [Sidenote: The National Assembly disperses and the old diet isrestored. ] This decision rendered the year's work of the National Assemblyfruitless, and its members gradually dispersed, with the exception ofthe radicals, who made a last desperate effort to found a republic. Austria now insisted upon the reëstablishment of the old diet, andnearly came to war with Prussia over the policy to be pursued. Hostilities were only averted by the ignominious submission of Prussiato the demands of Schwarzenberg in 1851. [Sidenote: Results of the revolutions of 1848. ] While the revolutions of 1848 seem futile enough when viewed from thestandpoint of the hopes of March, they left some important indicationsof progress. The king of Prussia had granted his country a constitution, which, with some modifications, has served Prussia down to the presentday. Piedmont also had obtained a constitution. The internal reforms, moreover, which these countries speedily introduced, prepared them tohead once more, and this time with success, a movement for nationalunity. It will be noted that the revolution of 1848 aimed to do more than theFrench Revolution of 1789. Not only was the national question everywherean important one, but there were plans for the economic reorganizationof society. It was no longer simply a matter of abolishing the remnantsof feudalism and insuring equal rights to all and the participation ofthe more prosperous classes in the government. Those who lived by thelabor of their hands and were employed in the vast industries that haddeveloped with the application of steam machinery to manufacture alsohad their spokesmen. The relation of the state to the industrialclasses, and of capital to labor, had become, as they still are, thegreat problems of modern times. [Sidenote: Decline of Austrian influence after 1851. ] In 1851 Austria had once more, in spite of the greatest obstacles, established the system of Metternich. But this victory was of shortduration, and it was her last. Five years later the encroachments ofRussia in Turkey brought on the Crimean War, of which something will besaid later. In this war Austria observed an inglorious neutrality; shethereby sacrificed much of her prestige with both Russia and the westernpowers, and encouraged renewed attempts to free both Italy and Germanyfrom her control. [Sidenote: Development of Piedmont under Cavour. ] 268. Under Victor Emmanuel and his great minister, Cavour, Piedmont hadrapidly developed into a modern state. It sent a contingent to the aidof the western powers in the Crimean War waged by France and Englandagainst Russia (1853-1856); it developed its resources, military andeconomic, and at last found an ally to help it in a new attempt to expelAustria from Italy. [Sidenote: Position and policy of Napoleon III. ] Napoleon III, like his far more distinguished uncle, was a usurper. Heknew that he could not rely upon mere tradition, but must maintain hispopularity by deeds that should redound to the glory of France. A warwith Austria for the liberation of the Italians, who like the Frenchwere a Latin race, would be popular; especially if France could therebyadd a bit of territory to her realms, and perhaps become the protectorof the proposed Italian confederation. A conference was arranged betweenNapoleon and Cavour. Just what agreement was reached we do not know, butNapoleon no doubt engaged to come to the aid of the king of Sardinia, should the latter find a pretense for going to war with Austria. Shouldthey together succeed in expelling Austria from northern Italy, the kingof Sardinia was to reward France by ceding to her Savoy and Nice, whichboth geographically and racially belonged to her. [Illustration: Cavour] [Sidenote: Victories of Victor Emmanuel and Napoleon III over Austria. ] By April, 1859, Victor Emmanuel had managed to involve himself in a warwith Austria. The French army promptly joined forces with thePiedmontese, defeated the Austrians at Magenta, and on June 8, NapoleonIII and Victor Emmanuel entered Milan amid the rejoicings of thepeople. The Austrians managed the campaign very badly, and were againdefeated at Solferino (June 24). [Sidenote: Napoleon III alarmed by the Italian successes. ] Suddenly Europe was astonished to hear that a truce had been concluded, and that the preliminaries of a peace had been arranged which leftVenetia in Austria's hands, in spite of Napoleon III's boast that hewould free Italy to the Adriatic. The French emperor had begun to fearthat, with the growing enthusiasm which was showing itself throughoutthe peninsula for Piedmont, there was danger that it might succeed informing a national kingdom so strong as to need no French protector. Byleaving Venetia in possession of Austria, and agreeing that Piedmontshould only be increased by the incorporation of Lombardy and the littleduchies of Parma and Modena, Napoleon III hoped to prevent theconsolidation of Italy from proceeding too far. [Sidenote: The formation of a kingdom of Italy, 1860. ] He had, however, precipitated changes which he was powerless to check. Italy was now ready to fuse into a single state. Tuscany, as well asModena and Parma, voted (March, 1860) to unite with Piedmont. Garibaldi, a famous republican leader, sailed for Sicily, where he assumed thedictatorship of the island in the name of Victor Emmanuel, "King ofItaly. " After expelling the troops of the king of Naples from Sicily, hecrossed to the mainland, and early in September he entered Naplesitself, just as the king fled from his capital. [Sidenote: Napoleon III intervenes to prevent the annexation of Rome tothe kingdom of Italy. ] Garibaldi now proposed to march on Rome and proclaim the kingdom ofItaly from the Quirinal. This would have imperiled all the previousgains, for Napoleon III could not, in view of the strong Catholicsentiment in France, possibly permit the occupation of Rome and thedestruction of the political independence of the pope. He agreed thatVictor Emmanuel might annex the outlying papal possessions to the northand reëstablish a stable government in Naples instead of Garibaldi'sdictatorship. But Rome, the imperial city, with the territoryimmediately surrounding it, must be left to its old master. VictorEmmanuel accordingly marched southward and occupied Naples (October). Its king capitulated and all southern Italy became a part of the kingdomof Italy. In February, 1861, the first Italian parliament was opened at Turin, andthe process of really amalgamating the heterogeneous portions of the newkingdom began. Yet the joy of the Italians over the realization of theirhopes of unity and national independence was tempered by the fact thatAustria still held one of the most famous of the Italian provinces, andthat Rome, which typified Italy's former grandeur, was not included inthe new kingdom. Within a decade, however, both these districts became apart of the kingdom of Italy through the action of Prussia. William Iand his extraordinary minister and adviser, Bismarck, were about to dofor Germany what Victor Emmanuel and Cavour had accomplished forItaly. [450] [Sidenote: William I of Prussia, 1861-1888. ] 269. With the accession of William I in 1858, [451] a new era dawned forPrussia. A practical and vigorous man had come into power, whose greataim was to expel Austria from the German Confederation, and out of theremaining states to construct a firm union, under the leadership ofPrussia, which should take its place among the most powerful of thestates of Europe. He saw that war would come sooner or later, and hisfirst business was to develop the military resources of his realms. [Sidenote: William I's plan for strengthening the army. ] The German army, which was the outgrowth of the early reforms of WilliamI, is so extraordinary a feature of the Europe of to-day, that itsorganization merits attention. The war of independence against Napoleonin 1813 had led to the summoning of the nation to arms, and a law waspassed in Prussia making military service a universal obligation ofevery healthy male citizen. The first thing that William I did was toincrease the annual levy from forty to sixty thousand men, and to seethat all the soldiers remained in active service three years. They thenpassed into the reserve, according to the existing law, where for twoyears more they remained ready at any time to take up arms should it benecessary. William wished to increase the term of service in the reserveto four years. In this way the state would claim seven of the years ofearly manhood and have an effective army of four hundred thousand, whichwould permit it to dispense with the service of those who wereapproaching middle life. The lower house of the Prussian parliamentrefused, however, to make the necessary appropriations for increasingthe strength of the army. [Sidenote: Bismarck and his struggle with the Prussian parliament. ] The king proceeded, nevertheless, with his plan, and in 1862 called tohis side one of the most extraordinary statesmen of modern times, Bismarck. The new minister conceived a scheme for laying Austria low andexalting Prussia, which he succeeded in carrying out with startlingprecision. He could not, however, reveal it to the lower chamber; hewould, indeed, scarcely hint its nature to the king himself. In defianceof the lower house and of the newspapers, he carried on thestrengthening of the army without formal appropriations, on the theorythat the constitution had not provided for a dead-lock between the upperand lower house, and that consequently the king might exercise, in sucha case, his former absolute power. For a time it seemed as if Prussiawas returning to a pure despotism, for there was assuredly no morefundamental provision of the constitution than the right of the peopleto control the granting of the taxes. Yet Bismarck was eventually fullyexonerated by public opinion, and it was generally agreed that the endhad amply justified the means. [Sidenote: The Schleswig-Holstein affair. ] 270. Prussia now had a military force that appeared to justify the hopeof victory should she undertake a war with her old rival. In order tobring about the expulsion of Austria from the confederation, Bismarcktook advantage of a knotty problem that had been troubling Germany, andwhich was known as the Schleswig-Holstein affair. The provinces ofSchleswig and Holstein, although inhabited largely by Germans, had forcenturies belonged to the king of Denmark. They were allowed, however, to retain their provincial assemblies, and were not considered a part ofDenmark any more than Hanover was a part of Great Britain in the lastcentury. In 1847, just when the growing idea of nationality was about to expressitself in the Revolution of 1848, the king of Denmark proclaimed that hewas going to make these German provinces an integral part of the Danishkingdom. This aroused great indignation throughout Germany, especiallyas Holstein was a member of the confederation. Frederick William IVconsented to go to war with Denmark, but only succeeded in delaying fora few years the proposed absorption of the provinces by Denmark. Theconstant encroachments of the government at Copenhagen upon theprivileges claimed by Schleswig-Holstein aroused new apprehension andmuch discontent. In 1863 Schleswig was finally incorporated into theDanish kingdom. [Sidenote: Bismarck's audacious plan for the expulsion of Austria fromGermany. ] "From this time the history of Germany is the history of the profoundand audacious statecraft and of the overmastering will of Bismarck; thenation, except through its valour on the battlefield, ceases toinfluence the shaping of its own fortunes. What the German peopledesired in 1864 was that Schleswig-Holstein should be attached, under aruler of its own, to the German Federation as it then existed; whatBismarck intended was that Schleswig-Holstein, itself incorporated moreor less directly with Prussia, should be made the means of thedestruction of the existing Federal system and of the expulsion ofAustria from Germany.... The German people desired one course of action;Bismarck had determined on something totally different; with matchlessresolution and skill he bore down all the opposition of people and ofthe [European] courts, and forced a reluctant nation to the goal whichhe himself had chosen for it" (Fyffe). [Illustration: Bismarck] [Sidenote: The working out of the plan. ] Bismarck's first step was to invite Austria to coöperate with Prussia insettling the Schleswig-Holstein difficulty. As Denmark refused to makeany concessions, the two powers declared war, defeated the Danish army, and forced the king of Denmark to cede Schleswig-Holstein to the rulersof Prussia and Austria jointly (October, 1864). They were to make suchdisposition of the provinces as they saw fit. There was now no troublein picking a quarrel with Austria. Bismarck suggested the nominalindependence of the duchies, but that they should become practically apart of Prussia. This plan was of course indignantly rejected byAustria, and it was arranged that, pending an adjustment, Austria shouldgovern Holstein, and Prussia, Schleswig. [Sidenote: Prussia declares the German Confederation dissolved. ] Bismarck now obtained the secret assurance of Napoleon III that he wouldnot interfere if Prussia and Italy should go to war with Austria. InApril, 1866, Italy agreed that, should the king of Prussia take up armsduring the following three months with the aim of reforming the Germanunion, it too would immediately declare war on Austria, with the hope, of course, of obtaining Venice. The relations between Austria andPrussia grew more and more strained, until finally in June, 1866, Austria induced the diet to call out the forces of the confederationwith a view of making war on Prussia. This act the representative ofPrussia declared put an end to the existing union. He accordinglysubmitted to the diet Prussia's scheme for the reformation of Germanyand withdrew from the diet. [Sidenote: War declared between Prussia and Austria. ] 271. On June 12 war was declared between Austria and Prussia. With theexception of Mecklenburg and the small states of the north, all Germanysided with Austria against Prussia. Bismarck immediately demanded of therulers of the larger North German states--Hanover, Saxony, andHesse-Cassel--that they stop their warlike preparations and agree toaccept Prussia's plan of reform. On their refusal, Prussian troopsimmediately occupied these territories, and war actually began. [Sidenote: Prussia victorious. ] So admirable was the organization of the Prussian army that, in spite ofthe suspicion and even hatred which the liberal party in Prussiaentertained for the despotic Bismarck, all resistance on the part of thestates of the north was promptly prevented, Austria was miserablydefeated on July 3 in the decisive battle of Königgrätz, or Sadowa, [452]and within three weeks after the breaking off of diplomatic relationsthe war was practically over. Austria's influence was at an end, andPrussia had won her right to do with Germany as she pleased. [Sidenote: The North German Federation. ] Prussia was aware that the larger states south of the Main River werenot ripe for the union that she desired. She therefore organized aso-called North German Federation, which included all the states northof the Main. Prussia had seized the opportunity considerably to increaseher own boundaries and round out her territory by annexing the NorthGerman states, with the exception of Saxony, that had gone to war withher. Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, and the free city of Frankfurt, along with the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, all became Prussian. [Sidenote: Requirements of the proposed constitution. ] Prussia, thus enlarged, summoned the lesser states about her to conferupon a constitution that should accomplish four ends. First, it mustgive all the people of the territory included in the new union, regardless of the particular state in which they lived, a voice in thegovernment. A popular assembly satisfied this demand. Secondly, thepredominating position of Prussia must be secured, but at the same time(thirdly) the self-respect of the other monarchs whose lands wereincluded must not be sacrificed. In order to accomplish this doublepurpose the king of Prussia was made president of the federation but notits sovereign. The chief governing body was the Federal Council(Bundesrath). In this each ruler, however small his state, and each ofthe three free towns--Hamburg, Bremen, and Lübeck--had at least onevote; in this way it was arranged that the other rulers did not become_subjects_ of the king of Prussia. The real sovereign of the NorthGerman Federation and of the present German empire is not the king ofPrussia, but "all of the united governments. " The votes were distributedas in the old diet, so that Prussia, with the votes of the states thatshe annexed in 1860, enjoyed seventeen votes out of forty-three. Lastly, the constitution must be so arranged that when the time came for thesouthern states--Bavaria, Würtemberg, Baden, and south Hesse--to jointhe union, it would be adapted to the needs of the widened empire. The union was a true federation like that of the United States, althoughits organization violated many of the rules which were observed in theorganization of the American union. It was inevitable that a unionspontaneously developed from a group of sovereign _monarchies_, withtheir traditions of absolutism, would be very different from one inwhich the members, like the states of the American union, had previouslybeen governed by republican institutions. [Sidenote: Disappointment of the hopes of Napoleon III. ] 272. No one was more chagrined by the abrupt termination of the war of1866 and the victory of Prussia than Napoleon III. He had hoped thatboth the combatants might be weakened by a long struggle, and that atlast he might have an opportunity to arbitrate and incidentally to gainsomething for France, as had happened after the Italian war. But Prussiacame out of the conflict with greatly increased power and territory, while France had gained nothing. An effort of Napoleon's to get afoothold in Mexico had failed, owing to the recovery of the UnitedStates from the Civil War and their warning that they should regard hiscontinued intervention there as an hostile act. [453] His hopes ofannexing Luxembourg as an offset for the gains that Prussia had made, were also frustrated. [Sidenote: France declares war upon Prussia, July 19, 1870. ] One course remained for the French usurper, namely, to permit himself tobe forced into a war against the power which had especially roused thejealousy of France. Never was an excuse offered for war more trivialthan that advanced by the French, [454] never did retribution come morespeedily. The hostility which the South German states had hitherto showntoward Prussia encouraged Napoleon III to believe that so soon as theFrench troops should gain their first victory, Bavaria, Würtemberg, andBaden would join him. That first victory was never won. War had nosooner been declared than the Germans laid all jealousy aside and rangedthemselves as a nation against a national assailant. The French army, moreover, was neither well equipped nor well commanded. The Germanshastened across the Rhine, and within a few days were driving the Frenchbefore them. In a series of bloody encounters about Metz, one of theFrench armies was defeated and finally shut up within the fortificationsabout the town. Seven weeks had not elapsed after the beginning of thewar, before the Germans had captured a second French army and made aprisoner of the emperor himself in the great battle of Sedan, September1, 1870. [455] [Sidenote: Siege of Paris and close of Franco-Prussian War. ] [Sidenote: Cession of Alsace and Lorraine to Germany. ] The Germans then surrounded and laid siege to Paris. Napoleon III hadbeen completely discredited by the disasters about Metz and at Sedan, and consequently the empire was abolished and France for the third timewas declared a republic. In spite of the energy which the new governmentshowed in arousing the French against the invaders, prolonged resistancewas impossible. The capital surrendered January 28, 1871, and anarmistice was arranged. Bismarck, who had been by no means reluctant togo to war, deeply humiliated France, in arranging the treaty of peace, by requiring the cession of two French provinces which had formerlybelonged to Germany, --Alsace and northeastern Lorraine. [456] In this wayFrance was cut off from the Rhine, and the crest of the Vosges Mountainswas established as its boundary. The Germans exacted, further, anenormous indemnity for the unjustifiable attack which the French hadmade upon them. This was fixed at five billion francs, and German troopswere to occupy France till it was paid. The French people made patheticsacrifices to hasten the payment of this indemnity, in order that thecountry might be freed from the presence of the hated Germans. Thebitter feeling of the French for the Germans dates from this war, andthe longing for revenge still shows itself. For many years after the wara statue in Paris, representing the lost city of Strasburg, was drapedin mourning. [Sidenote: The insurrection of the Paris commune of 1871. ] Immediately after the surrender of Paris the new republican governmenthad been called upon to subdue a terrible insurrection of the Parisianpopulace. The insurgents reëstablished the commune of the Reign ofTerror, and rather than let Paris come again into the hands of thenational government, they proposed to burn the city. When, after twomonths of disorder, their forces were completely routed in a series ofbloody street fights, the city was actually set on fire; but only twoimportant public buildings were destroyed, --the Palace of the Tuilleriesand the city hall. [Sidenote: The French constitutional laws of 1875. ] A National Assembly had been elected by the people in February, 1871, tomake peace with Germany and to draw up a new constitution. Under thistemporary government France gradually recovered from the terrible lossand demoralization caused by the war. There was much uncertainty forseveral years as to just what form the constitution would permanentlytake, for the largest party in the National Assembly was composed ofthose who favored the reëstablishment of a monarchy. [457] Those whoadvocated maintaining the republic prevailed, however, and in 1875 theassembly passed a series of three laws organizing the government. Thesehave since served France as a constitution. [Sidenote: Character of the present French republic. ] While France is nominally a republic with a president at its head, itsgovernment closely resembles that of a limited monarchy like Belgium. This is not strange, since the monarchists were in the majority when itsconstitutional laws were passed. The French government of to-day istherefore a compromise, and since all attempts to overthrow it haveproved vain, we may assume that it is suited to the wants of the nation. [Sidenote: Permanent character of the French government in spite ofchanges in the constitution. ] As one reviews the history of France since the establishment of thefirst republic in 1792, it appears as if revolutionary changes ofgovernment had been very frequent. As a matter of fact, the variousrevolutions produced far less change in the system of government than isusually supposed. They neither called in question the main provisions ofthe Declaration of the Rights of Man drawn up in 1789, nor did theymaterially alter the system of administration which was established byNapoleon immediately after his accession in 1800. So long as the latterwas retained, the civil rights and equality of all citizens secured, andthe representatives of the nation permitted to control the ruler, itreally made little difference whether France was called an empire, aconstitutional monarchy, or a republic. [Sidenote: Final unification of Germany. ] [Sidenote: Proclamation of the German empire, January 18, 1871. ] 273. The attack of France upon Prussia in 1870, instead of hindering thedevelopment of Germany as Napoleon III had hoped it would, only servedto consummate the work of 1866. The South German states, --Bavaria, Würtemberg, Baden, and south Hesse--having sent their troops to fightside by side with the Prussian forces, consented after their commonvictory over France to join the North German Federation. Surrounded bythe German princes, William, King of Prussia and President of the NorthGerman Federation, was proclaimed German Emperor in the palace ofVersailles, January, 1871. In this way the present German empire cameinto existence. With its wonderfully organized army and its mightychancellor, Bismarck, it immediately took a leading place among thewestern powers of Europe. [Illustration: EUROPE OF TO-DAY] [Sidenote: Predominance of Prussia in the present German empire. ] The constitution of the North German Federation had been drawn up withthe hope that the southern states would later become a part of theunion; consequently, little change was necessary when the empire wasestablished. The king of Prussia enjoys the title of German Emperor, andis the real head of the federation. He is not, however, _emperor ofGermany_, for the sovereignty is vested, theoretically, not in him, butin the body of German rulers who are members of the union, all of whomsend their representatives to the Federal Council (Bundesrath). Prussia's influence in the Federal Council is, however, secured byassigning her king a sufficient number of votes to enable him to blockany measure he wishes. [Illustration: Proclamation of the German Empire at Versailles] [Sidenote: Rome added to the kingdom of Italy, 1870. ] The unification of Italy was completed, like that of Germany, by theFranco-Prussian War of 1870. After the war of 1866 Austria had cededVenetia to Italy. Napoleon III had, however, sent French troops in 1867to prevent Garibaldi from seizing Rome and the neighboring districts, which had been held by the head of the Catholic church for more than athousand years. In August, 1870, the reverses of the war compelledNapoleon to recall the French garrison from Rome, and the pope madelittle effort to defend his capital against the Italian army, whichoccupied it in September. The people of Rome voted by an overwhelmingmajority to join the kingdom of Italy; and the work of Victor Emmanueland Cavour was consummated by transferring the capital to the EternalCity. [Sidenote: Position of the pope. ] Although the papal possessions were declared a part of the kingdom ofItaly, a law was passed which guaranteed to the pope the rank andprivileges of a sovereign prince. He was to have his own ambassadors andcourt like the other European powers. No officer of the Italiangovernment was to enter the Lateran or Vatican palaces upon any officialmission. As head of the church, the pope was to be entirely independentof the king of Italy, and the bishops were not required to take the oathof allegiance to the government. A sum of over six hundred thousanddollars annually was also appropriated to aid the pope in defraying hisexpenses. The pope, however, refused to recognize the arrangement. Hestill regards himself as a prisoner, and the Italian government as ausurper who has robbed him of his possessions. He has never accepted theincome assigned to him, and still maintains that the independence whichhe formerly enjoyed as ruler of the Papal States is essential to thebest interests of the head of a great international church. [458] [Sidenote: Southeastern Europe. ] 274. To complete the survey of the great political changes of thenineteenth century, we must turn for a moment to southeastern Europe. The disposal of the European lands occupied by the Turks has proved avery knotty international question. We have seen how the Turks wereexpelled from Hungary by the end of the seventeenth century, and howPeter the Great and his successors began to dream of acquiringConstantinople as a Russian outpost which would enable the Tsar tocommand the eastern Mediterranean. [459] Catherine II (1762-1796) hadextended the Russian boundary to the Black Sea. On the whole, however, the Turks held their own pretty well during the eighteenth century, butthe nineteenth witnessed the disruption of European Turkey into a numberof new and independent Christian states. [Sidenote: Servia and Greece revolt from the Sultan. ] The Servians first revolted successfully against their oppressors, andforced the Sultan (1817) to permit them to manage their own affairs, although he did not grant them absolute independence. Of the war ofindependence which the Greeks waged against the Turks (1821-1829)something has already been said. [460] The intervention of Russia, England, and France saved the insurgents from defeat, and in 1829 thePorte recognized the independence of Greece, which became aconstitutional monarchy. The Turkish government also pledged itself toallow vessels of all nations to pass freely through the Dardanelles andthe Bosporus. [Sidenote: The Crimean War, 1853-1856. ] [Sidenote: Origin of the principality of Roumania, 1859. ] Inasmuch as a great part of the peoples still under Turkish rule inEurope were--like the Russians--Slavs and adherents of the Greek church, Russia believed that it had the best right to protect the Christianswithin the Sultan's dominions from the atrocious misgovernment of theMohammedans. When in 1853 news reached the Tsar that the Turks weretroubling Christian pilgrims, he demanded that he be permitted to assumea protectorate over all the Christians in Turkey. This the Porte refusedto grant. Russia declared war and destroyed the Turkish fleet in theBlack Sea. The English government looked with apprehension upon theadvance of the Russians. It felt that it would be disastrous to westernEurope if Russia were permitted to occupy the well-nigh impregnableConstantinople and send its men-of-war freely about the Mediterranean. England therefore induced Napoleon III to combine with her to protectthe Sultan's possessions. The English and French troops easily defeatedthe Russians, landed in the Crimea, and then laid siege to Sevastopol, an important Russian fortress on the Black Sea. Sevastopol fell after along and terrible siege, and the so-called Crimean War came to a close. The intervention of the western powers had prevented the capture ofConstantinople by the Russians, but very soon the powers recognized thepractical independence of two important Turkish provinces on the lowerDanube, which were united in 1859 into the principality of Roumania. [Sidenote: Revolt of Bosnia, 1875. ] The Turkish subjects in Bosnia and Herzegovina naturally envied thehappier lot of the neighboring Servians, who had escaped from thebondage of the Turks. These provinces were stirred to revolt in 1875, when the Turks, after collecting the usual heavy taxes, immediatelydemanded the same amount over again. The oppressed Christians proposedto escape Turkish tyranny by becoming a part of Servia. They naturallyrelied upon the aid of Russia to carry out their plans. The insurrectionspread among the other Christian subjects of the Sultan, especiallythose in Bulgaria. [Sidenote: The Bulgarian atrocities. ] Here the Turks wreaked vengeance upon the insurgents by atrocities whichfilled Europe with horror and disgust. In a single town six thousand ofthe seven thousand inhabitants were massacred with incredible cruelty, and scores of villages were burned. Russia, joined by Roumania, thereupon declared war upon the Porte (1877). The Turks were defeated, but western Europe would not permit the questions at issue to be settledwithout its approval. Consequently, a congress was called at Berlinunder the presidency of Bismarck, which included representatives fromGermany, Austria, Russia, England, France, Italy, and Turkey. [Sidenote: The Congress of Berlin (1878) and the eastern question. ] The Congress of Berlin determined that Montenegro, Servia, and Roumaniashould thereafter be altogether independent. The latter two becamekingdoms within a few years, Roumania in 1881 and Servia in 1882. Bosniaand Herzegovina, [461] instead of becoming a part of Servia, as theywished, were to be occupied and administered by Austria, although theSultan remained their nominal sovereign. Bulgaria received a Christiangovernment, but was forced to continue to recognize the Sultan as itssovereign and pay him tribute. [462] To-day the once wide dominions of the Sultan in Europe are reduced tothe city of Constantinople and a strip of mountainous country stretchingwestward to the Adriatic. General Reading. --In addition to the works of Andrews and Fyffe referred to in the footnotes, the following are excellent short accounts of the political history of Europe since 1815. W. A. PHILLIPS, _Modern Europe_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 50); SEIGNOBOS, _Political History of Europe since 1814_, carefully edited by MacVane (Henry Holt & Co. , $3. 00), and the readable but partisan German work of Müller, _Political History of Recent Times_ (American Book Company, $2. 00). For Germany: MUNROE SMITH, _Bismarck and German Unity_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 00) and KUNO FRANCKE, _History of German Literature as determined by Social Forces_ (Henry Holt & Co. , $2. 50). For Italy: THAYER, _Dawn of Italian Independence_ (Houghton, Mifflin & Co. , 2 vols. , $4. 00); STILLMAN, _Union of Italy_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 60); COUNTESS CESARESCO, _Liberation of Italy_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, $1. 75) and her _Cavour_ (The Macmillan Company, 75 cents). For England: MCCARTHY, _History of our Own Times_ (issued by various publishers, e. G. , Coates & Co. , 2 vols. , $1. 50). CHAPTER XLI EUROPE OF TO-DAY 275. The scholars and learned men of the Middle Ages were but littleinterested in the world about them. They devoted far more attention tophilosophy and theology than to what we should call the naturalsciences. They were satisfied in the main to get their knowledge ofnature from reading the works of the ancients, above all of Aristotle. Roger Bacon, as we have seen, protested against the exaggeratedveneration for books. He foresaw that a careful examination of thethings about us, --like water, air, light, animals and plants, --wouldlead to important and useful discoveries which would greatly benefitmankind. [Sidenote: Modern scientific methods of discovering truth. ] [Sidenote: Experimentation. ] He advocated three methods of reaching truth which are now followed byall scientific men. In the first place, he proposed that natural objectsand changes should be examined with great care, in order that theobserver might determine exactly what happened in any given case. Thishas led in modern times to incredibly refined measurements and analysis. The chemist, for example, can now determine the exact nature and amountof every substance in a cup of impure water, which may appear perfectlylimpid to the casual observer. Then, secondly, Roger Bacon advocatedexperimentation. He was not contented with mere observation of whatactually happened, but tried new and artificial combinations andprocesses. Nowadays experimentation is constantly used by scientificinvestigators, and by means of it they discover many things which themost careful observation would never reveal. Thirdly, in order to carryon investigation and make careful measurements and the desiredexperiments, apparatus designed for the special purpose of discoveringtruth was necessary. As early as the thirteenth century it was found, for example, that a convex crystal or bit of glass would magnifyobjects, although several centuries elapsed before the microscope andtelescope were devised. [Sidenote: Astrology grows into astronomy. ] The progress of scientific discovery was hastened, strangely enough, bytwo grave misapprehensions. In the Middle Ages even the most intelligentbelieved that the heavenly bodies influenced the fate of mankind;consequently, that a careful observation of the position of the planetsat the time of a child's birth would make it possible to forecast hislife. In the same way important enterprises were only to be undertakenwhen the influence of the stars was auspicious. Physicians believed thatthe efficacy of their medicines depended upon the position of theplanets. This whole subject of the influence of the stars upon humanaffairs was called astrology, and was in some cases taught in themediæval universities. Those who examined the stars gradually came, however, to the conclusion that the movements of the planets had noeffect upon humanity; but the facts which the astrologers had discoveredthrough careful observation became the basis of modern astronomy. [Sidenote: Alchemy grows into chemistry. ] In the same way chemistry developed out of the mediæval study ofalchemy. The first experimentation with chemicals was carried on withthe hope of producing gold by some happy combination of less valuablemetals. But finally, after learning more about the nature of chemicalcompounds, it was discovered that gold was an element, or simplesubstance, and consequently could not be formed by combinations of othersubstances. [Sidenote: Discovery that the universe follows natural laws. ] In short, observation and experimentation were leading to the mostfundamental of all scientific discoveries, namely, the conviction thatall the things about us follow certain natural, immutable laws. Themodern scientific investigator devotes a great part of his attention tothe discovery of these laws and their application. He has given up anyhope of reading man's fate in the stars or of producing any results bymagical combinations. Unlike the mediæval writers, he hesitates toaccept as true the reports which reach him of miracles, that is, ofexceptions to the general laws, because he is convinced that the naturallaws have been found to work regularly in every instance where they havebeen carefully observed. His study of the natural laws has, however, enabled him to produce far more marvelous results than those reported ofthe mediæval magician. [Sidenote: Galileo's telescope. ] 276. In a previous chapter the progress of science for three hundredyears after Roger Bacon has been briefly noted. [463] With the exceptionof Copernicus the investigators of this period are scarcely known to us. In the seventeenth century, however, progress became very rapid and hasbeen steadily accelerating since. In astronomy, for example, the truthswhich had been only suspected by earlier astronomers were demonstratedto the eye by Galileo (1564-1642). By means of a little telescope, whichwas hardly so powerful as the best modern opera glasses, he discovered(in 1610) the spots on the sun. These made it plain that the sun wasrevolving on its axis as astronomers were already convinced that theearth revolved. He saw, too, that the moons of Jupiter were revolvingabout their planet in the same way that the planets revolve about thesun. [Sidenote: Sir Isaac Newton and his discovery of the law of universalgravitation. ] The year that Galileo died, the famous English mathematician, Sir IsaacNewton, was born (1642-1727). He carried on the work of earlierastronomers by the application of higher mathematics, and proved thatthe force of attraction which we call gravitation was a universal one, and that the sun and the moon and the earth, and all the heavenlybodies, are attracted to one another inversely as the square of thedistance. [Sidenote: Development of the microscope. ] While the telescope aided the astronomer, the microscope contributed farmore to the extension of practical knowledge. Rude and simplemicroscopes were used with advantage as early as the seventeenthcentury. Leeuwenhoek, a Dutch linen merchant, so far improved his lensesthat he discovered the blood corpuscles and (1665) the "animalculæ" orminute organisms of various kinds found in pond water and elsewhere. Themicroscope has been rapidly perfected since the introduction of betterkinds of lenses early in the nineteenth century, so that it is nowpossible to magnify minute objects to more than two thousand times theirdiameters. [Sidenote: Advance in medical science. ] This has produced the most extraordinary advance in medicine andbiology. It has made it possible to determine the difference betweenhealthy and diseased tissue; and not many years ago the microscoperevealed the fact that the bodies of animals and men are the home ofexcessively small organisms called bacteria, some of which, through thepoisonous substances they give out, cause disease. The modern treatmentof many maladies, such as consumption, diphtheria, scarlet fever, andtyphoid, is based upon this momentous discovery. The success of surgicaloperations has also been rendered far more secure than formerly by theso-called antiseptic measures which are now taken to prevent thedevelopment of bacteria. [464] [Sidenote: Scientific discovery and invention did not affect daily lifebefore the end of the eighteenth century. ] 277. The discoveries of the scientist and of the mathematician did notbegin to be applied to the affairs of daily life until about a hundredand fifty years ago. No new ways had previously been discovered fortraveling from place to place. Spinning and weaving were still carriedon as they had been before the barbarians overran the Roman Empire. Iron, of which we now make our machines, could only be prepared for useexpensively and in small quantities by means of charcoal and bellows. [Sidenote: The 'domestic system' of manufacture. ] Manufacture still meant, as it did in the original Latin (_manufacere_), to make by hand. Artisans carried on their trade with theirown tools in their own homes, or in small shops, like the cobbler ofto-day. Instead of working with hundreds of others in a great factoryand being entirely dependent upon his wages, the artisan, in England atleast, was often able to give some attention to a small garden plot fromwhich he derived a part of his support. This "domestic system" wasdisplaced by factories, as the result of a series of mechanicalinventions made in England during the latter half of the eighteenthcentury. Through them machinery was substituted for hand and foot powerand for the simple implements which had served the world for centuries. [Sidenote: Cheap iron and adequate power essential to the development ofmachinery. ] [Sidenote: Watt invents the steam engine. ] In order that machinery should develop and become widely useful, twothings were necessary. In the first place, there must be some strongmaterial available of which to make the machines; for that purpose ironand steel have, with few exceptions, proved to be the best. In thesecond place, some adequate power must be found to propel the machinery, which is ordinarily too heavy to be run by hand or foot power. Thisnecessary motive power was discovered in steam. The steam engine wasdevised by James Watt, an English inventor of great ingenuity. Heinvented a cylinder containing a piston, which could be forced back andforth by the introduction of steam. His progress was much retarded bythe inability of the mechanics of his time to make an accurate cylinderof sufficient size, but in the year 1777 the new machine wassuccessfully used for pumping. A few years later (1785) he arranged hisengine so that it would turn a wheel. In this way, for the first time, steam could be used to run machinery--the spindles, for example, in acotton mill. [Sidenote: Steam used for spinning and weaving. ] A few years before Watt completed his improved steam engine, the oldspinning wheel had been supplanted by the modern system, in which thethread is drawn out by means of spindles revolving at different ratesof speed. The spindles, which had at first been run by water power, could now be propelled by steam. The old loom had also been improved, and weaving by steam began to become general after the year 1800. [Sidenote: Use of steam cheapens iron. ] [Sidenote: New method of producing steel. ] Machinery, however, could not become common so long as iron and steelwere expensive. The first use, therefore, to which the crude steamengines were put was to furnish a blast which enabled the iron smelterto employ coal instead of charcoal to fuse the iron ore (1777). Moreover, the steam pumps made it possible for the miners to pump outthe water which impeded their work in the mines, and in this waycheapened both the iron and the coal. Soon the so-called "puddlingfurnace" was invented, by means of which steel was produced much moreeconomically than it could be earlier. Rolling mills run by steam thentook the place of the hammers with which the steel had formerly beenbeaten into shape. These discoveries of the use of steam and coal andiron revolutionized the life of the people at large in western Europemore quickly than any of the events which have been previously recordedin this volume. It is the aim of the remainder of this chapter toindicate very briefly the variety and importance of the effects producedby modern inventions. [465] [Sidenote: Domestic industry supplanted by the factory system. ] 278. Machinery although very efficient was expensive, and hadnecessarily to be near the boilers which produced the steam. Consequently machines for particular purposes were grouped in factories, and the workmen left their homes and gathered in large establishments. The hand worker with his old tools was more and more at a disadvantagecompared with the workman who produced commodities by machinery. Theresult was inevitable, namely, that domestic industry was supplanted bythe factory. [Sidenote: Advantages of machinery. ] [Sidenote: Division of labor. ] One of the principal advantages of the factory system is that it makespossible a minute division of labor. Instead of giving his time andthought to the whole process, each worker concentrates his attentionupon one single step of the process, and by repeating a simple set ofmotions over and over again acquires wonderful dexterity. At the sametime the period of necessary apprenticeship is shortened under thefactory system, because each separate task is comparatively simple. Moreover, the invention of new machinery is increased, because the verysubdivision of the process into simple steps often suggests some way ofsubstituting mechanical motion for the motion of the human hand. [Sidenote: Examples of the increased production of goods by machinery. ] An example of the greatly increased output rendered possible by the useof machinery and division of labor is given by the distinguished Scotcheconomist, Adam Smith, whose great work, _The Wealth of Nations_, appeared in 1776. Speaking of the manufacture of a pin in his own time, Adam Smith says: "To make the head requires two or three distinctoperations; to put it on is a peculiar business, to whiten the pin isanother. It is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper, andthe important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided intoabout eighteen distinct operations. " By this division, he adds, tenpersons can make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in aday. A recent writer reports that now an English machine makes onehundred and eighty pins a minute, cutting the wire, flattening theheads, sharpening the points, and dropping the pin into its properplace. In a single factory which he visited seven million pins were madein a day, and three men were all that were required to manage themechanism. Another example of modern mechanical work is found in printing. Forseveral centuries after the development of that art the type was set upby hand, inked by hand, each sheet of paper was laid by hand upon thetype and then printed by means of a press operated by a lever. Nowadaysour newspapers are, in the great cities at least, printed almostaltogether by machinery, from the setting up of the type until they aredropped complete and counted out by hundreds at the bottom of a rotarypress. The paper is fed into the press from a great roll and is printedon both sides and folded at the rate of two hundred or more newspapers aminute. [Sidenote: New means of communication. ] [Sidenote: Steamboats. ] 279. The factory system would never have developed upon a vast scale hadthe manufacturers been able to sell their goods only in theneighborhood. The discovery that steam could be used to carry the goodscheaply and speedily to all parts of the world made it possible for amanufacturer to widen his market indefinitely. Fulton, an Americaninventor, devised the first steamboat that was really successful, in1807, yet over half a century elapsed before steamships began tosupplant the old and uncertain sailing ship. It is now possible to makethe journey from New York to Southampton, three thousand miles, in lessthan six days, and with almost the regularity of an express train. Japanmay be reached from Vancouver in thirteen days, and from San Franciscovia Honolulu, a distance of five thousand five hundred miles, ineighteen days. A commercial map of the world shows that the globe is nowcrossed in every direction by definite routes, which are followed byinnumerable freight and passenger steamers passing regularly from oneport to another. These are able to carry goods for incredibly smallsums. For example, wheat has frequently been shipped from New York toLiverpool for two cents a bushel. [Sidenote: Development of the railroad. ] Just as the gigantic modern steamship has taken the place of theschooner and clipper, so, on land, the merchandise which used to beslowly dragged in carts by means of horses and oxen is now transportedin long trains of capacious cars, each of which holds as much as manyordinary carts. A ton of freight can now be carried for less than a centa mile. In 1825 Stephenson's locomotive was put into operation inEngland. Other countries soon began to follow England's lead inbuilding railroads. France opened its first railroad in 1828, Germany in1835. By 1840 Europe had over eighteen hundred miles of railroad; fiftyyears later this had increased to one hundred and forty thousand. [Sidenote: Startling improvements in the means of communication. ] Besides the marvelous cheapening of transportation, other new means ofcommunication have resulted from modern inventions. The telegraph, thesubmarine cable, and the telephone, all have served to rendercommunication prompt and certain. Steamships and railroads carry lettershalf round the globe for a price too trivial to be paid for delivering amessage round the corner. The old, awkward methods of making paymentshave given way to a tolerably uniform system of coinage. Instead of eachpetty principality and each town having its own coins, as was common, especially in Germany and Italy, before the nineteenth century, allcoins are now issued by the national central governments. Yet the mostconvenient coins are difficult to transfer in large quantities, andnowadays all considerable sums are paid by means of checks and drafts. The banks settle their accounts by means of a clearing house, and inthis way almost no large amount of money need pass from hand to hand. England took the lead in utilizing all these remarkable new inventions, and with their aid became, by the middle of the nineteenth century, themanufacturing center of the world. Gradually the new machinery wasintroduced on the continent, and since 1850 countries having thenecessary coal, such as Germany and Belgium, have developedmanufacturing industries which now rival those of Great Britain. [Sidenote: Some results of the industrial revolution of the nineteenthcentury. ] [Sidenote: Rapid growth of the towns. ] 280. The _industrial revolution_, as the changes above referred to areusually called, could not but have a profound influence upon the lifeand government of Europe. For example, the population of Europe appearsto have nearly doubled during the nineteenth century. One of the moststartling tendencies of recent times has been the growth of the towns. In 1800 London had a population of less than one million; it nowcontains over four million five hundred thousand inhabitants. Paris, atthe opening of the French Revolution, contained less than seven hundredthousand inhabitants; it now has over two and a half millions. Berlinhas grown in a hundred years from one hundred and seventy-two thousandto nearly two millions. In England a quarter of the whole populationlive in towns having over two hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants, and less than a quarter still remain in the country. Our modern life isdominated by the great cities, which not only are the center of commerceand manufacturing, but are the homes of the artist and man of letters. [Sidenote: Reasons for the growth of the towns. ] There are two obvious reasons for the growth of the towns since theindustrial revolution. In the first place, factories are established inplaces where there is an abundant supply of coal, or where conditionsare otherwise favorable; and this brings a large number of peopletogether. In the second place, there is no limit set to the growth ofcities, as was formerly the case, by the difficulty of procuring foodfrom a distance. Paris, in the time of Louis XVI, was not a large cityin the modern sense of the word; still the government found it verydifficult to secure a regular supply of food in the markets. Now grainand even meat and fruit are easily carried any distance. England importsa large amount of her meat from Australia, on the other side of theglobe, and even her butter and eggs she gets largely from the continent. [Sidenote: Abolition of most of the restrictions on trade and industry. ] 281. Before the nineteenth century the European governments had beenaccustomed to regulate trade, industry, and commerce by a great varietyof laws, which were supposed to be necessary for the protection of thepublic. Of this we find examples in the English Navigation Acts;[466] inthe guilds, which under the protection of the government enjoyed amonopoly of their industries in their particular districts; in theregulations issued by Colbert[467] and in the grain laws in both Franceand England, which limited the free importation and even the exportationof grain. The French and English economists in the eighteenth century, like Turgotand Adam Smith, advocated the abolition of all restrictions, which theybelieved did far more harm than good. The expediency of this _laissezfaire_, [468] or free-trade policy, has now been recognized by mostEuropean powers. England abolished her grain laws (the so-called CornLaws) in 1846, and since then has adopted the policy of free trade, except so far as she raises a revenue from customs duties imposed upon avery few commodities, like liquor and tobacco. Low import duties arecollected by most of the European powers on goods entering theirterritories, but all export duties have been abolished as well as allcustoms barriers within the countries. [Sidenote: Government regulations protecting the laborer. ] A short experience with the factory system showed the need ofregulations designed to protect the laborer. [469] There was a temptationfor the new factories to force the employees to work an excessive numberof hours under unhealthful conditions. Women and children were set torun the machines, and their strength was often cruelly overtaxed. Womenand children were also employed in the coal mines, under terriblydegrading conditions. One of the great functions of our moderngovernments has been to pass laws to protect the working men and womenand to improve their condition. Germany has been particularly active inthis sort of regulation, and has gone so far as to compel workingmen toinsure themselves for the benefit of their families. [470] [Sidenote: Labor unions. ] Another development of the factory system has been the rise of laborunions. These are voluntary associations intended to promote theinterests of their members. They have grown as the factory system hasbeen extended, and they now enjoy an influence in certain industriescomparable to that exercised by the craft guilds of the Middle Ages. Thegovernments do not undertake, however, to enforce the regulations of thelabor unions as they formerly did of the guilds. [471] [Sidenote: The people admitted to a share in the government. ] [Sidenote: Character of modern constitutions. ] 282. The extension of manufacturing industries has had much to do withthe gradual admission of the people to a share in the government. Thelife in towns and cities has quickened the intelligence of the workingclasses, so that they are no longer willing to intrust the affairs ofgovernment entirely to a king or to the representatives of the upperclasses. The result of this was, as we have seen, that constitutionswere, during the nineteenth century, introduced into all the westernEuropean states. While these differ from one another in detail, they allagree in establishing a house of representatives, whose members arechosen by the people at large. Gradually the franchise has been extendedso that the poorest laborer, so soon as he comes of age, is permitted tohave a voice in the selection of the deputies. [472] Without the sanctionof the representatives of the people, the king and the upper, morearistocratic house are not allowed to pass any law or establish any newtax. Each year a carefully prepared list of expenses must be presentedto the lower house and receive its ratification before money collectedby taxation can be spent. [Sidenote: Equality before the law. ] The French prefaced their first constitution by the memorable words:"All citizens being equal before the law, are alike eligible to allpublic offices and positions of honor and trust, according to theircapacity, and without any distinction, except that of their characterand ability. " This principle, so different from that which had hithertoprevailed, has been recognized in most of the modern Europeanconstitutions. The privileges and exceptions which everywhere existedbefore the French Revolution have been abolished. Modern Europeangovernments are supposed to treat all alike, regardless of social rankor religious belief. [Sidenote: Religious equality in England. ] [Sidenote: Repeal of the Test Act, 1828. ] At the opening of the nineteenth century England still kept on thestatute book the laws debarring Roman Catholics and dissenters fromsitting in Parliament or holding any public office. Exceptions, however, were made in the case of the dissenters. Finally, after violentopposition on the part of the conservative party, the Test Act, passedin the reign of Charles II, [473] was repealed in 1828. Next year theRoman Catholics were also given the right to sit in Parliament and tohold office, like the other subjects of the king. [Sidenote: Free and compulsory education under the control of thestate. ] Education, which was formerly left to the church, has during thenineteenth century become one of the most important functions ofgovernment. Boys and girls of all classes, between the ages of four andfourteen or fifteen, are now generally forced to take advantage of theschools which the government supports for their benefit. Tuition is freein France, Italy, Norway, and Sweden, and only trifling fees arerequired in Germany and elsewhere in western Europe. In 1902 the EnglishParliament and the French Legislative Assembly each appropriated aboutforty million dollars for educational purposes. As an example of therapid advance in education in recent times, it may be noted that in1843, among those who married in England and Wales, one third of the menand half of the women were unable to sign their names in the marriageregisters. In 1899 all but three men in a hundred could write, andalmost as many of the women. [Sidenote: Warfare in recent times. ] 283. The general advance in education has not yet taught nations tosettle all their disputes without recourse to war. It is true that sinceNapoleon's downfall there have been but three or four serious wars inwestern Europe, and these very brief ones compared with the earlierconflicts. But the European powers spend vast amounts annually inmaintaining standing armies and building battle ships. France andGermany have each a force of over half a million carefully trainedsoldiers ready to fight at any moment, and two million more who can becalled out with the utmost speed should war be declared. [474] Theinvention of repeating rifles and of new and deadly explosives have, however, rendered war so terrible a thing to contemplate that statesmenare more and more reluctant to suggest a resort to arms. [Sidenote: European colonies in the nineteenth century. ] Recent wars and the frequent rumors of war have had their origin mainlyin disagreements over colonial matters. The anxiety of the Europeanpowers to extend their control over distant parts of the world is now noless marked than it was in the eighteenth century. Modern means ofcommunication have naturally served to make the world smaller and morecompact. An event in London is known as promptly in Sydney as in Oxford. A government can send orders to its commanders on the opposite side ofthe globe as easily as if they were but five miles away. Supplies, ammunition, and arms are, moreover, readily and speedily transferred toremote points. [Sidenote: The Spanish colonies in North and South America establishtheir independence, 1810-1826. ] At the opening of the nineteenth century Spain still held Mexico, Florida, Central America, and most of South America except Brazil, which belonged to Portugal. During the Napoleonic period the Spanishcolonies revolted and declared their independence of the mothercountry, --Mexico, New Granada, Chile, and the region about Buenos Ayresin 1810, Venezuela in 1811, etc. By 1826 Spain had been forced to giveup the struggle and withdraw her troops from the American continent. In1822 Brazil declared itself independent of Portugal. After the recentwar with the United States Spain lost Cuba, Porto Rico, and thePhilippines, the last remnants of her once imposing colonial domains. [Sidenote: Expansion of England during the nineteenth century. ] England, on the other hand, has steadily increased her colonial realmsand her dependencies during the nineteenth century, and has met with noserious losses since the successful revolt of the thirteen Americancolonies. In 1814 she acquired the Cape of Good Hope from the Dutch, andsince then the territory has been enlarged by adding the adjacentdistricts. During the last years of the nineteenth century Englandbusied herself extending her power over large tracts of western, central, and eastern Africa. England has secured her interests in the eastern Mediterranean bygaining control of the Suez Canal, which was completed in 1869, mainlywith French capital. In 1875 she purchased the shares owned by thekhedive of Egypt. Then, since the khedive's finances were in a very badway, she arranged to furnish him, in the interest of his creditors andin agreement with France, with financial advisers without whose approvalhe can make no financial decision. Moreover, English troops arestationed in Egypt with a view of maintaining order. In the southern hemisphere England has colonized the continent ofAustralia, the large islands of New Zealand, Tasmania, etc. The mothercountry wisely grants these colonies and Canada almost complete freedomin managing their own affairs. The Canadian provinces formed afederation among themselves in 1867, and in 1901 the Commonwealth ofAustralia was proclaimed, a federation of the five Australian coloniesand the island of Tasmania. [Sidenote: Expansion of Russia since the Crimean War. ] France exercises a wide influence in Africa and even Germany has madesome effort to gain a foothold there; but the most momentous extensionof a European power is that of Russia. Since the Crimean War Russia haspressed steadily into central Asia, so that now her boundaries and thoseof the English possessions in India practically touch one another. Shehas also been actively engaged in the Far East. In 1898 she leased PortArthur from China, and now the Trans-Siberian Railroad connects this aswell as Vladivostok on the Pacific coast with Moscow. [Sidenote: The Far Eastern Question. ] Recent events have shown that the European powers are likely to comeinto hostile relations with one another in dealing with China. Theproblem of satisfying the commercial and military demands of the variousnations constitutes what is known as the Far Eastern Question. [Sidenote: General disturbance caused by war in modern conditions. ] While all these conquests of the European powers increase theprobability of friction and misunderstandings, there is a growingabhorrence of war. It appears more inhuman to men of to-day than it didto their ancestors. Moreover, all parts of the world are now sodependent each on the other that even the rumor of war may producedisastrous results far and wide. The prospect of war frightens themerchants, checks commerce and industry, and causes loss both to thelaborer and the capitalist. [Sidenote: The peace conference at The Hague, 1899. ] Many difficulties between nations can now be adjusted by the rules ofinternational law. Arbitration is more and more frequently preferred towar. In 1899 an international peace conference was held at The Hague atthe suggestion of the Tsar. Its object was to consider how the Europeanpowers might free themselves from the burden of supporting tremendousarmies and purchasing the terrible engines of destruction which moderningenuity has conceived. The resolutions of the conference embody rulesfor adjusting international disputes and prohibiting the use ofparticularly cruel and murderous projectiles, and for the treatment ofprisoners of war, etc. It has been possible to mention only a few of the startling achievementsand changes which the nineteenth century has witnessed. Enough has, however, been said to show that Europe to-day differs perhaps morefundamentally from the Europe Napoleon knew than did Napoleon's worldfrom Charlemagne's. Although civil and religious liberty and equalityhave been established, and incredible progress has been made inscientific thought, in general enlightenment, and in domestic comfort, yet the growth of democracy, the magnitude of the modern city, and theunprecedented development of industry and commerce have brought withthem new and urgent problems which the future must face. General Reading. --_The Progress of the Century_ (Harper & Bros. , $2. 50), a collection of essays by distinguished writers and investigators, summing up the changes of the nineteenth century. _The Statesman's Year Book_ (The Macmillan Company, $3. 00) is issued each year and gives much valuable information in regard to the population, constitution, finances, educational system, etc. , of the European states. WELLS, _Recent Economic Changes_ (D. Appleton & Co. , $2. 00). LIST OF BOOKS[475] ADAMS, GEORGE B. , _Civilization during the Middle Ages_ (CharlesScribner's Sons, $2. 50). ADAMS, GEORGE B. , _Growth of the French Nation_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 25). ANDREWS, _Historical Development of Modern Europe_ (G. P. Putnam's Sons, $2. 75). BRYCE, _The Holy Roman Empire_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 00). _Cambridge Modern History_, Volume I (The Macmillan Company, $3. 75). CESARESCO, _Liberation of Italy_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, $1. 75). CHEYNEY, _Industrial and Social History of England_ (The MacmillanCompany, $1. 40). COLBY, _Selections from the Sources of English History_ (Longmans, Green& Co. , $1. 50). CUNNINGHAM, _Western Civilization in its Economic Aspects: Volume II_, _Mediæval and Modern Times_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 25). EMERTON, _Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages_ (Ginn & Company, $1. 12). EMERTON, _Mediæval Europe_ (Ginn & Company, $1. 50). FYFFE, _History of Modern Europe_ (Henry Holt & Co. , $2. 75). GARDINER, _Student's History of England_ (Longmans, Green & Co. , $3. 00). GREEN, _Short History of the English People_, Revised Edition (Harper &Bros. , $1. 20). HASSALL, _The Balance of Power_ [Europe in the Eighteenth Century] (TheMacmillan Company, $1. 60). HATCH, _Growth of Church Institutions_ (Whittaker, $1. 50). HENDERSON, _A History of Germany in the Middle Ages_ (The MacmillanCompany, $2. 60). HENDERSON, _Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages_ (TheMacmillan Company, $1. 50). HENDERSON, _Short History of Germany_, 2 volumes (The Macmillan Company, $4. 00). HODGKIN, _Dynasty of Theodosius_ (Clarendon Press, Oxford, $1. 50). JESSOP, _The Coming of the Friars_ (G. P. Putnam's Sons, $1. 25). JOHNSON, _Europe in the Sixteenth Century_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 75) LEE, _Source-book of English History_ (Henry Holt & Co. , $2. 00). LOWELL, E. J. , _Eve of the French Revolution_ (Houghton, Mifflin & Co. , $2. 00). MATHEWS, _The French Revolution_ (Longmans, Green & Co. , $1. 25). MUNRO, _Mediæval History_ (D. C. Appleton & Co. , 90 cents). OMAN, _Dark Ages_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 75). PERKINS, _France under the Regency_ (Houghton, Mifflin & Co. , $2. 00). PHILLIPS, _Modern Europe_ (1815-1899) (The Macmillan Company, $1. 50). ROSE, _Life of Napoleon the First_, 2 volumes (The Macmillan Company, $4. 00). ROSE, _Revolutionary and Napoleonic Period_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 25). SCHWILL, _History of Modern Europe_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, $1. 50). SMITH, MUNROE, _Bismarck and German Unity_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 00). STEPHENS, _The French Revolution_, 3 volumes (Charles Scribner's Sons, $7. 50). _Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of EuropeanHistory_ (Department of History, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Single numbers, 10 cents; double numbers, 20 cents). WAKEMAN, _Europe from 1598 to 1715_ (The Macmillan Company, $1. 40). WALKER, _The Protestant Reformation_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, $2. 00). INDEX Abbeys, _see_ Monasteries. Abbot, meaning of, 58. Abbots chosen by feudal lords, 155. Abelard, 268 f. Absolute monarchy, 475 ff. , 496 ff. Acolyte, 20. Acre taken in First Crusade, 194. Act of Appeals, 430. Act of Supremacy, 430. Act of Uniformity, 491. Adda, valley of, 471. _Address to the German Nobility_, by Luther, 396 f. Adrian VI, Pope, attempts reformation of Church, 310. Adrianople, battle of, 25. _Æneid_, copies of, in Middle Ages, 333, note. Agincourt, battle of (1415), 292. Agricola, Rudolph, 379. Aids, feudal, 111, 145 and note. Aistulf, Lombard king, 74 f. Aix-la-Chapelle, Charlemagne's palace at, 78. Alaric takes Rome, 26. Albertus Magnus, 231, 260; writes commentary on Aristotle, 272. Albigenses, 221 f. ; crusade against, 223 f. , 256. Alchemy, 672. Aleander's views of Protestant revolt, 399, 403. Alemanni, 35; attempted conversion of, by St. Columban, 65. Alessandria built, 178. Alexander III, Pope, 178 f. Alexander VI, Pope (Borgia), 362, 364. Alexander I, Tsar, 611, 620. Alexius, Emperor, and First Crusade, 188, 191. Alfred the Great, 133 f. Alsace ceded to Germany, 472 f. , 663 and note. Alva, 448 ff. Amalfi, commerce of, 243. Ambrose, 51. America, North, explored by English, 351. American colonies of England, revolt of, 532 ff. American Revolution, 533 ff. Amiens, rupture of Treaty of, 610. Anabaptists, 416. Anagni, attack on Boniface VIII at, 306. _Ancien Régime_, 537 ff. Andrea del Sarto, 346. Angelico, Fra, 343. Angevins, _see_ Plantagenets. Angles, 27; settle in Britain, 60. Anglo-Saxon, 253. _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 134, 253. Anjou, 126, 301. Anne, Queen, 524. Antioch, Latin principality of, 193. Antwerp, 450. _Appanages_, creation of, in France, 128. Aquinas, 231, 272. Aquitaine, 67, 82, 93, 124, 126. _See also_ Guienne. Arabia, 243. Arabs, condition of, before Mohammed, 69; conquests of, 70 f. ; conquer Syria, 188; civilization of, in Spain, 356. Aragon united with Castile, 357. Archbishops, origin of, 21; powers of, 203 ff. Arches defined and illustrated, 264. Architecture, mediæval, 262 f. ; Romanesque, 263; Gothic, 264 f. ; domestic, 266 f. ; Renaissance, 339 f. Aristotle, mediæval veneration for, 271 f. ; Dante's estimate of, 331. Arius, 30. Arles, _see_ Burgundy. Armada, 463. Arnold of Brescia, 177. Arnulf of Carinthia, 97. Art, mediæval, 261 f. ; fostered by Italian despots, 326; Renaissance, 339; Arabic, 356. Arthur, nephew of John of England, 127. Artois, count of, 575, 630. _See_ Charles X of France. _Assignats_, 571, 591 and note. Astrology, 260, 672. Astronomy, mediæval knowledge of, 331; discoveries of Copernicus, 351; modern, 672 f. Athanasius, 50. Athens, school at, closed, 33. Attila, 27. Augsburg, Hungarians defeated near, 150; confession of, 417 f. ; diet of, 417 f. ; religious Peace of, 419 f. , 465. Augustine, Bishop of England, 61. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, 26, note, 51, 390, 393. Augustinian order, 385, note, 387. Austerlitz, battle of, 611. Australia, 685 f. Austrasia, 37, 38. Austria, 150, 354 f. ; hold of, on Italy, 507; conflicts with Turks, 517 f. ; war of 1809 with Napoleon, 619; mixed population of, 632; influence of, after 1815, 640; revolution of 1848 in, 644 f. ; opposition of, to German unity, 651 f. ; decline of influence of, after 1851, 653 f. ; war with Prussia (1866), 660. Austrian Mark, 150. Austrian Netherlands, given to France, 604; to Holland, 625. Austrian Succession, War of, 518 ff. Avignon, seat of papacy (1305-1377), 307 f. ; Clement VII, anti-pope, reëstablishes papal court at, 310. Azores Islands discovered by Portuguese, 347. Baber, 529 and note. Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1305-1377), 307 f. _Babylonian Captivity of the Church_, by Luther, 397. Bacon, Francis, 478. Bacon, Roger, 273, 478, 671. Bacteria, 674. Baden granted a constitution, 635. Bæda, _see_ Venerable Bede. Bagdad, 83, note. _Baillis_, established by Philip Augustus, 130. Balance of power, 427 f. , 625 f. Baldwin, in First Crusade, 191 f. ; ruler of Jerusalem, 194. Balliol, 279. Banking, origin of, 246. Bannockburn, battle of (1314), 280. _Banquet_, Dante's, 331. Baptism essential to salvation, 46; sacrament of, 210. Baptists, 491. Barbarians, _see_ Germans. _Barbarians, Laws of the_, 40. Barbarossa, Frederick, _see_ Frederick I, Emperor. Barebone's Parliament, 489. Barons, War of the, 146 f. Basel, Council of (1431-1449), 318 f. Basil, 51. Bastile, fall of the, 565. Bavaria, conquered by the Franks, 37; 65, 67, 82, 93, 98, 112; made an electorate, 467; in War of Austrian Succession, 518 f. ; elector of, assumes title of king, 612; granted a constitution, 635. Baylen, battle of, 618. Bede, _see_ Venerable Bede. Bedford, duke of, 293. "Beggars" of the Netherlands, 447. Belgium, 627 f. ; becomes an independent kingdom, 640 f. Belisarius overthrows the Vandal kingdom, 33. Benedict, St. , 57 f. ; Rule of, 57 f. Benedict IX, Pope, 160. Benedict XIII, Pope, deposed by Council of Pisa, 313; by Council of Constance, 315. Benedictine order, 57, note. _Beneficium_, 105 f. Berbers, 71. Berlin, Congress of, 670. Bible, translated into Gothic, 252; Wycliffe's translation of, 309; first printed, 338; German, before Luther, 378, 405; Luther's translation of, 405 f. ; German, for Catholics, 413; English translation of, 431; King James version of, 478 and note. Bishop of Rome, not yet pope in Constantine's time, 21; obscurity of the early, 50; Valentinian's decree concerning, 51. _See_ Pope. Bishops, origin of, 20, 67; method of choosing, 155; complicated position of, 156, 174; duties, position, and importance of, 204, 206 f. Bismarck, 657 ff. , 663. Black Death (1348-1349), 288. Black Friars, _see_ Dominicans. "Black Hole" of Calcutta, 531. Black Prince of England, at Crécy, 285; and Poitiers, 287. Blockade, 615 f. Boethius, last distinguished Roman writer, 19, 31 f. , 134. Bohemia, Huss spreads Wycliffe's doctrines in, 309; relation with Council of Basel, 318 f. ; revolts from the Hapsburgs, 466 f. ; in 1848, 646, 648. Bohemians, Charlemagne forces, to pay tribute, 82. Bohemond, in First Crusade, 191 f. Boleyn, Anne, 429 f. Bologna, study of Roman law at, 177. Bonaparte, analysis of character of, 595 ff. _See_ Napoleon. Bonaventura, head of Franciscan order, quoted, 232. Boniface, St. , apostle to the Germans, 65 f. ; anoints Pippin, 73. Boniface VIII, Pope, struggle with Philip the Fair, 304 f. Book of Prayer, English, 435, 458, 482, 491. Books copied by monks, 58. Borgia, Cæsar, hero of Machiavelli's _Prince_, 362. Borgia, Pope Alexander VI, 362. Borodino, battle of, 621. Bosnia, 669, 670 and note. Boso, count of Vienne, 97. Bosworth Field, battle of, 297. Bothwell, 459 f. Boulogne, Napoleon's army at, 610 f. Bourbon kings, 453, 630. Brandenburg, electorate of, 372, 474, 515 f. _See_ Prussia. Brazil, 685. Breitenfeld, battle of, 470. Bremen, foundation of, 81; commerce of, 244; member of the German empire, 604. Bretigny, Treaty of (1360), 286 f. Britain conquered by the Angles and Saxons, 60; church of, yields to Roman Church, 62. Brittany, 123. Bruce, Robert, 279 f. Bruges, 123, 245. Brumaire, eighteenth, 598. Bruni, Leonardo, estimate of importance of Greek studies, 336. Bruno, Archbishop, 149. Buckingham, 478. Bulgaria, 669 f. Bulgaria, South, 670, note. Bulls, papal, origin of name, 204, note. _Bundesrath_, 661, 666. Burgher class, rise of, 249. Burgundians, 30, 36; number of, entering the empire, 39. Burgundy, county of, 366, 471. _See also_ Franche-Comté. Burgundy, duchy of, 124, 292; alliance with England, 292 f. ; importance of, under Philip the Good and Charles the Bold, 300, 354, 417. Burgundy, kingdom of, 38, 97, 124 and note, 153. _Burnt Njal, The Story of_, 99, note. Buttress, flying, defined and illustrated, 264 f. Byzantium, 22, note. Cabinet, English, 524 f. Cadiz, 479. Cædmon, 253. Cæsar, drives back the Germans, 5; conquers Britain, 60. _Cahiers_, 562 f. Calais taken by English, 285, 295. Calcutta, 529; "Black Hole" of, 531. Calendar, French republican, 582 and note. Caliph, title of, 70. Calmar, Union of, 469. Calonne, 556 f. ; reforms proposed by, 558 ff. Calvin, 425 f. , 452. Calvinists, 420, 473. Cambray, League of (1508), 365. Campo-Formio, Treaty of, 594 f. Canada won by the English, 530, 532, 685 f. Canary Islands discovered by Portuguese, 347. Canon law, 202, note; burned by Luther, 399. Canonical election, 155. Canons, 207, note. _Canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, The_, 440. Canossa, 169. Canterbury, the religious capital of England, 61; St. Martin's at, 61; dispute concerning Archbishop of, under John, 183. Capet, Hugh, 121. Capetian kings, position of early, 121 f. , 124 f. Capitularies, 87. _Carbonari_, 637. Cardinals, 162 and note, 204. Carloman, brother of Pippin, 72. Carlsbad Resolutions, 634 f. Carlstadt, 407 f. Carnot, 588. Carolingian line in France, 120 f. Cassiodorus, his treatises on the liberal arts and sciences, 32. Castile, united with Aragon, 357. Castle, mediæval, 100, 267. Catechism, Napoleon's, 617. Cathari, 221. Cathedral, the mediæval, 262 f. ; of Wells, 265 f. Catherine de' Medici, 454 f. Catherine of Aragon, 367, 428 ff. Catherine II of Russia, 514. Catholic Church, early conception of, 20. _See_ Church, Clergy. Catholic League of Dessau, 415. Catholic League in Germany, 466 f. Catholic party, formation of a, at Regensburg, 412. Catholic reaction, 438, note. Catholic reformation, 412 f. , 437 ff. Cavaliers, 485. Cavour, 654. Celibacy of the clergy, _see_ Marriage. Celts in Britain, 60. Chalcedon, Act of the Council of, 51. Châlons, battle of, 27. Champagne, counts of, growth of possessions of, 113 f; position of, 114 f. Chapter, cathedral, 207. Charlemagne, 77 ff. ; ideal of, of a great German empire, 79; coronation of, as emperor, 83 f. ; reëstablishes the Western Empire, 84 f. ; system of government of, 86; his farms, 86 and note; interest of, in schools, 87 ff. , 268; disruption of empire of, 92 ff. ; collects German poems, 253; hero of romances, 254. Charles Martel, 38; aids Boniface, 66, 67 ff. ; defeats the Mohammedans at Tours, 72. Charles the Bald, 92 f. , 95. Charles the Fat, 96 f. Charles the Simple, 96, note, 113, 121 f. Charles V of France (1364-1380) reconquers most of English possessions in France, 287 f. Charles VI of France, 292 f. Charles VII of France, 293 f. Charles VIII of France invades Italy, 360 f. Charles IX of France, 454 ff. Charles X of France, 630. _See also_ Artois, count of. Charles the Bold of Burgundy, 300, 422. Charles V, Emperor, 301; possessions of, 354, 359 f. ; coronation of, 367; wars with Francis I, 366, 415, 417; at diet of Worms, 400; at Augsburg, 417 f. ; attitude toward the Protestants, 438; abdicates, 444. Charles VI, Emperor, 518. Charles VII, Emperor, 518 f. Charles I of England, 478 ff. ; financial exactions of, 479, 481; execution of, 486 f. Charles II of England, 488, 490 ff. Charles II of Spain, 502; will of, 506. Charles XII of Sweden, 513 f. Charles Albert of Sardinia, 646, 647, 650. Charter, French, of 1814, 629 f. Charter, the Great, of England, 144, 146. Charters granted to mediæval towns, 239 f. Chemistry, 672. Chivalry, 256 f. Christian IV of Denmark, 467 f. Christian missions, map of, 63. Christianity, preparation for, in Roman Empire, 18; promises of, 18; pagan rites and conceptions adopted by, 19. Christians, persecution of, 10. Chrysoloras called to teach Greek in Florence, 336. Church, apostolic, 19; organization of, before Constantine, 20; in the Theodosian Code, 21; survives the Roman Empire, 22; greatness of, 44; sources of power of, 45 ff. ; attitude of, toward the civil government, 47; begins to perform the functions of the civil government, 48; coöperation of, with the civil government, 80, note, 81; maintains knowledge of Latin, 87; policy of William the Conqueror in regard to English, 138; wealth of, 154; lands of, feudalized, 154; offices bought and sold, 158; and state, 165, 303; character and organization of mediæval, 201 ff. ; services of, to civilization, 216; evil effects of wealth upon, 217 f. ; loses power as modern states develop, 303 f. ; reasons for influence of, in Middle Ages, 303, 370; corruption of, 217 ff. ; during Babylonian Captivity of, 307; in Germany, 383; attempted reformation of, 223; at Constance, 317; taxation of, 307; attempted union of, with Eastern Church, 319; attitude of humanists toward, 335; enthusiasm for, in Germany before Luther, 377; discontent with, in Germany, 385; in France before the Revolution, 541 ff. ; attacked by Voltaire, 550; property of, confiscated by the National Assembly, 570 f. ; lands, secularization of, 603. Church fathers, 50 f. Cicero, humanists' estimate of, 332, 334. Cisalpine republic, 595, 601, 602. Cistercian order, 219. _City of God, The_, Augustine's, 26, note, 78. Civil Constitution of the Clergy, 571 f. , 580, 606 f. Civil war in England, 485 f. Classics, Greek and Roman, neglect of, in the Middle Ages, 259, 330, 333, note; Dante's respect for, 331; revival of, 332 ff. ; Petrarch's enthusiasm and search for, 332 ff. Clement V, Pope, removes seat of papacy to France, 306. Clement VII, anti-pope, returns to Avignon, 310. Clement VII, Pope, 412, 430. Clergy, minor orders of, 20; privileges of, in Theodosian Code, 21; attitude toward civil government, 81; lower, demoralized by simony, 159; importance of, to civilization, 214 f. ; benefit of, 214, note; corruption of, 217 f. ; secular, opposition of, to mendicant orders, 231; reform of, at Regensburg, 412; policy of Henry VIII toward, 429 ff. ; in France before the Revolution, 542; representatives of, join third estate, 564; Civil Constitution of, 571 f. , 580, 606 f. ; non-juring, in France, 572, 579, 606. _See also_ Marriage. _Clericis laicos_, papal bull, 304. Clive, 531 f. Clovis, conquests of, 35 f. ; conversion of, 35; number of soldiers of, baptized, 39. Cnut, king of England, 134. Coal, use of, 676. _Code Napoléon_, 607 f. Coinage, French king's control of, 131. Colbert, reforms of, 499 f. Colet, 426 f. Coligny, 455 f. Cologne, 12, 248; elector of, 372. _Coloni_, condition of, 15 f. Colonies, European, 527 ff. , 684; Roman, 12; French, in North America, 527 f. ; Spanish, 684 f. Columban, St. , 65. _Columban St. , Life of_, 65, note. Columbus, 350. _Comitatus_, 105 f. _Comites_, 67. Commendation, 105 and note. Commerce, development of, 199 f. , 243 f. ; restrictions on, 245 f. ; in Italy, 243, 322 f. ; in France and England, 302. Commercial war between Holland and England, 488. Committee of Public Safety, 585, 587 f. Common law, English, 142. Commons, House of, 147. _See_ Parliament. Commons, summoned to the French Estates General, 131; the English, 147. Commonwealth, England a, 487. Commune, Paris, 586; insurrection of, 1871, 664. Communes, establishment of, in France in 1789, 566. Communes, origin of, 239 f. Communication, modern means of, 678 f. , 684. Communion under both kinds, 432 and note. Compass, invention of, 352. Compendiums, reliance upon, in later Roman Empire, 17; inherited by Middle Ages, 18. Compurgation, 41. Concordat, between Francis I and Pope Leo X, 366, note; of 1801, 607. Condé, 472. _Condottieri_, Italian mercenary troops, 326 f. Confederation of the Rhine, 612 f. Confession, 212, note. Confession of Augsburg, 417 f. Confirmation, sacrament of, 211. Congregational church, 483. Congress of Berlin, 670. Congress of Vienna, 625 ff. Conrad II, Emperor, 153. Conrad III, Emperor, 173, note, 197. _Consolation of Philosophy, The_, of Boethius, 19, 134. Constance, heiress of Naples and Sicily, marries Emperor Henry VI, 180. Constance, Peace of (1183), 179; Council of (1414), 314. Constantine, 21 f. Constantine VI, 84. Constantinople, 22 f. ; threatened by Turks, 188; taken by the Turks, 23, 517; Bishop of, put on an equal footing with the Bishop of Rome, 51; during First Crusade, 191; culture of, affects the West, 336 f. ; desire of Russia for, 668. Constitution, first French, 576; of the year VIII, 599; veneration for a, in Italy, 637. Constitutional government, desire for, in France, 563; demand for, in Prussia, 632; granted in southern Germany, 635; in Piedmont, 651. Consul, title of Bonaparte, 600, 608. Continental blockade, 615 f. Continental system, the, 616. Continuity of history, 4. Conventicle Act, 492. Convention, French, 582 ff. ; close of, 590 f. Conversion of the Germans, 56 ff. ; of the Saxons, 80. Copernicus (Kopernik), astronomical discoveries of, 351 f. Copyists, carelessness of, 89 and note, 90. Corbie, school at, 90. Cordova, emir of, 83; brilliant civilization of caliphate of, 356. Corn Laws, 681. Corneille, 500. Corsica added to France, 536, 592 f. Cortez conquers Mexico, 351. Council, general, 311 f. ; of Clermont, 188; fourth Lateran, 184; of Pisa, 313; of Constance, 314 ff. ; of Basel, 318 f. ; of Ferrara-Florence, 319 f. ; Luther recognizes fallibility of, 393. Council of Blood, 448. Council of State, French, 599. Counter-reformation, 438, note. Counties, sheriffs in the English, 137. Counts, origin of, 67; position of, 102. Counts of the march, 82, 86. _Coup d'état_, 598. Court, lord's, 110 and note. Court of High Commission, 482. Covenant, National, 483 f. Crécy, battle of, 284. Crema destroyed by Frederick I, 178. Crimean War, 668 f. Cromwell, Oliver, 485 ff. ; death of, 489 f. Cromwell, Richard, 490. Crusade, Albigensian, 223 f. , 256. Crusades, 23, 187 ff. ; effects of, 199 f. , 243, 347. Culloden Moor, 527. Culture, mediæval, 250 f. ; general use of Latin, 250; Germanic languages, 251 f. ; Romance languages, 251 f. ; literature, romance, 254 f. ; chivalry, 256 f. ; ignorance of the past, 259; popular science, 260; art, 261 f. ; education, the universities, 267 f. ; Roman and canon law, 269; Aristotle, 271; scholasticism, 272. Curia, papal, 204. Customs duties, 246, 681. Customs lines, interior, 539 f. Customs union, German, 635. Cyprian, 20. Czar, _see_ Tsar. Dagobert, 38. Damascus, seat of the caliphate, 70, 83, note. Danegeld, 134. Danes, 99, note; invade England, 133 f. ; defeated by Alfred, 133. Danish language, derivation of, 251. Dante, 330 f. Danton, 589. Dantzig, 196, 248. Dark age before Charlemagne, 87. "Dark ages, " meaning of, 6, 91. Darnley, 459. Dauphin, origin of title, 292, note. Deacons, 19 f. Declaration of Independence, American, 533. Declaration of Rights, English, 494. Declaration of the Rights of Man, 568 ff. , 629. _Decretum_ of Gratian, 269. Degrees, university, explained, 270, note. Deist, 550. Departments in France, 538, 567 f. Desaix, 601 f. Dessau, League of, 415. _Dialogues_ of Gregory the Great, 54. Diaz rounds Cape of Good Hope, 348. _Dictatus_ of Gregory VII. , 164. Diet, German, attempts to reform government, 375. Directory, French, 591, 593, 597 f. , 601. Discoveries in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 347 f. ; modern scientific, 671 ff. Dispensations, papal, 203. Dissenters, 491. _Divine Comedy_ of Dante, 330. Divine right of kings, 476 f. , 496 ff. Doge of Venice, 324. Domain, 121. _Domesday Book_, 138. Dominican order organized, 230. Donauwörth, 466. Drake, Sir Francis, 461. Dresden, battle of, 623. Dukes, origin of, 67. Dumouriez, 582, 584. Dunkirk, 489, 588. Dupleix, 531. Dürer, Albrecht, 346. Dutch, commerce of, 448. _See also_ Holland. Dutch language, derivation of, 251. East Frankish kingdom, 94, 98. East Goths, 28 f. , 30, 33. East India Company, English, 530; French, 530. Eastern Church, _see_ Greek Church. Eastern Empire, 22; civilization of, in Middle Ages, 23. Eastern question, origin of, 535, 667 ff. Ecclesiastical states, origin of, 156, note; in Germany, disappearance of, 603 f. Eck, 392 f. , 398, 418. Economists, French, 552 f. Edessa, Latin principality of, established, 193; fall of, 196. Edict of Nantes, 542. Edict of Restitution, 468, 473. Edict of Worms, 403 f. , 415. Education, clerical monopoly of, 213 f. ; mediæval, 267; humanistic, 335; compulsory, 683. Edward the Confessor, 134, 136 f. Edward I of England, 147, 278 f. Edward II, 280; forced to abdicate, 281. Edward III, claims French crown, 283 f. , 286 f. Edward IV, 296. Edward V, 297. Edward VI, 434 f. Egbert, king of Wessex, 133. Egypt, Bonaparte's expedition to, 597 f. ; English occupation of, 685. Eisenach, Luther at, 405. Elba, 624. Elders, 19, 426, note. Elders, Council of, 590, 599. Electors in empire, 372, 524, note. Elizabeth, queen of England, 430, 451, 458 ff. , 476. Embargo acts of the United States, 615 f. Emigrant nobles, 575, 577, 579; permitted to return, 607. _Émigrés_, _see_ Emigrant nobles. Emirate of Cordova, 83, note. "Emperor Elect, " 152, note. Emperor, Roman, his will law, 10; worship of, 10. Emperor, title of, held by Italian kings, 151; assumed by Otto the Great, 151; assumed by Napoleon, 608; assumed by Austrian ruler, 612. Empire, reëstablishment of, in the West, 84; divisions of, 92 f. , 96; relations with papacy, 151 f. ; under Hohenstaufens, 173, 185; under Hapsburgs, 355. _See_ Holy Roman Empire. Empire, Roman, character and organization of, 8 ff. Engine, steam, 675 f. England, early culture in, 64; becomes a part of the Catholic Church, 64; claims of kings of, to France, 130; importance of, in history of Europe, 133; on the accession of William the Conqueror, 135; feudalism in, 135; Norman conquest of, 136 ff. ; made tributary to pope by John, 183; commerce of, 244 f. , 351, 460 f. ; conquers Wales, 278; relations of, with Scotland, 279 f. ; union of, with Scotland, 280; during the Hundred Years' War, 281 ff. , 291 ff. , 301 f. ; labor problem of, and Peasants' War, 288 ff. ; Wars of the Roses, 296 f. ; humanism in, 335, 363; Protestant revolt in, 426 ff. ; struggle for constitutional government, 475 ff. ; establishment of commonwealth, 487 ff. ; restoration of the Stuarts, 490; revolution of 1688, 493; in the War of the Austrian Succession, 526; in the Seven Years' War, 520 f. ; expansion of, 523 ff. ; colonies of, in North America, 527 ff. ; settlements of, in India, 529; colonial possessions of, at end of eighteenth century, 535; involved in war with France (1793), 583; renews war with Napoleon, 610; expansion of, in the nineteenth century, 685. _See also_ Britain. English language, 134, 147, 251, 253 f. Epictetus, 18. Equality before the law, 683. Erasmus, 381 f. ; attitude of, toward Luther, 394, 427. Estates General, 131 f. And note, 285, 298 f. , 305, 475, 496 f. ; demanded by the _parlement_ of Paris, 560; summoning of, 561; meeting of (1789), 562 f. Esthonia, 514. Etruria, kingdom of, 620. Eucharist, _see_ Mass. Eugene IV, Pope, 319. Eugene of Savoy, 507. Euric, king of West Goths, 26. Europe after 1814, 625, 627 f. ; contemporaneous, 671. Excommunication, 213. Exorcist, 20. Fabliaux, mediæval, 256. Far Eastern Question, 686. Ferdinand I, Emperor, brother of Charles V, 412, 444, 465, 517. Ferdinand II, Emperor, 467. Ferdinand of Aragon, 357, 363, 364. Ferrara-Florence, Council of, 319 f. Feudal dues, 110 f. ; in France, 543; abolition of, 567. Feudal hierarchy, no regular, 116. Feudal registers, 112. Feudalism, 104 ff. ; origins of, 99 ff. , 102 f. , 104 f. ; anarchy of, 116 f. ; in England, 135; connection of, with chivalry, 257. Fief, hereditary character of, 106 ff. ; conditions upon which granted, 110 and note; classes of, 110, 111 f. , 115. Five Hundred, Council of, 590, 599. Flanders, 94, 123 f. , 244; weavers from, in England, 139; relations of, with England, 283 f. ; under dukes of Burgundy, 300; art of, 346. "Flayers, " 298. Florence, 321, 325, 327 ff. , 342; under Savonarola, 361 f. Fontenay, battle of, 93. Foot soldiers, English, defeat French knights at Crécy, 284; at Poitiers, 285; at Agincourt, 292. Forest cantons, 421. France, origin of, 94, 95 f. , 121; position of early kings of, 121 f. , 125; under Philip Augustus, 130; genealogical table of the kings of, 282, note; during the Hundred Years' War, 281 ff. , 288, 291 ff. ; standing army of, established, 298; condition under Louis XI, 299 ff. ; influence of Italian culture, 335, 363; Protestantism in, 451 ff. ; wars of religion, 451 ff. ; limits of, in 1659, 501 f. ; ascendency of, under Louis XIV, 495 ff. ; absolute monarchy in, 545; reforms of Colbert, 499 f. ; condition of, at end of the reign of Louis XIV, 508; joins in War of Austrian Succession, 518; alliance with the Hapsburgs, 520; possessions in North America, 527 f. ; in India, 529 ff. ; losses of, at close of Seven Years' War, 532; aids the United States, 534; in the eighteenth century, 535 f. , 537 ff. ; first Revolution, cause of, 545, 563; course of, 558 ff. ; First Republic, 581 ff. ; Reign of Terror, 585 ff. ; constitution of the year III, 590 f. ; reforms of Bonaparte, 599, 606, 616; restoration of the Bourbons, 629 f. ; revolution of 1848, 642 ff. ; Third Republic, 664 f. Franche-Comté, 300, 366, 471; ceded to France, 502 f. _See_ Burgundy, county of. Francis I, Emperor, 519. Francis II, Emperor, assumes the title of Emperor of Austria, 612. Francis I of France, 365, 415, 417, 425; wars with Emperor Charles V, 366; persecutes the Protestants, 452. Francis II of France, 452 f. Francis Joseph I, accession of, 650. Francis of Assisi, 226 ff. Franciscan order founded, 228. Franconian line of emperors, 153. Franco-Prussian War, 662 f. Frankfurt, National Assembly at, 646, 651 f. Franks, conquests of, 30, 34; conversion of, 35; history of, 36 f. ; alliance of, with popes, 73, 75 f. _See also_ Charlemagne. Frederick, Elector of the Palatinate, 466 f. , 477. Frederick I (Barbarossa), Emperor, 173, 197. Frederick II, Emperor, 181 f. , 198. Frederick I of Prussia, 516. Frederick II of Prussia, _see_ Frederick the Great. Frederick the Great, 516, 518 ff. Frederick the Wise, of Saxony, collects relics, 377; patron of Luther, 389. Frederick William III of Prussia, 613 f. , 621 f. Frederick William IV of Prussia, 652 f. , 656, note. Freedmen, condition of, 15. _Freedom of the Christian_, by Luther, 397, note. Freemen in competition with slaves in Roman Empire, 15. Free towns, German. _See_ Towns. French Academy, 501. French and Indian War, 530. French language, 94, 251, 254, 260. French Revolution, 4, 537 f. ; opening of, 557, 558 ff. ; second, 574, ff. _Frequens_, decree, of Council of Constance, 318, note. Friends, Society of, 491. Frisia, 79. Fritzlar, sacred oak of Odin at, 66. Fust, John, printer of Psalter of 1459, 338, note. Future life, pagan view of, 18; Christian view of, 19. Galileo, 673. Gall, St. , Irish missionary, 65; monk of, 78 and note. Garibaldi, 655, 667. Gascony, 124. Gaul, West Goths establish a kingdom in, 26; occupied by the Franks, 30, 35; church in, reformed and brought under the papal supremacy, 66. Gelasius, Pope, his opinion of the relation of the Church and the civil government, 47. Geneva, Calvin at, 425 f. Genghiz Khan, 510. Genoa, 174, 194, 198; commerce of, 243, 347; given to Sardinia, 626. Geoffrey, son of Henry II, 126 f. And note. George I of England, 524. George II of England, 526. George III, 533. German Confederation of 1815, 632 f. ; dissolution of, 660. German empire, Proclamation of the, 665. German kings, difficulties of, caused by the imperial title, 85; vain attempt of, to control Italy, 85. German kingship, 148, 152 f. German language, 94 f. And note, 251; reduced to writing, 252 f. , 258 f. ; books published in the, 250, note; in Luther's time, 405 f. Germans, infiltration of, into Roman Empire, 8, 12, 16 f. ; objects of, in invading the Empire, 25; number of invading, 39; fusion of, with the Romans, 39; character of early, 42; conversion of, 56 ff. Germany, 79, 95 f. ; foundation of towns in northern, 81; assigned to Louis the German, 92 f. , 94; history of, contrasted with that of France, 148; under the same ruler as Italy, 151 f. ; confusion in, under Henry VI, 182; want of unity in, 185, 355; culture in, 335, 363; before Protestant revolt: complexity, organization, the electors, the knights, the cities, neighborhood war, the diet, reorganization in fifteenth century, social and intellectual conditions, 371 f. ; during the Protestant revolt, 405 ff. ; progress of Protestantism in, 418 ff. ; religious division of, 412, 415 ff. ; after the Thirty Years' War, 473 f. ; territorial reorganization of, in 1803, 604; condition of, in 1814, 626; effects of Napoleonic era in, 631 f. ; in 1848, 646; unification of, 656 ff. , 665. Ghent, 123; commerce of, 245, 248. Ghibelline party, 179, note. Ghiberti, 342. Gian Galeazzo Visconti of Milan, 325. Gibbon, 73, 76. Gibraltar, 507, 532; siege of, 534. Giotto, 341 f. Girondists, 585 f. , 587. Glass, stained, 264. Godfrey of Bouillon, 191 f. , 193. Golden Bull sanctions neighborhood war, 117. Good Hope, Cape of, rounded by Diaz (1486), 348; ceded to England, 685. Gothic language, Bible translated into, 252. Gothic type, 339. Government, difficulty of, in the Middle Ages, 67, 85, 98; effect of feudalism on, 108 f. ; natural, 120; modern character of, 682 f. Grail, legend of Holy, 258. Granada, fall of, 83, 357. Grand Alliance, 506. Grand Remonstrance, 484. Granson, 422. Gratian, _Decretum_ of, 269. Gravitation, discovery of universal, 673. Gray Friars, _see_ Franciscans. Great Charter of England, 144-146. Great Elector of Prussia, 516. Great Khan, 510. Great Mogul, 529. Great St. Bernard crossed by Bonaparte, 601. Greece, creation of the kingdom of, 640, 668. Greek books brought to Venice in 1423, 337. Greek Church, tends to separate from the Latin, 51; union of, with Western Church, 319. Greek culture in the Roman Empire, 12. Greek language, knowledge of, in Middle Ages, 64, 336; revived study of, in Italy, 320, 336 f. Greek New Testament, 423. Gregory of Tours, 33, 36. Gregory the Great, 52 ff. ; writings of, 54; missionary work of, 55, 61. Gregory VI, Pope, 160. Gregory VII, 52, note, 138, 162, 164 ff. ; reform of, 161, 162 f. ; conflict of, with Henry IV, 167 ff. ; death of, 170. Gregory XI, Pope, 310. Gregory XII, Pope, 313, 315. Grotius, 508. Guelf party, origin of, 179, 182. Guienne, 130, 140, 283. _See also_ Aquitaine. Guilds, craft, 241 f. , 500; abolition of, in France, 555. Guillotine, 588 f. And notes. Guise, Henry of, 456. Guises, 454. Gunpowder, invention of, 352. Gustavus Adolphus, 468 ff. Gustavus Vasa, 469. Hades, 18. Hadrian, tomb of, 54. Hadrian IV, Pope, and Frederick I, 176 f. Hadrian VI, Pope, 410-412. Hague, peace conference at The, 686. Hampden, John, 481. Hanover, electorate of, 524, note. Hanover, house of, 524; occupied by Napoleon, 610; relations of, with Prussia, 613 f. Hanseatic League, 247 f. Hanseatic towns annexed to France, 602. Hapsburg, Rudolf of, king of Germany, 185. Hapsburgs, rise of, 354 f. , 421, 444 f. , 471, 517 ff. Harold, Earl of Wessex, 136 f. Hastings, battle of, 136, note. Hébert, 589. Heilbronn, articles of, 414. Hejira, the, 69. Henrietta Maria, 478. Henry II of England, possession of, 126, 140 ff. Henry III of England, 146 f. Henry IV of England, 291. Henry V of England continues Hundred Years' War, 291 ff. Henry VII of England, 296 f. Henry VIII of England, 365, 367, 426 ff. , 476. Henry II of France, 452. Henry III of France, 456. Henry IV of France, 457 f. Henry I of Germany, 149 and note. Henry III, Emperor, 153 f. ; intervenes in papal matters, 160, 166. Henry IV of Germany, 165 ff. ; conflict of, with Gregory VII, 167 ff. , 174. Henry V, Emperor, 171. Henry VI, Emperor, 180 f. Henry of Navarre, _see_ Henry IV of France. Henry the Lion, 180. Henry the Proud, 179. Heresy, in twelfth and thirteenth centuries, 220 f. ; punishment of, 225; of Huss, 314 f. , 403 and note. Herzegovina, 669, 670 and note. Hesse, Philip of, 409 f. , 415, 419. Hesse-Cassel, 628. Hildebrand, _see_ Gregory VII. Hindustan, 348, 529 ff. History, scope of, 1; continuity or unity of, 4; notions of, in the Middle Ages, 259 f. Hohenstaufens, 173 f. _See also_ Frederick I, Henry VI, Frederick II. Hohenzollern family, 515. _See also_ Brandenburg and Prussia. Holbein, Hans, 346. Holidays, number of, reduced in Germany, 412. Holland, 449; war with England, 492; war with France, 492 f. , 502 f. ; colonies of, 527; becomes the Batavian republic, 604; Louis Bonaparte, king of, 613; annexed to France, 620; made a kingdom, 625, 632. _See also_ United Netherlands. Holy Land, commercial interests of Italian cities in, 198 f. Holy League formed by Pope Julius II against France, 365. Holy League, French, 456. Holy Roman Empire, 85, 152 f. , 473; consolidation of, in 1803, 603 f. ; dissolution of, 612. _See also_ Germany. Homage, 109 and note; refusal of, 116 f. Horace, idea of life entertained by, 45; _Satires_ of, 333, note. Hospitalers, 194 f. House of Lords, abolition of, 487. _See also_ Parliament. Hrolf, 122 f. Huguenots, 454 ff. , 467; Charles I attempts to aid, 478 f. ; position of, under Louis XIV, 504 f. Humanists, Italian, 334 f. ; German, 379 f. Humanities, 334. Hundred Years' War, 281 ff. , 291 ff. Hungarians, 149; defeated by Otto the Great, 150. Hungary, freed from the Turks, 518; during revolution of 1848, 646, 648 f. ; dual union of, with Austria, 650. Huns, 25, 27. Huss, 309, 315 ff. , 393. Hussite wars, 317. Hussites, 432, 465. Hutten, Ulrich von, 385 f. , 395 f. , 399, 404, 410. Iconoclastic controversy, 74. _See_ Images. Illuminations, 261 f. Images, demolition of, in England, 433 f. ; in the Netherlands, 447 f. Immunities, 101. Imperial title, 151 f. _See also_ Emperor. Indemnity, the French, 664. Independents, 482 f. And note. India, Portuguese seek a sea route to, 348; Europeans in, 528 ff. ; during Seven Years' War, 530. Indulgences attacked by Wycliffe, 308; explained, 390 f. ; attitude of Luther toward, 390 ff. , 412, 423. Industrial revolution, 679 f. Industry stimulated by commerce in Middle Ages, 244 f. Infeudation, 106 f. ; of other things than land, 115. Innocent III, Pope, struggle of, with the Hohenstaufens, 181 f. ; attempts to reform the Church, 223. Inquisition established, 224, 231; in Spain, 358, 619; in the Netherlands, 445, 447. _Institutes of Christianity_, Calvin's, 425 f. Interdict, 183, 213. International law, 507 f. Invasions of the ninth and tenth centuries, 98 f. Invention, progress of, in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 352 f. ; modern, 674 ff. Investiture, lay, 155 ff. , 161; prohibition of, 163, 167; question of, settled at Worms, 171 f. Invincible Armada, 463. Ireland, 461 f. , 487 f. Irene, Empress, 84. Irish monks in Britain, 62. Iron industry, 352, 675 f. Isabella, queen of Castile, 357. Islam, 69. Italian language, derivation of, 251; used by Dante in the _Divine Comedy_, 330; by Petrarch, 334. Italy, during the barbarian invasions, 33; united to Charlemagne's empire, 85, 93, 96; German kings make vain attempt to control, 151 f. ; towns of, under Frederick I, 174 f. ; Hohenstaufens in, 180, 186; commerce of, 198 f. , 243 f. ; divisions of, in fourteenth century, 321 f. ; culture of, during the Renaissance, 321, 339 ff. ; invasion of, by Charles VIII, 360 f. ; hold of Austria on, 507; Bonaparte's campaign in, 594; Napoleon, king of, 611; after 1815, 636 f. , 638 f. ; war of independence of, 645 f. ; constitutions granted to various states of, 646; unification of, 654 ff. ; formation of the present kingdom of, 655 f. Ivan the Terrible, 511. Jacobins, 578 f. , 590. Jacobites, 526 and note. James I of England, 467; theory of kingship of, 475 ff. James II, 493. James VI of Scotland, 462. _See also_ James I of England. Jamestown, 528. Jefferson, Thomas, opinion of the condition of France, 544. Jena, battle of, 614. Jerome, St. , 51; advocate of the monastic life, 57. Jerome Bonaparte, 614. Jerusalem, 185, 188; Kingdom of, 192 ff. , 197 f. Jesuits, order of, 462, 465 f. , 494. Jewry, 246. Jews, economic importance of, 246; persecution of, 246, 358. Joan of Arc, 293 f. John of England, 126 f. , 144 ff. ; vassal of pope, 183. John, king of France, 285. John Frederick of Saxony, 415, 418 f. John XXIII, Pope, 313. Jongleurs, 256. Joseph Bonaparte, king of Spain, 618. Josephine, 607, 620. _Journal des Savants_, 501. Jousts, 118. Jubilee at Rome (1300), 305. Julius II, Pope, 344, 365. Jury, origin of, 142. Just price, doctrine of, 245. Justification by faith, 388, 439. Justinian 33; closes government schools, 267. Kadijah, wife of Mohammed, 69. Kappel, battle of, 425. Kent, king of, converted, 61. King, position of, in Middle Ages, 73, 102, 108, 120. King of Rome, 620. King of the Romans, 152, note. Kneeling Parliament, 436. Knighthood, 257 f. Knights, summoned to the English Parliament, 147; in Germany, 407; revolt of, 409 f. ; disappearance of, 604. Knox, John, 459. Koran, the, 69 f. Kossuth, 650. Labor, division of, 677. Labor unions, 681 f. Laborers, protection of, 681. Lafayette, 534, 563, 570. _Laissez faire_, 553, 681. Lancaster, house of, in England, 291, 296; genealogical table of, 297, note. Lancelot, description of, quoted, 258. Landholding, in the Roman Empire, 104. _See also_ Feudalism. Lanfranc, 138. Langton, Stephen, 183. _Langue d'oc_, 254, note. _Langue d'oïl_, 254, note. La Rochelle, 455, 457, 478. La Salle, 528. Latin Church tends to separate from the Greek, 51. _See also_ Church. Latin language, contrast of the written, with the spoken, 39, 252, note; knowledge of, preserved by the Church, 87 f. ; general use of, in the Middle Ages, 95, 202, 250. Latin literature, extinction of, 31. _See also_ Humanists. Laud, William, 481 f. , 484. La Vendée, revolt of, 587. Law, _see_ Canon and Civil law. _Law of Free Monarchies, The_, of James I, 477. _Law of Nature and Nations_, by Pufendorf, 508. _Laws of the Barbarians_, 40. Lay investiture, _see_ Investiture. Lea, Henry C. , description of Church, 214; account of mendicants, 230. Lefèvre, 452 f. Legates, 162. Legion of Honor, 617. Legislative Assembly, 576, 579 f. Legitimists, 664, note. Legnano, battle of, 179. Leipsic, disputation at, 392 f. ; battle of, 623. Leo the Great, 21, 51, 52. Leo III, Emperor, forbids the veneration of images, 74. Leo IX, Pope, reform begun by, 161 f. Leo X (Medici), Pope, patron of art, 344, 365, 391, 410. Leonardo da Vinci, 344 f. Leopold II, 577. Leopold of Hohenzollern, 662, note. _Letters of Obscure Men_, 380 f. , and note. _Lettres de cachet_, 546. Leyden, siege of, 451, note. Libraries, destruction of, 32; established in Italy, 337. Ligurian republic, 610. Lisbon, trade in spices, 348. _Lit de justice_, 547. Livonia, 514. Llewelyn, Prince of Wales, 278. Logic, esteem for, in the Middle Ages, 268, 271; decline of, 334 f. Lombard cities, 170 f. , 174 ff. Lombard League, 178. Lombard, Peter, _Sentences_ of, 210, 396 f. Lombards as bankers, 246. _Lombards, History of the_, by Paulus Diaconus, 90. Lombards in Italy, 33, 34, 65, 74 f. ; conquered by Charlemagne, 81. London, 248, 290. Long Parliament, 484 ff. ; dissolved by Cromwell, 488 f. ; recalled, 490. Lord, mediæval, position of, 99 f. ; meaning of term, 106. Lord Protector, Cromwell, 489. Lord's Supper, Zwingli's conception of, 425. _See also_ Mass. Lorraine, 94, 300, 472; added to France, 536; portion of, ceded to Germany, 663 and note. _Lorsch, Chronicles of_, passage from, 84. Lothaire, son of Louis the Pious, 93. _Lotharii regnum_, 94. Louis the Fat of France, 125. Louis the German, 92, 93, 95. Louis the Pious, 92. Louis IX (Saint), 130 f. , 198. Louis XI of France, 299 f. Louis XII of France, 364 f. Louis XIII of France, 458. Louis XIV, 472, 489, 492, 495 ff. ; idea of position of, 496 f. ; court of, 498; wars of, 501 ff. ; condition of France at end of reign of, 508. Louis XV, 508, 553. Louis XVI, position of, 545, 553 f. ; removes to Paris, 570; flight of, to Varennes, 575 f. ; imprisonment of, 581; trial and execution of, 583. Louis XVII, 625, note. Louis XVIII, 625; policy of, 629 f. Louis Philippe, 630, 642 f. Louisiana, 534, 602. Low Church party, 482. Loyola, Ignatius, 440 ff. Lübeck, 244, 248. Lucien Bonaparte, 599. Luther, Martin, 387 ff. ; burns the canon law, 368, 399; early life and education of, 387; enters monastery, 387; justification by faith, 388; called to Wittenberg, visits Rome, 389; teaches biblical theology, 389; the theses of, 390; warfare against indulgences, 390; debate with Eck at Leipsic, 392; relations with humanists, 393; with Ulrich von Hutten, 395; _Address to the German Nobility_ of, 396; _Babylonian Captivity of the Church_ of, 397; excommunicated, 398; at diet of Worms, 401; outlawed by the emperor, 403 and note; translates the Bible, 405; view of reform of, 407 ff. ; rash talk of, about princes, 413; attacks the peasants, 414, 416. Lützen, battle of, 470. Luxembourg, 300, 662. Lyons revolts against the Convention, 587, 589. Machiavelli, _The Prince_ of, 327, 362. Machinery, introduction of, 675 ff. Madras, 529. Magdeburg, 469. Magellan circumnavigates the globe, 351. Magyars, _see_ Hungarians. Major Domus, _see_ Mayors of the Palace. Malory, the _Mort d'Arthur_ of, 255, note. Malta, 195. Mandeville, Sir John, referred to, 261, note. Manor, 100, 234 f. ; court of the, 236. Mantua, 471. Manufacture, increase of, in thirteenth century, 200; modern, 675. Manuscripts, 337 f. Marches, establishment of, 82. Marco Polo, 347. Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations of_, 18. Marengo, battle of, 601. Margaret, queen of Navarre, 452. Margraves, origin of, 82, 86, 102. Maria Louisa, 620. Maria Theresa, 518 ff. Marie Antoinette, 554, 570, 589. Marlborough, 506. Marquette, 528. Marquises, 86. Marriage, of the clergy, 154, 157 and note, 161, 163, 418; sacrament of, 211. Marseilles, revolt of, 587. Marston Moor, battle of, 486. Mary of Burgundy, 301. Mary of Modena, 493. Mary, queen of England, 435 f. Mary Queen of Scots, _see_ Mary Stuart. Mary Stuart, 454, 459 ff. Mass, the, 211 f. , 407, 409, 432. Matilda, 126, 140. Maurice of Saxony, 418 f. Maximilian I, Emperor, 356, 358 f. , 363, 365. Maximilian of Bavaria, 466, 467. Mayence, 66, 78; elector of, 372, 378; printing at, 338. Mayflower, 483. Mayors of the Palace, 38. Mazarin, 495. Mazzini, 639, 648. Mecca, 68, 69, 70. Medici, 328 f. , 361, 366; Lorenzo de', 328, 344; library of the, 337. Medicine, modern advance in, 674. Medina, 69. Melanchthon, 417. Mendicant orders, 225 f. Merovingian documents, carelessness of, 87. Merovingian kings, 38, 72. Mersen, Treaty of, 95 f. Metric system, 591. Metternich, 634; overthrow of, 644 f. Metz, 452, 473, 663. Mexican expedition, 662. Mexico, 351, 358. Michael Angelo, 342, 344 f. Microscope, development of, 674. Middle Ages, meaning of term, 5 f. ; character of, 42 f. Middle kingdom of Lothaire, 94 f. Milan, Edict of, 21; married clergy in, 163; destruction of, by Frederick I, 176 f. ; despots of, 324 f. ; claimed by France, 364 f. ; claimed by Charles V, 366, 417. Miles Coverdale, 431. Military service, feudal, 110. Miniature, derivation of word, 262. Minnesingers, 258. Minor orders of the clergy, 20. Minorca, 507. Mirabeau, 564. Miracles, frequency of, in Middle Ages, 46 f. _Missi dominici_, 86, 102. Missions, greatly increase the power of the pope, 66; of the Jesuits, 442. Model Parliament, 147. Modern languages, origin of, 40, 250 ff. Mohammed, 68 f. Mohammedan conquests, _see_ Arabic conquests. Mohammedan invasion of Italy, 150. Mohammedanism, 69 f. Mohammedans, 68 ff. , 88; gradual expulsion of, from Spain, 83, 356 f. ; commerce of, 199, 243. Molière, 500. Moluccas, 347, 348. Monasteries, breaking up of, in Germany, 407 f. ; in England, 432 f. Monasticism, attraction of, for many different classes, 56 f. Money, scarcity of, in the Middle Ages, 98; use of, 236, 247. Mongol emperors of India, 529 and note. Mongols, 510. _Moniteur_, 578. Monk, George, 490. Monk of St. Gall, 78 and note. Monks, 46; origin and distinguished services of, 56 f. , 219. Monte Cassino, founding of, 57. Montesquieu, 552. Moors, in Spain, 357 f. ; expulsion of, 464. Moravians, 149. More, Sir Thomas, 427, 432. Morgarten, battle of, 421. _Mort d' Arthur_, Malory's, 255, note. Moscow, 512, 514; princes of, 510 f. ; Napoleon at, 621. Mosque, 70. Mountain party, 585 f. Münster, 472. Murat, king of Naples, 618. Murten, battle of, 422. Nantes, Edict of, granting of, 457; revocation of, 504 f. Nantes, massacre at, 589. Naples, kingdom of, 180, 360, note, 363 f. , 613; revolution in, 635, 637 f. Napoleon Bonaparte, 536, 574, 592 ff. ; idea of, of a European empire, 609; _Memoirs_ of, 624. Napoleon II, 620. Napoleon III, 644; intervenes in Italy, 654 f. ; position of, after 1866, 662. Naseby, battle of, 486. National Assembly, first French, 564, 570; close of, 576 f. National guard, 566. National workshops, 643 f. "Natural boundaries" of France, 501 f. Natural laws, discovery of, 672 f. Navigation Act, 488. Necker, 556. Nelson, 597 f. , 615. Netherlands, 295; come into Austrian hands, 301; revolt of, 445 ff. ; Louis XIV claims, 502; Spanish, ceded to Austria, 507. Neustria, 37 f. New Testament, edition of, by Erasmus, 382. New York, 492. Newspapers, origin of French, 578; Napoleon's attitude toward, 608 f. Newton, Sir Isaac, 673. Nicæa, Council of, 21; during First Crusades, 188, 192. Niccola of Pisa, 340. Nicholas II, Pope, decree of, 162. Nicholas V, 320, 337. _Niebelungs, Song of the_, 253. Nimwegen, Peace of, 503. Nobility, origin of Frankish, 38; titles of, 86; character of feudal, 112, 234 f. ; in France under Louis XI, 299 f. ; established by Napoleon, 608, 617. Nobles, privileges of, in France, 542 f. ; emigration of French, 575. Nogaret, 306. Non-juring clergy, 572 f. , 579. Nördlingen, battle of, 470. Norman conquest of England, 136 ff. ; results of, 138 f. Normandy, 122 f. , 127, 284, 292. Normans, amalgamate with the English, 139, 146; in Sicily, 180, note. _See also_ Northmen. Norse literature, 99, note. North German Federation, 660 f. Northmen, treaty of Charles the Fat with, 96 f. , 99 and note; in Russia, 510. Northumbria, king of, 62. Notables, meeting of, 558 f. Novara, battle of, 650. Novgorod, 248, 510. Nuremberg, 373; diet of (1522), 410 f. Odo, 96, 120 f. Odoacer, 28. Ordeal, 41, 142. Ordination, sacrament of, 211. Orient, European relations with, 199 f. , 244. Orleanists, 664, note. Orleans, duke of, 292; Maid of, 294. Ormond, 487. Osnabrück, 472. Ostrogoths, _see_ East Goths. Other-worldliness of mediæval Christianity, 45. Othman, 517. Otto I, the Great, of Germany, 149 ff. Otto of Brunswick, 182. Otto of Freising, 173, 197. Overlord, 106, note. Pagan idea of the life after death, 18, 45. Paganism, merges into Christianity, 19; of Italian humanists, 335. Painting, Italian, 340 f. , 346; in northern Europe, 346. Palace, school of the, 90. Palatinate, electorate of, 372, 467; Louis XIV's operations in, 505. Pallium, 203, 307. Pan-Slavic Congress of 1848, 648. Papacy, origin of, 49 ff. ; seat of, transferred to Avignon, 306 f. , 308, 317. _See also_ Pope. Papal legates, 162. Papal states, 75 f. , 170, 320, 620, 639, 655, 667. _See also_ Pope. Papyrus, supply of, cut off, 87. Paris, 37, 96; Treaty of (1763), 532; Peace of (1783), 534; importance in the Revolution, 570; commune of, 581, 589; insurrection of (June, 1848), 643; of 1871, 664. Parish, administration of, 208 f. _Parlements_, French, origin of, 130 f. , 547 f. , 559 f. Parliament, English, 147, 281, 286, 289; after Wars of the Roses, 298, 308, 475; struggle of, with Charles I, 478 ff. , 496. Parma, duchess of, 447 f. _Parsifal_, by Wolfram von Eschenbach, 258. Patrick, St. , 62. Paulus Diaconus, 90. Peasants' War, in England, 309; in Germany, 407, 413 ff. Peasants in France, condition of, before the French Revolution, 544 f. Penance, sacrament of, 211 f. Pepys, _Diary_ of, 492. Persecution, religious, 432, 436; of English Catholics, 462. Peter Lombard, _Sentences_ of, 268, 334, 425. Peter, St. , 49 f. Peter the Great, 511 ff. ; reforms of, 512. Peter the Hermit, 190. Petition of Right, 479. Petrarch, 288, 332 ff. Philip Augustus of France, 125 ff. , 130, 183, 197, 246. Philip the Fair, of France, 131, 196, 280; struggle of, with Boniface VIII, 304 f. Philip VI of France, 283. Philip the Good, of Burgundy, 293, 295, 300. Philip II of Spain, 436, 444 ff. ; reign of, 463 f. Philip V, first Bourbon king of Spain, 506. Picts, 279. Piedmont, reforms in, 654. _Piers Ploughman_, 290. Pilgrim Fathers, 483. Pillnitz, Declaration of, 577 f. Pins, illustration of the manufacture of, 677. Pippin of Heristal, 38. Pippin the Short, 72 f. , 75 f. Pisa, Council of, 313. Pitt, the elder, 530. Pius IX, 639, 648. Plantagenets, 125 ff. , 140 ff. Plassey, battle of, 531 f. Plebiscite, 600, 644. Poitiers, battle of, 285. Poland, 153, 514; first partition of, 521, 583 f. ; Napoleon's campaign in, 614; dispute over, at the Congress of Vienna, 626 f. Pomerania, 473. Pondicherry, 530. Pope, 52; origin of name of, 52, note; 54 f. , 66; alliance of, with Franks, 72 f. , 75 f. ; opposition to iconoclasm, 74, 85; relations of, with Otto the Great, 151 f. ; position of, in tenth and early eleventh centuries, 161; election of, 162; powers of, claimed for by Gregory VII, 164 f. ; position of, in the Church, 202 ff. ; during the Great Schism, 310 ff. ; attitude of, toward councils, 438; attitude of, toward Italian unity, 639, 647; position of, since 1870, 667. Popular sovereignty defended by Rousseau, 552. Port Mahon, 532. Portuguese, explorations by, 347 f. ; colonies of, 348, 527, 685. _Praise of Folly_, by Erasmus, 383, 427. Prayer-book, English, 435, 458, 482, 491. Preaching Friars, 231. Prefects, French, 599. Presbyterian Church, 425 f. , 459, 482 f. Presbyters, 19 f. , 426, note. Press, censorship of, in the eighteenth century, 549. Pressburg, Treaty of, 611. Pride's Purge, 486. Priest, 20; duties of, 208 f. Prime minister, 526. Prince Charlie, 527. Prince of Wales, origin of title of, 278. Printing, invention of, 337 f. ; modern methods of, 678. Privileges in France, 540; abolition of, 567. Protestant, origin of term, 416 f. Protestant revolt, conditions explaining, 377; course of, in Germany, 405 ff. Protestant union of German princes, 415, 466. Protestantism, in Germany, 418 ff. ; in Switzerland, 423 ff. ; in England, 430-435; in the Netherlands, 447 ff. ; in France, 451 ff. "Protests" of the French _parlements_, 547. Provençal language, 254; troubadours' songs in, 256. Provisors, statute of, in England, 308. Prussia, 474, 515 ff. , 544; war of, with France, 581, 583 f. , 593, 613 f. ; reforms of Stein and Hardenberg, 622 f. ; after 1815, 626 f. , 631; in 1848, 646; strengthening of army of, 656 f. ; war with Austria (1866), 660; war with France (1870), 662 f. ; predominating influence of, in the German empire, 666. Prussians conquered by the Teutonic knights, 196. Ptolemy's estimate of size of the world, 350. Pufendorf, 508. Purgatory, 212. Puritans, 482, 483 and note, 491. Quakers, 491. Quebec, 528, 530. Racine, 500. Railroads, development of, 678 f. Rajah, 529. Raphael, 344 f. Ravenna, interior of a church at, 29. Reaction, after Napoleon's downfall, 628; in Germany, 634 f. Reason, worship of, 589. Reform Act, English, 682, note. _Regalia_, 177. Regensburg, formation of Catholic party at, 412. Regular clergy defined, 59. _Reichsdeputationshauptschluss_, 603. Reign of Terror, 537, 573, 588 ff. ; customs of, abolished, 607. Relics, German collections of, 377 f. Relief, 108, note. Religious equality, 683. Rembrandt, 346. Renaissance, 321, 329 f. Republic, the "red, " in France, 643. Republican calendar, 591. Republican party in France, origin of, 576. Restoration in England, 490. Reuchlin, 380. Revolution of 1848, 642 ff. ; results of, 653. Revolutionary Tribunal, 588. _Reynard the Fox_, 256. Rhine, left bank of, ceded to France, 603. Rhine, the Confederation of the, 612 f. Richard I, the Lion-Hearted, 126 f. , 144, 197 f. Richard II of England, 291, 315. Richard III of England, 297. Richelieu, 458, 467, 495; intervenes in the Thirty Years' War, 471 f. Rights of Man, Declaration of, 568 ff. Rising in the north of England, 460. Roads, 12; poor, in the Middle Ages, 98, 242. Robbia, Luca della, 343. Robert Guiscard in Naples and Sicily, 180, note. Robespierre, 589, f. _Rois fainéants_, 38. _Roland, Song of_, 83, note, 255. Rollo, 122 f. Roman Church, the mother church, 49 f. Roman Empire, 8 ff. ; reasons for decline of, 12 ff. ; religious revival in, 18; "fall" of, in the West, 27; relations of, with Church, 47; continuity of, 84 f. Roman law, 11; retained by Theodoric, 29; supplanted by German customs, 40; study of, revived, 177, 269. _Romana lingua_, _see_ French language. Romance languages, derivation of, 251 f. Romances, mediæval, 254 f. Rome, city of, 26, 53, 305, 310; ascendency of, in art, 344; sack of, 417, note; made a republic, 648; added to the kingdom of Italy, 667. Romulus Augustulus, 28. Roncaglia, Frederick I holds two assemblies at, 176 f. Roncesvalles, Pass of, 83, note. Rossbach, battle of, 520. "Rotten boroughs, " 682, note. Roumania, 669 f. Roumelia, Eastern, 670, note. Roundheads, 485. Round Table, Knights of the, 255. _Rous_, 510. Rousillon, 471 f. Rousseau, 551. Royal library of France, 501. Rubens, 346. Rudolf of Hapsburg, 355. Rule of St. Benedict, 57 f. Rump Parliament, 487 f. Rurik, 510. Russia, 509 ff. ; relations of, with Napoleon, 614, 620 f. ; Crimean War of, 668 f. ; recent expansion of, 686. Sacraments, 210 f. ; attacked by Luther, 397 f. ; confirmed by the Council of Trent, 439. _Sacrosancta_, decree, 317. _Sagas_, 99, note. St. Bartholomew's Day, massacre of, 455 f. St. Bernard, 197, 219, 268. St. Dominic, 229 f. St. Francis of Assisi, 225 ff. , 342. St. Mark's church at Venice, 323. St. Meinrad, 423. St. Omer, terms of charter of, 240. St. Peter's Church at Rome, 344. St. Petersburg, founding of, 512 f. Saint-Simon, 500. Saladin takes Jerusalem, 197. Salamander, mediæval account of, quoted, 260. Salisbury, oath of, 137 f. Salt tax, French, 540. Saracens, _see_ Mohammedans. Saratoga, battle of, 534. Sardinia, kingdom of, 628. Satires of the sixteenth century, 406. Savonarola, 361 f. Savoy, France deprived of, 625. Saxons, 27, 79 ff. , 98; settle in England, 60; rebel against Henry IV, 166. Saxony, 179 f. ; electorate of, 372; question of, at the Congress of Vienna, 626 f. Scandinavian kingdoms, 468 f. Schism, the Great, 310 f. , 314 f. Schleswig-Holstein affair, 657 f. Schoifher, Peter, 338, note. Scholasticism, 272 f. School of the palace, 90. Schools established by Charlemagne, 88 f. Science, mediæval, 260, 356; modern methods of, 678 ff. Scotch people, 280 f. Scotland, 135, 278 ff. , 459; under the same ruler as England, 476; Charles I at war with, 483; union with England, 524; welcomes the Young Pretender, 526 f. Sculpture, mediæval, 262, 265 f. ; Renaissance, 340. Secular clergy defined, 59. Sedan, battle of, 663. _Seigneur_, derivation of, 106, note. Seneca, opinion on origin of practical arts, 14. _Senior_, late Latin, 106, note. Senlac, battle of, 136. _Sentences_ of Peter Lombard, 210, 425. Sepoys, 531. September massacres, 582. Serfdom, 16, 234; disappearance of, in England, 290 f. ; abolished in France, 567; in Prussia, 622. Serfs, _coloni_ resemble the, 16, 100; condition of, 234 ff. , 414. _See also_ Serfdom. Servia, 668 ff. Sevastopol, 669. Seven Years' War, 519 f. ; in India, 530 ff. Sévigné, Madame de, 500, 505. Sforza family, 327. Shakespeare, 477 f. Sheriffs appointed by William the Conqueror, 137. Ship money, 481, 484. Shires, 135 and note. Sicily, 180, 182, 185, 360, note. Sickingen, Franz von, 406 f. , 409 f. Sigismund, Emperor, 314 f. Silesia, 518 f. Simon de Montfort leads Albigensian crusade, 223. Simon de Montfort, Parliament of, 146 f. Simony, 158 f. , 161, 218. "Simple priests" of Wycliffe, 309. "Six Articles, " the, 431 f. Slavery in Roman Empire, 13 ff. Slavs, 82; on the borders of Germany, 150, 153; settlement of, in Europe, 509, 648 f. Smith, Adam, 677. _Social Contract_ of Rousseau, 551. Social Democrats, 643. Sophia of Hanover, 524. Sorbonne, 452. South Bulgaria, 670, note. Southampton granted a charter, 240. Spain, 26, 70 f. , 83, 346; maritime power of, 351; under Charles V, 354, 356 f. , 445, 451, 455; decline of, 464; colonies of, 527; Napoleon attempts to control, 618 f. , 623, 637; loses American colonies, 684 f. "Spanish fury, " 450. Spanish language, derivation of, 251. Spanish March, 83, 94. Spanish Netherlands, _see_ Netherlands. Spanish Succession, War of the, 506 ff. Spectacles, invention of, 352. Speyer, Edict of (1526), 415 f. ; protest of, 316 f. And note. Spice trade, importance of, 348 f. Stamp Act, 532. Star Chamber, Court of, 484. State, character of, in Middle Ages, 48, 165. States of the Church, _see_ Papal states. Statutes of Laborers, 289. Steam, application of, 675 f. Steamboats, 678. Steel, 676. Steelyard, 248. Stein, reforms of, 622, 631. Stem duchies in Germany, 148 f. Stephen, king of England, 140. Stone of Scone, 280. Strafford, 484. Strand laws, 247. Strasburg, 473; seized by Louis XIV, 504, 663 f. Strasburg oaths, 94. Stuart, house of, 475. Students' associations in Germany, 633. Subdeacon, 20. Subinfeudation, 106 f. Subtenant, 107. Subvassals, 107 ff. Suffrage, extension of, 682. Sully, 457 f. Sutri, the council of, 160. Suzerain, 106 and note. Sweden, 468 f. , 473; under Charles XII, 513 f. Swiss mercenaries, 423 and note. Switzerland, origin of, 421 ff. ; Protestant revolt in, 423 ff. , 473, 605, 626. Symbolism, mediæval, 261. Syria, Bonaparte's campaign in, 598. Taille, 299, 540, 545 f. , 556, 559. Talleyrand, 626. Tamerlane, 529, note. Tancred, 180 f. Tartars, 510. Taxation, in Roman Empire, 13; papal, 204, 384; of church property, 304; without representation, 533; reform of, in France, 567. Teachers, government, in Roman Empire, 12, 32. Telescope, 67. Templars, 195 f. , 306. Temporalities, 156. "Tennis-Court" oath, 564. Test Act 492; repeal of, 683. Tetzel, 390. Teutonic order, 195 f. ; in Prussia, 515 f. Theodoric, 28 ff. Theodosian Code, provisions of, relating to the Church, 21. Theodosius the Great, 22 f. , 27. Theology in University of Paris, 269. Thermidor, 9th, 590, note. Theses, Luther's ninety-five, 390 f. Third estate, 543 ff. Thirty-Nine Articles, the, 435. Thirty Years' War, 465 ff. Thomas à Becket, 142 f. Thomas Aquinas, 231, 272. Three Henrys, War of the, 456. Tilly, 469 f. Tilsit, treaties of, 614. Timur, 529, note. Tithe, 81, 202. Titian, 346. Toleration, religious, in Germany, 415 ff. , 419 f. ; in France, 454 ff. ; modern, 683. Tolls in Middle Ages, 246 f. Toul, 452, 473. Toulouse, counts of, 124, 256. Tourneys, 118. Tours, battle of, 71 f. Towns, representatives of, summoned to Parliament, 147; in Middle Ages, 174, 200, 232, 237 f. , 248; German, 373, 375, 604; growth of the modern, 680. Trade, mediæval, 238, 242 f. ; restrictions on, abolished, 680. Trafalgar, battle of, 615. Transubstantiation, 213, 309, 425, 431. Treasury of "good works, " 378. Trent, Council of, 437 ff. Treves, 12; electorate of, 372. Trial by jury, 142. Trials, mediæval, 41, 140 ff. Triple Alliance, 502 f. Troubadours, 256. Troyes, Treaty of (1420), 293. Truce of God, 118. Tsar, title of, 511, note. Tudor, house of, 296 f. Tuilleries, 581, 664. Turenne, 472. Turgot, 553, note, 554 f. Turkey in Europe, 535; disruption of, 628, 667 ff. Turks, 188, 190 f. , 376, 514, 517. Twelve Articles of the peasants, 413 f. Ulfilas translates Bible into Gothic, 252. Ulm, 374, 611. Unction, sacrament of extreme, 211. United Provinces, 450, 473. _Unity of the Church_, by Cyprian, 20. Unity of history, 4. Universities, mediæval, 269 f. , 333, 356; German, 380, 398. Urban II, 188. Usufruct, 105. Usury, doctrine of, 245. _Utopia_, by Sir Thomas More, 427. Utrecht, Union of, 450; Treaty of, 507. Valentinian III, decree of, 51. Valois, house of, 455. Van Dyck, 346. Van Eyck brothers, 346. Vandals, 26, 33. Varennes, flight to, 575 f. Vassals, origin of, 102 f. , 106; obligations of, 110 f. Vasco da Gama, 348. Vassy, massacre of, 455. Vatican library, 337. Velasquez, 346. Vendée, La, revolt of, 587. Venerable Bede, the, 56, 64. Venetia given to Austria, 626; 655; ceded to Italy, 667. Venice, founding of, 27; commerce of, 194, 198 f. , 243 f. , 347; government of, 321 f. ; painting at, 346; war of, with League of Cambray, 364 f. ; destruction of republic of, 595; in 1848, 648. _See_ Venetia. Verdun, 452, 473; Treaty of, 93; fall of, 582. Versailles, 498. Vespasiano, Italian bookseller, 337, note. Veto, royal, in England, 524 and note. Victor Emmanuel, 650, 654 f. Vienna, siege of, by Turks, 517 f. ; Congress of, 625 ff. ; revolution of 1848 in, 645, 650. Vikings, 99, note. Villa, Roman, 14, 100. Villehardouin, 260. Visconti, 324 f. , 364. Visigoths, _see_ West Goths. Voltaire, 519, 549 ff. Vulgate, 51, 439. Wager of battle, 41. Wagram, battle of, 619. Waibling, castle of, 179, note. Waldensians, 221 f. , 452. Waldo, Peter, 221. Wales, 135, 277 f. Wallenstein, 468 and note, 469 f. Wallingford, charter of, 240. Walpole, 526. Walther von der Vogelweide, 258, 384. _War and Peace_ of Grotius, 508. War, neighborhood, 117 ff. War of the Barons, 146 f. Warfare, modern, 684, 686. Wars of the Roses, 296 ff. Warsaw, grand duchy of, 614, 626. Wartburg, 405; festival at the, 633. Washington, George, 533 f. Waterloo, battle of, 624. Watt, James, 675. Welf, 179. Wellington, 623 f. Wessex, 133. West Frankish kingdom, 94. _See also_ Franks. West Goths, 25 f. , 36, 39, 71. Westphalia, kingdom of, 614, 623. Westphalia, Peace of, 472 f. Whitby, Council of, 62. White Hill, battle on the, 467. William the Conqueror, claim of, to English crown, 136; policy of, in England, 136 ff. , 165. William III of England, 492 ff. , 505, 506, 523 f. , 525. William of Orange, king of England, _see_ William III. William of Orange (the Silent), 448 ff. William I of Prussia, 656 f. ; chosen emperor, 665. "Winter king, " 467. Witenagemot, 135, 137, 147. Wittenberg, University of, 389; reform at, 407 f. Wolfram von Eschenbach, 258. Wolsey, Cardinal, 367, 427 ff. Worms, council of, 167; Concordat of, 171; diet of, 400 f. ; Edict of, 403 f. , 415. Writing, style of, used in Charlemagne's time, 89. Würtemberg, 372; duke of, assumes the title of King, 612; granted a constitution, 635. Wycliffe, John, 308 f. ; influence of, on Huss, 315, 393. Xavier, 442. "Yea and Nay, " by Abelard, 268. York, house of, 296, 297, note. Young, Arthur, 544. Young Italy, 639. Young Pretender, 526 f. Zealand, 449. Zipangu (Japan), 347. _Zollverein_, 635. Zurich, 421 f. , 424. Zwingli, 416, 420, 423 ff. FOOTNOTES: [1] There is a short description of Roman society in Hodgkin, _Dynastyof Theodosius_, Chapter II. [2] Reference, Adams, _Civilization during the Middle Ages_, Chapter II, "What the Middle Ages started with. " [3] There are a number of editions of this work in English, andselections from Epictetus are issued by several publishers. See_Readings_, Chapter II. [4] There is an English translation of this published by Stock ($1. 20). [5] Whoever separates himself from the Church, writes Cyprian, isseparated from the promises of the Church. "He is an alien, he isprofane, he is an enemy, he can no longer have God for his father whohas not the Church for his mother. If anyone could escape who wasoutside the Ark of Noah, so also may he escape who shall be outside thebounds of the Church. " See _Readings in European History_, Chapter II. [6] Reference, Adams, _Civilization_, Chapter III, "The Addition ofChristianity. " [7] See _Readings in European History_, Chapter II, for extracts fromthe Theodosian Code. [8] An older town called Byzantium was utilized by Constantine as thebasis of his new imperial city. [9] St. Augustine, who was then living, gives us an idea of theimpression that the capture of Rome made upon the minds ofcontemporaries, in an extraordinary work of his called _The City ofGod_. He undertakes to refute the argument of the pagans that the fallof the city was due to the anger of their old gods, who were believed tohave withdrawn their protection on account of the insults heaped uponthem by the Christians, who regarded them as demons. He points out thatthe gods whom Æneas had brought, according to tradition, from Troy hadbeen unable to protect the city from its enemies and asks why anyreliance should be placed upon them when transferred to Italian soil. His elaborate refutation of pagan objections shows us that heathenbeliefs still had a strong hold upon an important part of the populationand that the question of the truth or falsity of the pagan religion wasstill a living one in Italy. [10] Reference, Emerton, _Introduction to the Middle Ages_, Chapter III. [11] Reference, Emerton, _Introduction_, Chapter V. [12] Reference, Oman, _Dark Ages_, Chapter I. [13] Reference, Oman, _Dark Ages_, Chapter II. [14] See above, p. 19. [15] See _Readings_, Chapter III (end), for historical writings of thisperiod. [16] For Justinian, who scarcely comes into our story, see Oman, _DarkAges_, Chapters V-VI. [17] Reference, Oman, _Dark Ages_, Chapter IV. [18] See _Readings_, Chapter III, for passages from Gregory of Tours. [19] Reference, Emerton, _Introduction_, 68-72. [20] Reference, Oman, _Dark Ages_, Chapter XV. [21] The northern Franks, who did not penetrate far into the Empire, andthe Germans who remained in Germany proper and in Scandinavia, had ofcourse no reason for giving up their native tongues; the Angles andSaxons in Britain also adhered to theirs. These Germanic languages intime became Dutch, English, German, Danish, Swedish, etc. Of this mattersomething will be said later. See below, § 97. [22] Extracts from the laws of the Salian Franks may be found inHenderson's _Historical Documents_, pp. 176-189. [23] Professor Emerton gives an excellent account of the Germanic ideasof law in his _Introduction_, pp. 73-91; see also Henderson, _ShortHistory of Germany_, pp. 19-21. For examples of the trials, see_Translations and Reprints_, Vol. IV, No. 4. A philosophical account ofthe character of the Germans and of the effects of the invasions isgiven by Adams, _Mediæval Civilization_, Chapters IV-V. [24] Tacitus' _Germania_, which is our chief source for the Germancustoms, is to be found in _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. VI, No. 3. For the habits of the invading Germans, see Henderson, _Short History ofGermany_, pp. 1-11; Hodgkin, _Dynasty of Theodosius_, last half ofChapter II. [25] See above, § 7. [26] For reports of miracles, see _Readings_, especially Chapters V andXVI. [27] Matt. Xvi. 18-19. Two other passages in the New Testament were heldto substantiate the divinely ordained headship of Peter and hissuccessors: Luke xxii. 32, where Christ says to Peter, "Stablish thybrethren, " and John xxi. 15-17, where Jesus said to him, "Feed mysheep. " See _Readings_, Chapter IV. [28] The name _pope_ (Latin, _papa_ = father) was originally and quitenaturally applied to all bishops, and even to priests. It began to beespecially applied to the bishops of Rome perhaps as early as the sixthcentury, but was not apparently confined to them until two or threehundred years later. Gregory VII (d. 1085) was the first to declareexplicitly that the title should be used only for the Bishop of Rome. Weshall, however, hereafter refer to the Roman bishop as pope, although itmust not be forgotten that his headship of the Western Church did notfor some centuries imply the absolute power that he came later toexercise over all the other bishops of western Europe. [29] The great circular tomb was later converted into the chief fortressof the popes and called, from the event just mentioned, the Castle ofthe Angel (San Angelo). [30] For extracts from Gregory's writings, see _Readings_, Chapter IV. [31] Benedict did not introduce monasticism in the West, as is sometimessupposed, nor did he even found an _order_ in the proper sense of theword, under a single head, like the later Franciscans and Dominicans. Nevertheless, the monks who lived under his rule are ordinarily spokenof as belonging to the Benedictine order. A translation of theBenedictine rule may be found in Henderson, _Historical Documents_, pp. 274-314. [32] Cunningham, _Western Civilization_, Vol. II, pp. 37-40, gives abrief account of the work of the monks. [33] See _Readings_, Chapter V, for Gregory's instructions to hismissionaries. [34] See _Readings_, Chapter V. [35] There is a _Life of St. Columban_, written by one of hiscompanions, which, although short and simple in the extreme, furnishes abetter idea of the Christian spirit of the sixth century than thelongest treatise by a modern writer. This life may be found in_Translations and Reprints_, Vol. II, No. 7, translated by ProfessorMunro. [36] For extracts from the Koran, see _Readings_, Chapter VI. [37] An admirable brief description of the culture of the Arabs andtheir contributions to European civilization will be found in Munro, _Mediæval History_, Chapter IX. [38] One of the most conspicuous features of early Protestantism, eighthundred years later, was the revival of Leo's attack upon the statuesand frescoes which continued to adorn the churches in Germany, England, and the Netherlands. [39] Charlemagne is the French form for the Latin, Carolus Magnus, i. E. , Charles the Great. It has been regarded as good English for so long thatit seems best to retain it, although some writers, fearful lest one maythink of Charles as a Frenchman instead of a German, use the Germanform, Karl. [40] Professor Emerton (_Introduction_, pp. 183-185) gives an example ofthe style and spirit of the monk of St. Gall, who was formerly muchrelied upon for knowledge of Charlemagne. [41] These decrees lose something of their harshness by the provision:"If after secretly committing any one of these mortal crimes any oneshall flee of his own accord to the priest and, after confessing, shallwish to do penance, let him be freed, on the testimony of the priest, from death. " This is but another illustration of the theory that theChurch was in the Middle Ages a governmental institution. It would bequite out of harmony with modern ideas should the courts of law, indealing with one who had committed a crime, consider in any way therelations of the suspected criminal to his priest or minister, or modifyhis sentence on account of any religious duties that the criminal mightconsent to perform. [42] The king of Prussia still has, among other titles, that of Margraveof Brandenburg. The German word _Mark_ is often used for "march" on mapsof Germany. [43] The Mohammedan state had broken up in the eighth century, and theruler of Spain first assumed the title of emir (about 756) and later(929) that of caliph. The latter title had originally been enjoyed onlyby the head of the whole Arab empire, who had his capital at Damascus, and later at Bagdad. [44] As Charlemagne was crossing the Pyrenees, on his way back fromSpain, his rear guard was attacked in the Pass of Roncesvalles. Thechronicle simply states that Roland, Count of Brittany, was slain. Thisepisode, however, became the subject of one of the most famous of theepics of the Middle Ages, the _Song of Roland_. See below, § 99. [45] Reference, for Charlemagne's conquests, Emerton, _Introduction_, Chapter XIII; Oman, _Dark Ages_, Chapters XX-XXI. [46] See _Readings_, Chapter VII, and Bryce, _Holy Roman Empire_, Chapter V. [47] See extracts from these regulations, and an account of one ofCharlemagne's farms, in _Readings_, Chapter VII. [48] For the capitulary relating to the duties of the _missi_, see_Readings_, Chapter VII. [49] See above, p. 32. [50] These lines are taken from a manuscript written in 825. They form apart of a copy of Charlemagne's admonition to the clergy (789) mentionedbelow. The part here given is addressed to the bishops and warns them ofthe terrible results of disobeying the rules of the Church. Perhaps thescribe did not fully understand what he was doing, for he has made someof those mistakes which Charlemagne was so anxious to avoid. Then thereare some abbreviations which make the lines difficult to read. Theyought probably to have run as follows: ... _mereamini. Scit namqueprudentia vestra, quam terribili anathematis censura feriuntur quipraesumptiose contra statuta universalium conciliorum venire audeant. Quapropter et vos diligentius ammonemus, ut omni intentione illudhorribile execrationis judicium_ ... [51] See _Readings_, Chapter VII. [52] References for the reign of Louis the Pious, Henderson, _Germany inthe Middle Ages_, Chapter VI; Oman, _Dark Ages_, Chapter XXIII. [53] Named for Lothaire II. [54] For the text and translation of the Strasburg oaths, see Emerton, _Mediæval Europe_, pp. 26-27, or Munro, _Mediæval History_, p. 20. Aperson familiar with Latin and French could puzzle out a part of theoath in the _lingua romana_; that in the _lingua teudisca_ would bealmost equally intelligible to one familiar with German. [55] The following table will show the relationship of the descendantsof Charlemagne: Charlemagne, d. 814 | Louis the Pious, d. 840 | +---------------------------+--------------------------+ | | |Lothaire, d. 855 Louis the German, d. 876 Charles the Bald, d. 877 | | | | +-----------------------------+ | | | |Carloman, d. 880 Charles the Fat (deposed 887) | | | | Louis the Stammerer, d. 879 | | | | | +----------------+------------------+ | | | |Arnulf, d. 899 Louis, d. 882 Carloman, d. 884 Charles the Simple, d. 929[56] |Louis the Child, d. 911. [56] Who was too young to be considered in 884, but afterwards becameking of France and progenitor of the later Carolingian rulers. [57] Reference, Henderson, _Germany in the Middle Ages_, Chapter VII;Oman, _Dark Ages_, Chapter XXV. [58] Reference, Munro, _Mediæval History_, pp. 34-39. The Northmenextended their expeditions to Spain, Italy, and even into Russia. InEngland, under the name of Danes, we find them forcing Alfred the Greatto recognize them as the masters of northern England (878). The Norsepirates were often called _vikings_, from their habit of leaving theirlong boats in the _vik_, i. E. , bay or inlet. A goodly number of theNorthmen settled in Iceland, and our knowledge of their civilization andcustoms comes chiefly from the Icelandic _sagas_, or tales. Some ofthese are of great interest and beauty; perhaps none is finer than _TheStory of Burnt Njal_. This and others may be read in English. See_Readings_, Chapter VIII. [59] An account of the manor will be given later, Chapter XVIII. [60] See an example of an immunity granted by Charlemagne to amonastery, in Emerton, _Introduction_, pp. 246-249, also Munro, _Mediæval History_, p. 44. Other examples are given in the _Readings_, Chapter IX. [61] Extracts from the chronicles of the ninth century illustrating thedisorder of the period will be found in the _Readings_, Chapter VIII. [62] See above, p. 16. [63] See an example of this form of grant in the seventh century in_Readings_, Chapter IX. The reader will also find there a considerablenumber of illustrations of feudal contracts, etc. [64] See formula of "commendation, " as this arrangement was called, in_Readings_, Chapter IX. The fact that the Roman imperial governmentforbade this practice under heavy penalties suggests that the localmagnates used their retainers to establish their independence of theimperial taxgatherers and other government officials. [65] See Adams, _Civilization_, pp. 207 _sqq. _ [66] Lord is _dominus_, or _senior_, in mediæval Latin. From the latterword the French _seigneur_ is derived. _Suzerain_ is used to mean thedirect lord and also an _overlord_ separated by one or more degrees froma subvassal. [67] A relic of the time when fiefs were just becoming hereditary waspreserved in the exaction by the lord of a certain due, called the_relief_. This payment was demanded from the vassal when one lord diedand a new one succeeded him, and from a new vassal upon the death of hispredecessor. It was originally the payment for a new grant of the landat a time when fiefs were not generally held hereditarily. The right didnot exist in the case of all fiefs and it varied greatly in amount. Itwas customarily much heavier when the one succeeding to the fief was notthe son of the former holder but a nephew or more distant relative. [68] Homage is derived from the Latin word for man, _homo_. [69] The conditions upon which fiefs were granted might be dictatedeither by interest or by mere fancy. Sometimes the most fantastic andseemingly absurd obligations were imposed. We hear of vassals holding oncondition of attending the lord at supper with a tall candle, orfurnishing him with a great yule log at Christmas. Perhaps the mostextraordinary instance upon record is that of a lord in Guienne whosolemnly declared upon oath, when questioned by the commissioners ofEdward I, that he held his fief of the king upon the following terms:When the lord king came through his estate he was to accompany him to acertain oak. There he must have waiting a cart loaded with wood anddrawn by two cows without any tails. When the oak was reached, fire wasto be applied to the cart and the whole burned up "unless mayhap thecows make their escape. " [70] The feudal courts, especially those of the great lords and of theking himself, were destined to develop later into the centers of realgovernment, with regular judicial, financial, and administrative bodiesfor the performance of political functions. [71] In the following description of the anarchy of feudalism, I merelycondense Luchaire's admirable chapter on the subject in his _Manuel desInstitutions Françaises_. The _Readings_, Chapters X, XII, XIII, XIV, furnish many examples of disorder. [72] The gorgeous affairs of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries werebut weak and effeminate counterparts of the rude and hazardousencounters of the thirteenth. [73] References, for the mediæval castle, the jousts, and the life ofthe nobles, Munro, _Mediæval History_, Chapter XIII, and Henderson, _Short History of Germany_, pp. 111-121. [74] See the famous "Truce of God" issued by the Archbishop of Colognein 1083, in _Readings_, Chapter IX. [75] See genealogical table, above, p. 96. [76] Reference, Emerton, _Mediæval Europe_, pp. 405-420. _Readings_, Chapter X. [77] Not to be confounded with the _duchy_ of Burgundy just referred to. See p. 97, above. [78] See genealogical table and map of the Plantagenet possessions, pp. 140-141, below. [79] Henry's family owes its name, Plantagenet, to the habit that hisfather, Geoffrey of Anjou, had of wearing a bit of broom (_plantagenista_) in his helmet on his crusading expeditions. [80] Geoffrey, the eldest of the three sons of Henry II mentioned above, died before his father. [81] The Estates General were so called to distinguish a general meetingof the representatives of the three estates of the realm from a merelylocal assembly of the provincial estates of Champagne, Provence, Brittany, Languedoc, etc. There are some vague indications that Philiphad called in a few townspeople even earlier than 1302. [82] For the French monarchy as organized in the thirteenth century, seeEmerton, _Mediæval Europe_, pp. 432-433; Adams, _Civilization_, pp. 311-328. [83] In spite of the final supremacy of the West Saxons of Wessex, thewhole land took its name from the more numerous Angles. [84] References, Green, _Short History of the English People_ (revisededition, Harper & Brothers), pp. 48-52; extracts from the _Anglo-SaxonChronicle_ may be found in _Readings_, Chapter XI. [85] The shires go back at least as far as Alfred the Great, and many oftheir names indicate that they had some relation to the earlier littlekingdoms, e. G. , Sussex, Essex, Kent, Northumberland. [86] See above, p. 62. [87] Often called the battle of Hastings from the neighboring town ofthat name. [88] For contemporaneous accounts of William's character and therelations of Normans and English, see Colby, _Sources_, pp. 33-36, 39-41; _Readings_, Ch. XI. [89] Reference, for the Conqueror and his reign, Green, _Short History_, pp. 74-87, and Gardiner, _Students' History_, pp. 86-114. [90] William I (1066-1087), m. Matilda, daughter of Baldwin V of Flanders | +----+----------------------+-------------------------+ | | |William II (Rufus) Henry I (1100-1135), Adela, m. Stephen, (1087-1100) m. Matilda, daughter of Count of Blois Malcolm, King of Scotland | | | Matilda (d. 1167), Stephen (1135-1154) m. Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou | Henry II (1154-1189), the first Plantagenet king [91] See above, p. 126. [92] References, Green, pp. 104-112; Gardiner, pp. 138-158. Acontemporaneous account of the murder is given by Colby, _Sources_, pp. 56-59. [93] See above, p. 126. [94] For John's reign, see Green, pp. 122-127. [95] The text of the Great Charter is given in _Translations andReprints_, Vol. I, No. 6; extracts, in the _Readings_, Chapter XI. [96] These were payments made when the lord knighted his eldest son, gave his eldest daughter in marriage, or had been captured and waswaiting to be ransomed. [97] See map following p. 152 for the names and position of the severalduchies. [98] Arnulf, the grandson of Louis the German, who supplanted Charlesthe Fat, died in 899 and left a six-year-old son, Louis the Child (d. 911), who was the last of the house of Charlemagne to enjoy the Germankingship. The aristocracy then chose Conrad I (d. 918), and, in 919, Henry I of Saxony, as king of the East Franks. [99] See _Readings_, Chapter XII. [100] See Emerton, _Mediæval Europe_, Chapter IV, for a clear account ofthe condition of the papacy, the struggles between the rival Italiandynasties, and the interference and coronation of Otto the Great. [101] Henry II (1002-1024) and his successors, not venturing to assumethe title of emperor till crowned at Rome, but anxious to claim thesovereignty of Rome as indissolubly attached to the German crown, beganto call themselves before their coronation _rex Romanorum_, i. E. , Kingof the Romans. This habit lasted until Luther's time, when Maximilian Igot permission from the pope to call himself "Emperor Elect" before hiscoronation, and this title was thereafter taken by his successorsimmediately upon their election. [102] For Otto II, Otto III, and Henry II, see Emerton, _MediævalEurope_, Chapter V; and Henderson, _Germany in the Middle Ages_, pp. 145-166. [103] These grants of the powers of a count to prelates serve to explainthe _ecclesiastical_ states, --for example, the archbishoprics of Mayenceand Salzburg, the bishopric of Bamberg, and so forth, --which continue toappear upon the map of Germany until the opening of the nineteenthcentury. [104] From the beginning, single life had appealed to some Christians asmore worthy than the married state. Gradually, under the influence ofmonasticism, the more devout and enthusiastic clergy voluntarily shunnedmarriage, or, if already married, gave up association with their wivesafter ordination. Finally the Western Church condemned marriagealtogether for the deacon and the ranks above him, and later thesub-deacons were included in the prohibition. The records are tooincomplete for the historian to form an accurate idea of how far theprohibition of the Church was really observed throughout the countriesof the West. There were certainly great numbers of married clergymen innorthern Italy, Germany, and elsewhere, in the tenth and eleventhcenturies. Of course the Church refused to sanction the marriage of itsofficials and called the wife of a clergyman, however virtuous andfaithful she might be, by the opprobrious name of "concubine. " [105] Pronounced _sĭm'o-ny_. [106] Reference, Emerton, _Mediæval Europe_, pp. 201-209. [107] The word _cardinal_ (Latin, _cardinalis_, principal) was appliedto the priests of the various parishes in Rome, to the several deaconsconnected with the Lateran, --which was the cathedral church of the Romanbishopric, --and, lastly, to six or seven suburban bishops who officiatedin turn in the Lateran. The title became a very distinguished one andwas sought by ambitious prelates and ecclesiastical statesmen, likeWolsey, Richelieu, and Mazarin. If their official titles were examined, it would be found that each was nominally a cardinal bishop, priest, ordeacon of some Roman church. The number of cardinals varied until fixed, in 1586, at six bishops, fifty priests, and fourteen deacons. [108] The decree of 1059 is to be found in Henderson, _HistoricalDocuments_, p. 361. [109] For text of the _Dictatus_, see _Readings_, Chapter XIII. The mostcomplete statement of Gregory's view of the responsibility of the papacyfor the civil government is to be found in his famous letter to theBishop of Metz (1081), _Readings_, Chapter XIII. [110] For this letter, see Colby, _Sources_, p. 37. [111] Reissues of this decree in 1078 and 1080 are given in the_Readings_, Chapter XIII. [112] To be found in the _Readings_, Chapter XIII. [113] Henry's letter and one from the German bishops to the pope areboth in Henderson, _Historical Documents_, pp. 372-376. [114] Gregory's deposition and excommunication of Henry may be found inthe _Readings_, Chapter XIII. [115] For Gregory's own account of the affair at Canossa, see_Readings_, Chapter XIII. [116] For a fuller account of the troubles between Gregory and Henry, see Henderson, _Germany in the Middle Ages_, pp. 183-210; Emerton, _Mediæval Europe_, pp. 240-259. [117] See _Readings_, Chapter XIII. [118] For the emperors Lothaire (1125-1137) and Conrad III (1138-1152), the first of the Hohenstaufens, see Emerton, _Mediæval Europe_, pp. 271-282. [119] Something will be said of the mediæval towns in Chapter XVIII. [120] Reference, Emerton, _Mediæval Europe_, pp. 271-291. [121] Reference, Emerton, _Mediæval Europe_, pp. 293-297. [122] The origin of the name _Ghibelline_, applied to the adherents ofthe emperor in Italy, is not known; it may be derived from Waibling, acastle of the Hohenstaufens. [123] The attention of the adventurous Normans had been called tosouthern Italy early in the eleventh century by some of their peoplewho, in their wanderings, had been stranded there and had found plentyof opportunities to fight under agreeable conditions for one or anotherof the local rival princes. From marauding mercenaries, they soon becamethe ruling race. They extended their conquests from the mainland toSicily, and by 1140 they had united all southern Italy into a singlekingdom. The popes had naturally taken a lively interest in the new andstrong power upon the confines of their realms. They skillfully arrangedto secure a certain hold upon the growing kingdom by inducing RobertGuiscard, the most famous of the Norman leaders, to recognize the popeas his feudal lord; in 1059 he became the vassal of Nicholas II. [124] For John's cession of England and oath of vassalage, seeHenderson, _Historical Documents_, pp. 430-432. For the interdict, seeColby, _Sources_, pp. 72-73. [125] For the career and policy of Innocent III, see Emerton, _MediævalEurope_, pp. 314-343. [126] An excellent account of Frederick's life is given by Henderson, _Germany in the Middle Ages_, pp. 349-397. [127] For the speech of Urban, see _Readings_, Chapter XV. [128] The privileges of the crusaders may be found in _Translations andReprints_, Vol. I, No. 2. [129] For Peter the Hermit, see _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. I, No. 2. [130] For the routes taken by the different crusading armies, see theaccompanying map. [131] For an account of the prowess of Richard the Lion-Hearted, seeColby, _Sources_, pp. 68-70. [132] Heraldry may be definitely ascribed to the Crusades, for it grewup from the necessity of distinguishing the various groups of knights. Some of its terms, for example, _gules_ (red) and _azur_, are of Arabicorigin. [133] References. For the highly developed civilization which thecrusaders found in Constantinople, Munro, _Mediæval History_, Chapter X. For the culture of the Saracens, see the same work, Chapter IX. [134] The law of the Church was known as the _canon law_. It was taughtin most of the universities and practiced by a great number of lawyers. It was based upon the acts of the various church councils, from that ofNicæa down, and, above all, upon the decrees and decisions of the popes. See Emerton, _Mediæval Europe_, pp. 582-592. One may get some idea of the business of the ecclesiastical courts fromthe fact that the Church claimed the right to try all cases in which aclergyman was involved, or any one connected with the Church or underits special protection, such as monks, students, crusaders, widows, orphans, and the helpless. Then all cases where the rites of the Church, or its prohibitions, were involved came ordinarily before the churchcourts, as, for example, those concerning marriage, wills, sworncontracts, usury, blasphemy, sorcery, heresy, and so forth. [135] Many of the edicts, decisions, and orders of the popes were called_bulls_ from the seal (Latin, _bulla_) attached to them. [136] For an illustration of provinces and bishoprics, see accompanyingmap of France showing the ecclesiastical divisions. The seats of thearchbishops are indicated by [Symbol]; those of the bishops by [Symbol]. [137] See below, § 81. [138] Except those monasteries and orders whose members were especiallyexempted by the pope from the jurisdiction of the bishops. [139] Those clergymen who enjoyed the revenue from the endowed officesconnected with a cathedral church were called _canons_. The office ofcanon was an honorable one and much sought after, partly because theduties were light and could often be avoided altogether. A scholar likePetrarch might look to such an office as a means of support withoutdreaming of performing any of the religious services which the positionimplied. For an account of the relations between the chapter and thebishop, see Emerton, _Mediæval Europe_, pp. 549-550. [140] It should be remembered that only a part of the priests wereintrusted with the care of souls in a parish. There were many priestsamong the wandering monks, of whom something will be said presently. Seebelow, § 91. There were also many chantry priests whose main functionwas saying masses for the dead in chapels and churches endowed withrevenue or lands by those who in this way provided for the repose oftheir souls or those of their descendants. See below, p. 213. [141] For several centuries the _Sentences_ were used as the text-bookin all the divinity schools. Theologians established their reputationsby writing commentaries upon them. One of Luther's first acts of revoltwas to protest against giving the study of the _Sentences_ preferenceover that of the Bible in the universities. [142] All the sacraments, --e. G. Orders and matrimony, --are not necessaryto every one. Moreover, the sincere _wish_ suffices if one is sosituated that he cannot possibly actually receive the sacraments. [143] Confession was a very early practice in the Church. Innocent IIIand the fourth Lateran Council made it obligatory by requiring thefaithful to confess at least once a year, at Easter time. Forsacraments, see _Readings_, Chapter XVI. [144] See above, p. 183, and _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. IV, No. 4, for examples of the interdict and excommunication. [145] The privilege of being tried by churchmen, which all connectedwith the Church claimed, was called _benefit of clergy_. See _Readings_, Chapter XVI. [146] The bishops still constitute an important element in the upperhouses of parliament in several European countries. [147] For a satire of the thirteenth century on the papal court, seeEmerton, _Mediæval Europe_, p. 475. [148] It must not be forgotten that the monks were regarded as belongingto the clergy. For the various new orders of monks and the conditions inthe monasteries, see Munro, _Mediæval History_, Chapter XII, andJessopp, _Coming of the Friars_, Chapter III, "Daily Life in a MediævalMonastery. " [149] See _Readings_, Chapter XVII. [150] See _Readings_, Chapter XVII, for the beliefs of the Albigenses. [151] Examples of these decrees are given in _Translations andReprints_, Vol. III, No. 6. [152] His son married an English lady, became a leader of the Englishbarons, and was the first to summon the commons to Parliament. Seeabove, pp. 146-147. [153] For the form of relaxation and other documents relating to theInquisition, see _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. III, No. 6. [154] The whole rule is translated by Henderson, _Historical Documents_, p. 344. [155] In Italy and southern France town life was doubtless more general. [156] The peasants were the tillers of the soil. They were often called_villains_, a word derived from vill. [157] The manner in which serfs disappeared in England will be describedlater. [158] Reference, Munro, _Mediæval History_, Chapter XIV, where thesubject of this chapter is treated in a somewhat different way. [159] In Germany the books published annually in the German language didnot exceed those in Latin until after 1680. [160] Even the monks and others who wrote Latin in the Middle Ages wereunable to follow strictly the rules of the language. Moreover, theyintroduced many new words to meet the new conditions and the needs ofthe time, such as _imprisonare_, imprison; _utlagare_, to outlaw;_baptizare_, to baptize; _foresta_, forest; _feudum_, fief, etc. [161] See above, pp. 94-95. [162] "Bytuene Mershe and Avoril When spray beginneth to springe, The little foul (bird) hath hire wyl On hyre lud (voice) to synge. " [163] Of course there was no sharp line of demarcation between thepeople who used the one language and the other, nor was Provençalconfined to southern France. The language of Catalonia, beyond thePyrenees, was essentially the same as that of Provence. French wascalled _langue d'oïl_, and the southern language _langue d'oc_, eachafter the word used for "yes. " [164] The _Song of Roland_ is translated into spirited English verse byO'Hagan, London, 1880. [165] The reader will find a beautiful example of a French romance ofthe twelfth century in an English translation of _Aucassin andNicolette_ (Mosher, Portland, Me. ). Mr. Steele gives charming stories ofthe twelfth and thirteenth centuries in _Huon of Bordeaux_, _Renaud ofMontauban_, and _The Story of Alexander_ (Allen, London). Malory's _Mortd'Arthur_, a collection of the stories of the Round Table made in thefifteenth century for English readers, is the best place to turn forthese famous stories. [166] An excellent idea of the spirit and character of the troubadoursand of their songs may be got from Justin H. Smith, _Troubadours atHome_ (G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York). See _Readings_, Chapter XIX. [167] Reference, Henderson, _Short History of Germany_, Vol. I, pp. 111-121. [168] See Steele's _Mediæval Lore_ for examples of the science of theMiddle Ages. For the curious notions of the world and its inhabitants, see the _Travels_, attributed to Sir John Mandeville. The best editionis published by The Macmillan Company, 1900. See _Readings_, ChapterXIX. [169] The word _miniature_, which is often applied to them, is derivedfrom _minium_, i. E. , vermilion, which was one of the favorite colors. Later the word came to be applied to anything small. See thefrontispiece for an example of an illuminated page from a book of hours. [170] So called because it was derived from the old Roman basilicas, orbuildings in which the courts were held. [171] In France as early as the twelfth century. [172] Notice flying buttresses shown in the picture of Canterburycathedral, p. 208. [173] See _Readings_, Chapter XIX. [174] The origin of the bachelor's degree, which comes at the end of ourcollege course nowadays, may be explained as follows: The bachelor inthe thirteenth century was a student who had passed part of hisexaminations in the course in "arts, " as the college course was thencalled, and was permitted to teach certain elementary subjects before hebecame a full-fledged master. So the A. B. Was inferior to the A. M. Thenas now. After finishing his college course and obtaining his A. M. , theyoung teacher often became a student in one of the professional schoolsof law, theology, or medicine, and in time became a master in one ofthese sciences. The words _master_, _doctor_, and _professor_ meantpretty much the same thing in the thirteenth century. [175] An example of the scholastic method of reasoning of Thomas Aquinasmay be found in _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. III, No. 6. [176] Reference, Green, _Short History of the English People_, pp. 161-169. [177] See above, p. 147. [178] See above, pp. 127-128 and 130. [179] See above, pp. 131-132. [180] Formerly it was supposed that gunpowder helped to decide thebattle in favor of the English, but if siege guns, which were alreadybeginning to be used, were employed at all they were too crude and thecharges too light to do much damage. For some generations to come thebow and arrow held its own; it was not until the sixteenth century thatgunpowder came to be commonly and effectively used in battles. [181] For the account of Crécy by Froissart, the celebrated historian ofthe fourteenth century, see _Readings_, Chapter XX. [182] See above, pp. 131-132. [183] Reference, Adams, _Growth of the French Nation_, pp. 116-123. [184] For an example of the Statutes of Laborers, see _Translations andReprints_, Vol. II, No. 5, and Lee, _Source-book of English History_, pp. 206-208. [185] For extracts, see _Readings_, Chapter XX. [186] For description of manor, see above, pp. 234-235. [187] For this younger line of the descendants of Edward I, seegenealogical table below, p. 297. [188] See above, p. 287. [189] The title of Dauphin, originally belonging to the ruler ofDauphiny, was enjoyed by the eldest son of the French king afterDauphiny became a part of France in 1349, in the same way that theeldest son of the English king was called Prince of Wales. [190] Reference, Green, _Short History_, pp. 274-281. For officialaccount of the trial of Joan, see Colby, _Sources_, pp. 113-117. [191] DESCENT OF THE RIVAL HOUSES OF LANCASTER AND YORK Edward III (1327-1377) | +------------------------+---------------------------+ | | | Edward, John of Gaunt, Edmund, the Black Prince Duke of Lancaster Duke of York (d. 1376) | | | +--------+---------+ | | | | |RICHARD II | | |(1377-1399) | | | HENRY IV John Beaufort Richard (1399-1413) | | | | | HENRY V John Beaufort Richard (1413-1422) | | | | | HENRY VI | +-----------+--------------+ (1422-1461) | | | | EDWARD IV RICHARD III | (1461-1483) (1483-1485) | | | +--+----------+ Edmund Tudor m. Margaret | | | | | HENRY VII m. Elizabeth of York EDWARD V (1485-1509), Murdered in First of the the Tower, Tudor kings 1483 [192] References, Green, _Short History_, pp. 281-293, 299-303. [193] See _Readings_, Chapter XX. [194] Reference, Adams, _Growth of the French Nation_, pp. 121-123, 134-135. [195] See above, p. 128. [196] See geneological table above, p. 282. [197] See below, Chapter XXIII. [198] Reference, Adams, _French Nation_, pp. 136-142. [199] See _Readings_, Chapter XXI. [200] The name recalled of course the long exile of the Jews from theirland. [201] See _Readings_, Chapter XXI. [202] For statutes, see _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. II, No. 5, andLee, _Source-book_, pp. 198-202. [203] See above, p. 183. [204] Reference, Green, _Short History_, pp. 235-244. For extracts, see_Readings_, Chapter XXI; _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. II, No. 5;Lee, _Source-book_, for the treatment of the Lollards, as the followersof Wycliffe were called, pp. 209-223. [205] The eighth and last of these eastern councils, which were regardedby the Roman Church as having represented all Christendom, occurred inConstantinople in 869. In 1123 the first Council of the Lateranassembled, and since that five or six Christian congresses had beenconvoked in the West. But these, unlike the earlier ones, were regardedas merely ratifying the wishes of the pope, who completely dominated theassembly and published its decrees in his own name. [206] See above, pp. 202-203. [207] THE POPES DURING THE GREAT SCHISM Gregory XI (1373-1378) Returns to Rome in 1377 _Roman Line_ _Avignon Line_ Urban VI (1378-1389) Clement VII (1378-1394) | |Boniface IX (1389-1404) Benedict XIII (1394-1417) | |Innocent VII (1404-1406) _Council of Pisa's Line_ | | |Gregory XII (1406-1415) Alexander V (1409-1410) | | | | | John XXIII (1410-1415) | | | | | | | | | | +------------------ Martin V (1417-1431) -----------------+ [208] See above, pp. 222-223. [209] For examples of the general criticism of the abuses in the Church, see _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. III, No. 6. [210] This decree, _Frequens_, may be found in _Translations andReprints_, Vol. III, No. 6. [211] On account of an outbreak of sickness the council was transferredto Florence. [212] See above, p. 186. [213] This word, although originally French, has come into such commonuse that it is quite permissible to pronounce it as if it wereEnglish, --_rẹ-nā'sens_. [214] See above, p. 27. [215] See above, pp. 198-199 and 243. [216] See above, pp. 174 _sqq. _ [217] In the year 1300 Milan occupied a territory scarcely larger thanthat of the neighboring states, but under the Visconti it conquered anumber of towns, Pavia, Cremona, etc. , and became, next to Venice, themost considerable state of northern Italy. [218] A single example will suffice. Through intrigue andmisrepresentation on the part of Gian Galeazzo Visconti, the Marquis ofFerrara became so wildly jealous of his nephew that he beheaded theyoung man and his mother, then burned his own wife and hung a fourthmember of the family. [219] See above, pp. 31-32. [220] The translation of _The Banquet_ in Morley's "Universal Library"is very poor, but that of Miss Hillard (London, 1889) is good and issupplied with helpful notes. [221] See the close of the fourth canto of the _Inferno_. [222] See above, pp. 271-272. [223] Copies of the _Æneid_, of Horace's _Satires_, of certain ofCicero's _Orations_, of Ovid, Seneca, and a few other authors, wereapparently by no means uncommon during the twelfth and thirteenthcenturies. It seemed, however, to Petrarch, who had learned through thereferences of Cicero, St. Augustine, and others, something of theoriginal extent of Latin literature, that treasures of inestimable valuehad been lost by the shameful indifference of the Middle Ages. "Eachfamous author of antiquity whom I recall, " he indignantly exclaims, "places a new offense and another cause of dishonor to the charge oflater generations, who, not satisfied with their own disgracefulbarrenness, permitted the fruit of other minds and the writings thattheir ancestors had produced by toil and application, to perish throughshameful neglect. Although they had nothing of their own to hand down tothose who were to come after, they robbed posterity of its ancestralheritage. " [224] Petrarch's own remarkable account of his life and studies, whichhe gives in his famous "Letter to Posterity, " may be found in Robinsonand Rolfe, _Petrarch_, pp. 59-76. [225] See above, pp. 45-46. [226] Historians formerly supposed that it was only after Constantinoplewas captured by the Turks in 1453 that Greek scholars fled west and tookwith them the knowledge of their language and literature. The factsgiven above serve as a sufficient refutation of this oft-repeated error. [227] In Whitcomb, _Source Book of the Italian Renaissance_, pp. 70_sqq. _, interesting accounts of these libraries may be found, written byVespasiano, the most important book dealer of the time. [228] Manuscript, _manu scriptum_, means simply written by hand. [229] The closing lines (i. E. , the so-called _colophon_) of the secondedition of the Psalter which are here reproduced, are substantially thesame as those of the first edition. They may be translated as follows:"The present volume of the Psalms, which is adorned with handsomecapitals and is clearly divided by means of rubrics, was produced not bywriting with a pen but by an ingenious invention of printed characters;and was completed to the glory of God and the honor of St. James by JohnFust, a citizen of Mayence, and Peter Schoifher of Gernsheim, in theyear of our Lord 1459, on the 29th of August. " [230] Note the similarity in form of the letters in the accompanyingillustration and those in the illuminated page which serves as thefrontispiece of this volume. It is not easy at first sight to tell someearly printed books from the best manuscripts. It may be observed thatthe Germans still adhere to a type something like that used by the firstprinters. [231] See above, pp. 261-262. [232] See above, p. 263. [233] With the appearance of the mendicant orders, preaching againbecame an important part of the church service, and pulpits were erectedin the body of the church, where the people could gather around them. These pulpits offered a fine opportunity to the sculptor and were oftenvery elaborate and beautiful. [234] The frescoes in Pompeii and other slight remnants of ancientpainting were not discovered till much later. [235] In the church of Santa Croce in Florence and in that of St. Francis at Assisi. [236] Fra is an abbreviation of _frate_, brother. [237] See below, pp. 361, 363, 364. [238] One of the most celebrated among the other Florentine painters ofthe period was Botticelli. He differs from most of his contemporaries inbeing at his best in easel pictures. His poetic conceptions, thegraceful lines of his draperies, and the pensive charm of his faces haveespecially inspired a famous school of English painters in our ownday--the Preraphaelites. [239] See below, pp. 364, 365. [240] Leonardo was an engineer and inventor as well. [241] Compare his Holy Family with the reproduction of one of Giotto'spaintings, in order to realize the great change in art between thefourteenth and sixteenth centuries. [242] See his portrait of Erasmus below, p. 382. [243] For an example of the magnificent bronze work produced in Germanyin the early sixteenth century, see the statues of Philip the Good andCharles the Bold, pp. 300, 301, above. [244] See his portrait of Charles I below, p. 480. [245] Marco Polo's travels can easily be had in English; for example, in_The Story of Marco Polo_, by Noah Brooks, Century Company, 1898. Acertain Franciscan monk, William of Rubruk, visited the far Eastsomewhat earlier than the Polo brothers. The account of his journey, aswell as the experiences of other mediæval travelers, may be found in_The Travels of Sir John Mandeville_, published by The MacmillanCompany, 1900. [246] See map above, pp. 242-243. [247] Reference, _Cambridge Modern History_, Chapter I. [248] Reference, _Cambridge Modern History_, Chapter II. Kingsley hasdescribed these mariners in his _Westward Ho_. He derives his notions ofthem from the collection of voyages made by an English geographer, Hakluyt (died 1616). Some of these are published by Payne, _Voyages ofElizabethan Seamen_ (Clarendon Press, 2 vols. , $1. 25 each). [249] See above, pp. 85, 151 _sq. _, and Chapters XIII-XIV. [250] Rudolf, like many of his successors, was strictly speaking onlyking of the Romans, since he was never crowned emperor at Rome. Seeabove, pp. 152 n. , 185. [251] From 1438 to 1806 only two emperors belonged to another familythan the Hapsburgs. [252] See above, p. 301. [253] See above, p. 71. [254] See map above, following p. 152. [255] No one can gaze upon the great castle and palace of the Alhambra, which was built for the Moorish kings, without realizing what a highdegree of culture the Moors had attained. Its beautiful and impressivearcades, its magnificent courts, and the delicate tracery of its archesrepresent the highest achievement of Arabic architecture. [256] See above, pp. 224-225. [257] Austria Burgundy Castile Aragon Naples, etc. (America) Maximilian I = Mary (d. 1482), Isabella = Ferdinand (d. 1516) (d. 1519) | dau. Of Charles (d. 1504) | | the Bold (d. 1477) | | | Philip (d. 1506) === Joanna the Insane (d. 1555) | +---------------+-----+ | |Charles V (d. 1558) Ferdinand (d. 1564) = Anna, heiress to kingdomsEmperor, 1519-1556 Emperor, 1556-1564 of Bohemia and Hungary [258] It will be remembered that the popes, in their long struggle withFrederick II and the Hohenstaufens, finally called in Charles of Anjou, the brother of St. Louis, and gave to him both Naples and Sicily. Seeabove, p. 185. Sicily revolted in 1282 and was united with the kingdomof Aragon, which still held it when Charles V came to the Spanishthrone. The older branch of the house of Anjou died out in 1435 andNaples was conquered by the king of Aragon, and was still in his familywhen Charles VIII undertook his Italian expedition. The younger branchof the house of Anjou had never reigned in Naples, but its members werecareful to retain their asserted title to it, and, upon the death oftheir last representative, this title was transferred to Louis XI. He, however, prudently refused to attempt to oust the Aragonese usurpers, ashe had quite enough to do at home. [259] See above, p. 327. [260] More important for France than the arrangements mentioned abovewas the so-called _Concordat_, or agreement, between Francis and thepope in regard to the selection of the French prelates. Francis wasgiven the privilege of appointing the archbishops, bishops, and abbots, and in this way it came about that he and his successors had many richoffices to grant to their courtiers and favorites. He agreed in returnthat the pope should receive a part of the first year's revenue from themore important offices in the Church of France. The pope was, moreover, thereafter to be regarded as superior to a council, a doctrine which hadbeen denied by the French monarchs since the Council of Basel. Thearrangements of the Concordat of 1516 were maintained down to the FrenchRevolution. [261] See below, p. 428-429. [262] The Catholic Church, on the other hand, held that certainimportant teachings, institutions, and ceremonies, although notexpressly mentioned in the Bible, were nevertheless sanctioned by"tradition. " That is, they had been handed down orally from Christ andhis apostles as a sacred heritage to the Church, and like the Bible wereto be received as from God. See _Readings_, Chapter XXIV. [263] For the origin of these and of the other ecclesiastical states ofGermany, see above, p. 156. [264] The manner in which the numerous and often importantecclesiastical states all disappeared in Napoleon's time will becomeclear later. See below, § 244. [265] See above, pp. 117 _sqq. _ For the German law permitting feuds, seeHenderson, _Historical Documents_, p. 246. In 1467, the German dietventured to forbid neighborhood war for five years. It was not, however, permanently prohibited until a generation later. [266] For example, in one of the books of instruction for the priest wefind that he is warned, when he quotes the Bible, to say to the peoplethat he is not translating it word for word from the Latin, forotherwise they are likely to go home and find a different wording fromhis in their particular version and then declare that the priest hadmade a mistake. [267] Some seventeen universities had been established by German rulersand towns in a little over one hundred years. The oldest of them wasfounded in 1348 at Prague. Several of these institutions, for example, Leipsic, Vienna, and Heidelberg, are still ranked among the leadinguniversities of the world. [268] See above, § 104. [269] For examples of these _Letters of Obscure Men_, see Whitcomb, _Source Book of the German Renaissance_, pp. 67 _sq. _, and _Translationsand Reprints_, Vol. II, No. 6. The peculiar name of the satire is due tothe fact that Reuchlin's sympathizers wrote him many letters ofencouragement, which he published under the title, _Letters ofCelebrated Men to John Reuchlin_. The humanists then pitched upon themodest title, _Letters of Obscure Men_, for the supposed correspondenceof the admirers of the monks. The following is an example of the"obscure men's" poetry. One of them goes to Hagenau and meets a certainhumanist, Wolfgang Angst, who, the writer complains, struck him in theeye with his staff. Et ivi hinc ad Hagenau Da wurden mir die Augen blau Per te, Wolfgang Angst, Gott gib das du hangst, Quia me cum baculo Percusseras in oculo. [270] See below, pp. 426-7. [271] This may be had in English, published by Scribner's Sons ($1. 25)or Brentano ($1. 25). [272] See above, pp. 317-318. [273] See above, p. 203. [274] The Augustinian order, to which Luther belonged, was organized inthe thirteenth century, a little later than the Dominican and theFranciscan. [275] He writes exultingly to a friend: "Our kind of theology reignssupreme in the university; only one who lectures on the Bible, Augustine, or some real Church father, can reckon on any listeners; andAristotle sinks lower and lower every day. " In this way he sought todiscredit Peter Lombard, Aquinas, and all the writers who were then mostpopular in the theological schools. Walker, _The Reformation_, pp. 77-91. [276] See above, p. 211-212. [277] It is a common mistake of Protestants to suppose that theindulgence was forgiveness granted beforehand for sins to be committedin the future. There is absolutely no foundation for this idea. A personproposing to sin could not possibly be contrite in the eyes of theChurch, and even if he secured an indulgence it would, according to thetheologians, have been quite worthless. [278] See above, p. 344. [279] The complete text of the theses may be found in _Translations andReprints_, Vol. II, No. 6. [280] See above, p. 209, for the Church's doctrine of the "indeliblecharacter" which the priest received at ordination. [281] See above, §§ 81-82. The two great works of Luther, herementioned, as well as his _Freedom of the Christian_, in which heexplains his own doctrine very simply, may be found translated in Waceand Buchheim, _Luther's Primary Works_. [282] It must be remembered that it was the emperor's business toexecute the law, not to discuss its propriety with the accused. In thesame way nowadays, should a man convicted, for example, of bigamy urgethat he believed it Scriptural to have two wives, the court would refuseto listen to his arguments and would sentence him to the penalty imposedby law, in spite of the fact that the prisoner believed that he hadcommitted no wrong. [283] The text of the Edict of Worms is published in English in the_Historical Leaflets_ issued by the Crozer Theological Seminary, Chester, Pa. [284] See _Readings_, Chapter XXVI. [285] See below, § 167. [286] The "Twelve Articles" may be found in _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. II, No. 6. [287] The Protest of Speyer is to be had in English in the _HistoricalLeaflets_ published by the Crozer Theological Seminary, Chester, Pa. [288] For the successive wars between Charles and Francis and theterrible sack of Rome in 1527, see Johnson, _Europe in the SixteenthCentury_, pp. 172-175 and 181-195. [289] It is still accepted as the creed of the Lutheran Church. Copiesof it in English may be procured from the Lutheran Publication Society, Philadelphia, for ten cents each. [290] Reference, Johnson, _Europe in the Sixteenth Century_, Chapter V;Walker, _The Reformation_, pp. 188-216. [291] See above, p. 300. [292] This condition has not changed; all Swiss laws are stillproclaimed in three languages. [293] Switzerland had made a business, ever since the time when CharlesVIII of France invaded Italy, of supplying troops of mercenaries tofight for others, especially for France and the pope. It was the Swisswho gained the battle of Marignano for Francis I, and Swiss guards maystill be seen in the pope's palace. [294] So eloquent was the new preacher that one of his auditors reportsthat after a sermon he felt as if "he had been taken by the hair andturned inside out. " [295] See above, pp. 212-213. [296] For Zwingli's life and work see the scholarly biography by SamuelMacauley Jackson, _Huldreich Zwingli_ (G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1901). [297] See below, p. 452. [298] Calvin intrusted the management of church affairs to the ministersand the elders, or _presbyters_, hence the name Presbyterian. ForCalvin's work, see Johnson, _Europe in the Sixteenth Century_, pp. 272-276. [299] See above, p. 382. [300] An English translation of the _Utopia_ is published by theMacmillan Company at 50 cents. [301] See above, § 139. [302] The clergy only recognized the king as "Head of the Church andClergy so far as the law of Christ will allow. " They did not abjure theheadship of the pope over the whole Church. [303] These were the sufficiency of the bread without the wine for thelaity in partaking of the communion;[A] the celibacy of the clergy; theperpetual obligation of vows to remain unmarried; the propriety ofprivate masses; and, lastly, of confession. The act was popularly knownas "the whip with six strings. " [A] The custom of the Church had long been that the priest alone shouldpartake of the wine at communion. The Hussites, and later theProtestants, demanded that the laity should receive both the bread andthe wine. [304] Henry VIII, m. (1) Catherine, m. (2) Anne Boleyn, m. (3) Jane Seymour | | |Mary (1553-1558) Elizabeth (1558-1603) Edward VI (1547-1553) It was arranged that the son was to succeed to the throne. In case hedied without heirs, Mary and then Elizabeth were to follow. [305] These may be found in any Book of Common Prayer of the EnglishChurch or of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. [306] For an extract from the Bishop of Worcester's diary, recordingthese changes, see _Readings_, Chapter XXVII. [307] The Catholics in their turn, it should be noted, suffered seriouspersecution under Elizabeth and James I, the Protestant successors ofMary. Death was the penalty fixed in many cases for those whoobstinately refused to recognize the monarch as the rightful head of theEnglish Church, and heavy fines were imposed for the failure to attendProtestant worship. Two hundred Catholic priests are said to have beenexecuted under Elizabeth; others were tortured or perished miserably inprison. See below, p. 462, and Green, _Short History_, pp. 407-410. [308] There is an admirable account of the spirit of the conservativereformers in the _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. I, Chapter XVIII. [309] Protestant writers commonly call the reformation of the mediævalCatholic Church the "counter-reformation" or "Catholic reaction, " as ifProtestantism were entirely responsible for it. It is clear, however, that the conservative reform began some time before the Protestantsrevolted. Their secession from the Church only stimulated a movementalready well under way. See Maurenbrecher, _Geschichte der KatholischenReformation_. [310] They may be had in English, _Decrees and Canons of the Council ofTrent_, translated by Rev. J. Waterworth, London and New York. Seeextracts from the acts of the council in _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. II, No. 6. [311] See _Readings_, Chapter XXVIII. [312] Reference, Parkman's, _Jesuits in North America_, Vol. I, ChaptersII and X. [313] DIVISION OF THE HAPSBURG POSSESSIONS BETWEEN THE SPANISH AND THEGERMAN BRANCHES Maximilian I (d. 1519), m. Mary of Burgundy (d. 1482) | Philip (d. 1506), m. Joanna the Insane (d. 1555) | +----------------------------+ | |Charles V (d. 1558) Ferdinand (d. 1564), m. Anna, heiress to kingdomsEmperor, 1519-1556 Emperor, 1556-1564 | of Bohemia and Hungary | |Philip II (d. 1598) Maximilian II (d. 1576)inherits Spain, the Netherlands, Emperor, and inherits Bohemia, and the Italian possessions of Hungary, and the Austrian possessionsthe Hapsburgs of the Hapsburgs The map of Europe in the sixteenth century (see above, p. 372) indicatesthe vast extent of the combined possessions of the Spanish and GermanHapsburgs. [314] Reference, Johnson, _Europe in the Sixteenth Century_, ChapterVIII. [315] It is impossible in so brief an account to relate the heroic deedsof the Dutch, such, for example, as the famous defence of Leyden. TheAmerican historian Motley gives a vivid description of this in hiswell-known _Rise of the Dutch Republic_, Part IV, Chapter II. The mostrecent and authoritative account of the manner in which the Dutch wontheir independence is to be found in the third volume of _A History ofthe People of the Netherlands_, by the Dutch scholar Blok, translated byRuth Putnam (G. P. Putnam's Sons, 3 vols. , $7. 50). Miss Putnam's owncharming _William the Silent_ (G. P. Putnam's Sons, 2 vols. , with manyfine illustrations, $3. 75) gives an impressive picture of the tremendousodds which he faced and of his marvellous patience and perseverance. [316] Reference, Johnson, _Europe in the Sixteenth Century_, pp. 386-389. [317] See _Readings_, Chapter XXVIII. [318] See above, p. 221. [319] The origin of this name is uncertain. [320] Reference for Henry IV, Wakeman, _Europe from 1598-1715_, ChapterI. [321] Reference, Schwill, _History of Modern Europe_, Chapter VI, or asomewhat fuller account in Johnson, _Europe in the Sixteenth Century_, Chapter IX. [322] Reference, Green, _Short History_, pp. 370-376, 392-405. [323] For English mariners and their voyages and conflicts with Spain, see Froude's _English Seamen in the Fifteenth Century_. The account ofDrake's voyage is on pp. 75-103. See also "The Famous Voyage of SirFrancis Drake, " by one of Drake's gentlemen at arms, in E. J. Payne's_Voyages of Elizabethan Seamen to America_, Vol. I, pp. 196-229, Oxford, 1893. [324] See above, p. 62. [325] Reference for life and death of Mary Stuart, Green, _ShortHistory_, pp. 379-392, 416-417. [326] References, Green, _Short History of the English People_, pp. 418-420; Froude, _English Seamen_, pp. 176-228. [327] Reference, Johnson, _Europe in the Sixteenth Century_, ChapterVII, §§ 1 and 3. [328] See above, pp. 419-420. [329] Reference, Wakeman, _Europe from 1598-1715_, Chapter III. [330] Wallenstein (b. 1583) had been educated in the Catholic faith, although he came of a family with Hussite sympathies. [331] Reference, Wakeman, _Europe from 1598-1715_, Chapter IV. [332] Reference, Wakeman, _Europe from 1598-1715_, Chapter V. [333] See above, p. 452. [334] Reference, Wakeman, _Europe from 1598-1715_, Chapter VI. For abrief and excellent review of the whole war, see Schwill, _ModernEurope_, pp. 141-160. [335] See above, p. 467. [336] See above, p. 273. [337] See the translators' dedication to James I in the authorizedversion of the Bible. Only recently has it been deemed necessary torevise the remarkable work of the translators of the early seventeenthcentury. Modern scholars discovered very few serious mistakes in thisauthorized version, but found it expedient for the sake of clearness tomodernize a number of words and expressions. [338] See Lee, _Source-book of English History_, pp. 348-352. [339] See Lee, _Source-book of English History_, pp. 352-355, for thefirst writ of ship money. [340] See above, p. 426, n. 1. [341] The name Puritan, it should be noted, was applied loosely to theEnglish Protestants, whether Low Churchmen, Presbyterians, orIndependents, who aroused the antagonism of their neighbors byadvocating a godly life and opposing popular pastimes, especially onSunday. [342] Reference, Green, _Short History_, pp. 595-614. For a contemporaryaccount of Puritans, see _Readings_, Chapter XXX. [343] Reference, Lee, _Source-book of English History_, pp. 355-357. [344] Reference for Cromwell's early career and his generalship, Green, _Short History_, pp. 554-559. [345] For charge against the king, etc. , see Lee, _Source-book ofEnglish History_, pp. 364-372. [346] Reference, Green, _Short History_, pp. 580-588, 594-600. [347] See below, p. 502. [348] Reference, Wakeman, _Europe from 1598-1715_, Chapter VII. [349] Louis does not appear to have himself used the famous expression, "_I_ am the _state_, " usually attributed to him, but it exactlycorresponds to his idea of the relation of the king and the state. [350] Reference, Perkins, _France under the Regency_, pp. 129-141. [351] Reference, Perkins, _France under the Regency_, Chapter IV. [352] Reference, Perkins, _France under the Regency_, pp. 141-147. [353] See above, pp. 488 and 492, 493. [354] See below, pp. 517-518. [355] Reference, Perkins, _France under the Regency_, Chapter VI. [356] The title Tsar, or Czar, was formerly supposed to be connectedwith Cæsar (German, _Kaiser_), i. E. , emperor, but this appears to havebeen a mistake. [357] References, Schwill, _Modern Europe_, pp. 215-230; Wakeman, _European History from 1598-1715_, pp. 300-308. [358] See above, p. 196. [359] The title King of Prussia appeared preferable to the more naturalKing of Brandenburg, because Prussia lay wholly without the empire, andconsequently its king was not in any sense subject to the emperor butwas wholly independent. Since western Prussia still belonged to Polandin 1701 the new king satisfied himself at first with the title, King_in_ Prussia. [360] Reference, Schwill, _Modern Europe_, pp. 230-238. [361] Reference, Schwill, _Modern Europe_, pp. 238-247. [362] Reference, Hassall, _The Balance of Power_, pp. 18, 19, 303-317. See map below, p. 584. [363] The last instance in which an English ruler vetoed a measurepassed by Parliament was in 1707. [364] See above, pp. 278-280. [365] Originally there had been but seven electors (see above, p. 372), but the duke of Bavaria had been made an elector during the ThirtyYears' War, and in 1692 the father of George I had been permitted toassume the title of Elector of Hanover. [366] Wolsey, it will be remembered, had advanced the same reason inHenry VIII's time for England's intervention in continental wars. Seeabove, p. 428. [367] Except in 1718-1720, when she joined an alliance against Spain, and her admiral, Byng, destroyed the Spanish fleet. [368] Derived from _Jacobus_, the Latin for James. The name was appliedto the adherents of James II and of his son and grandson, the elder andyounger pretenders to the throne. [369] It will be remembered that the children of James II by his secondand Catholic wife, Mary of Modena, were excluded from the throne at theaccession of William and Mary. See genealogical table on preceding page. [370] The Dutch occupation of a portion of the coast of North Americawas brought to an end, as has been mentioned, by the English. See above, p. 492. [371] For the settlement of the English and French in North America, seeMorris, _The History of Colonization_, Vol. I, Chapter X, and Vol. II, Chapter XVII; also Parkman, _Montcalm and Wolfe_, Vol. I, pp. 20-35. [372] See above, p. 348. [373] Baber claimed to be descended from an earlier invader, the famousTimur (or Tamerlane), who died in 1405. The so-called Mongol (or Mogul)emperors were really Turkish rather than Mongolian in origin. A veryinteresting account of them and their enlightenment may be found inHolden, _The Mogul Emperors of Hindustan_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, $2. 00). [374] Reference, Perkins, _France under Louis XV_, Vol. I, Chapter XI. [375] Reference, Green, _Short History of the English People_, pp. 776-786. [376] See below, p. 568. [377] The interior customs lines roughly coincided with the boundariesof the region of the great salt tax. See accompanying map. [378] The figures indicate the various prices of a given amount of salt. [379] See above, p. 366. [380] Reference, Lowell, _Eve of the French Revolution_, Chapter III. [381] See above, Chapter XVIII. [382] Only a very small portion of the nobility were descendants of theancient and illustrious families of France. The king could grantnobility to whom he would; moreover, many of the government offices, especially those of the higher judges, carried the privileges ofnobility with them. [383] Reference, Lowell, _Eve of the French Revolution_, Chapter XIII. [384] See above, § 192. [385] See Lowell, _Eve of the French Revolution_, pp. 116-118. [386] See the account of Voltaire's defense of Calas in Perkins, _LouisXV_, Vol. II, pp. 198 _sqq. _ [387] See above, p. 500. [388] Turgot, the leading economist of the time, argues that it would bequite sufficient if "the government should always protect the naturalliberty of the buyer to buy, and of the seller to sell. For the buyerbeing always the master to buy or not to buy, it is certain that he willselect among the sellers the man who will give him at the best bargainthe goods that suit him best. It is not less certain that every seller, it being his chief interest to merit preference over his competitors, will sell in general the best goods and at the lowest price at which hecan make a profit in order to attract customers. The merchant ormanufacturer who cheats will be quickly discredited and lose his customwithout the interference of government. " [389] Reference, Lowell, _Eve of the French Revolution_, Chapter II. [390] Turgot succeeded in inducing the king to abolish the guilds andthe forced labor on the roads, but the decrees were revoked afterTurgot's dismissal. For an admirable short account of Turgot's life, ideas, and reforms, see Say, _Turgot_ (McClurg, 75 cents). [391] See _Readings_, Chapter XXIV. [392] Reference, Lowell, _Eve of the French Revolution_, pp. 238-242. [393] See above, pp. 131-132. [394] Reference, H. Morse Stephens, _The French Revolution_, Vol. I, pp. 13-15, 20-24. [395] Pronounced kă-yā'. [396] Examples of the _cahiers_ may be found in _Translations andReprints_, Vol. IV, No. 5. [397] Reference, Lowell, _Eve of the French Revolution_, Chapter XXI. [398] Reference, Stephens, _The French Revolution_, Vol. I, pp. 128-145. [399] Reference, Stephens, _The French Revolution_, Vol. I, Chapter VI. [400] This decree may be found in _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. I, No. 5. [401] Reference, Stephens, _French Revolution_, Vol. I, Chapter VII. [402] See above, p. 568. [403] The text of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy may be found in_Translations and Reprints_, Vol. I, No. 5. [404] Reference, Mathews, _The French Revolution_, Chapter XII. [405] The formerly despotic king is represented as safely caged by theNational Assembly. When asked by Marie Antoinette's brother what he isabout, Louis XVI replies, "I am signing my name, "--that is, he hadnothing to do except meekly to ratify the measures which the Assemblychose to pass. [406] By June, 1791, there were four hundred and six of these affiliatedclubs. [407] A committee of the Convention was appointed to draw up a newrepublican calendar. The year was divided into twelve months of thirtydays each. The five days preceding September 22, at the end of the year, were holidays. Each month was divided into three _decades_, and each"tenth day" (_décadi_) was a holiday. The days were no longer dedicatedto saints, but to agricultural implements, vegetables, domestic animals, etc. [408] In former times it had been customary to inflict capitalpunishment by decapitating the victim with the sword. At the opening ofthe Revolution a certain Dr. Guillotin recommended a new device, whichconsisted of a heavy knife sliding downward between two uprights. Thisinstrument, called after him, the guillotine, which is still used inFrance, was more speedy and certain in its action than the sword in thehands of the executioner. [409] Reference, for the conduct of the terrorists and the executions atParis, Nantes, and Lyons: Mathews, _The French Revolution_, ChapterXVII. It should not be forgotten that very few of the people at Paris stood inany fear of the guillotine. The city during the Reign of Terror was notthe gloomy place that we might imagine. Never did the inhabitants appearhappier, never were the theaters and restaurants more crowded. Theguillotine was making away with the enemies of liberty, so the womenwore tiny guillotines as ornaments, and the children were given toyguillotines and amused themselves decapitating the figures of"aristocrats. " See Stephens, _French Revolution_, Vol. II, pp. 343-361. [410] The date of Robespierre's fall is generally known as the 9thThermidor, the day and month of the republican calendar. [411] There were about forty billions of francs in assignats incirculation at the opening of 1796. At that time it required nearlythree hundred francs in paper money to procure one in specie. [412] See above, pp. 326-327. [413] Reference, Rose, _Life of Napoleon_, Vol. I, Chapter VIII. [414] Reference, Rose, _Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era_, pp. 95, 96, 104-108, 114, 115. [415] Reference, Rose, _Life of Napoleon_, Vol. I, pp. 144-148. [416] Reference, _Ibid. _, Chapter X. [417] See above, § 134. [418] Reference, Rose, _Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era_, pp. 132-133. [419] The roads were dilapidated and the harbors filled with sand; taxeswere unpaid, robbery prevailed, and there was a general decay inindustry. A manufacturer in Paris who had employed sixty to eightyworkmen now had but ten. The lace, paper, and linen industries were asgood as destroyed. [420] See above, pp. 572-573, 579-580. [421] Reference, Rose, _Life of Napoleon_, Vol. I, Chapter XII. [422] Reference, Rose, _Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era_, pp. 148-163. [423] See _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. II, No. 2. [424] See above, p. 604. [425] See above, p. 581. [426] That is, a blockade too extensive to be really carried out by theships at the disposal of the power proclaiming it. [427] Reference, Rose, _Life of Napoleon_, Vol. II, pp. 197-207. Fordocuments relating to the blockade and "the Continental system, " see_Translations and Reprints_, Vol. II, No. 2. [428] See _Readings_, Chapter XXXVIII. [429] Napoleon was never content with his achievements or his glory. Onthe day of his coronation, December, 1806, he complained to his ministerDecrès that he had been born too late, that there was nothing great tobe done any more. On his minister's remonstrating he added: "I admitthat my career has been brilliant and that I have made a good record. But what a difference is there if we compare ours with ancient times. Take Alexander the Great, for example. After announcing himself the sonof Jupiter, the whole East, except his mother, Aristotle, and a fewAthenian pedants, believed this to be true. But now, should I nowadaysdeclare myself the son of the Eternal Father, there isn't a fishwife whowould not hiss me. No, the nations are too sophisticated, there isnothing great any longer possible. " [430] "It depends upon you alone, " he said to the Spanish in hisproclamation of December 7, "whether this moderate constitution that Ioffer you shall henceforth be your law. Should all my efforts provevain, and should you refuse to justify my confidence, then nothingremains for me but to treat you as a conquered province and find a newthrone for my brother. In that case I shall myself assume the crown ofSpain and teach the ill-disposed to respect that crown, for God hasgiven me power and will to overcome all obstacles. " [431] Reference, Rose, _Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era_, pp. 193-201. Louis Bonaparte, the father of Napoleon III, and the most conscientiousof the Bonaparte family, had been so harassed by his imperial brotherthat he had abdicated as king of Holland. [432] Reference, Rose, _Life of Napoleon_, Vol. II, Chapter XXXII. [433] See above, p. 544. [434] This decree may be found in _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. II, No. 2. [435] Reference, Rose, _Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era_, pp. 335-361. [436] The son of Louis XVI had been imprisoned and maltreated by theterrorists. He died while still a boy in 1795, but nevertheless takeshis place in the line of French kings as Louis XVII. [437] Compare the accompanying map with that below, pp. 666-667. [438] This document may be found in _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. I, No. 3. [439] Reference, Andrews, _Modern Europe_, Vol. I, Chapter IV. [440] Observe the boundary of the German Confederation as indicated onthe map, pp. 626-627, above. Important portions of the Germanconstitution of 1815 are given in _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. I, No. 3. [441] For the Carlsbad Resolutions, see _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. I, No. 3. [442] Reference, Andrews, _Modern Europe_, Vol. I, pp. 229-257. [443] The island of Sardinia had, in 1720, been given to the duke ofSavoy, who was also ruler of Piedmont. The duke thereupon assumed thetitle of king of Sardinia, but Piedmont, with Turin as its capital, remained, nevertheless, the most important part of the kingdom ofSardinia. [444] Reference, Andrews, _Modern Europe_, Vol. I, pp. 205-212. [445] Reference, Fyffe, _History of Modern Europe_ (Popular Edition, 1896), Chapter XV. [446] See above, p. 449. [447] See above, p. 600. [448] See map, p. 649, below. [449] The Slavic inhabitants of Bohemia. [450] Reference, Andrews, _Modern Europe_, Vol. II, Chapter III. [451] He ruled until 1861 as regent for his brother, Frederick WilliamIV, who was incapacitated by disease. [452] Reference, Fyffe, _Modern Europe_, pp. 954-957. [453] Andrews, _Modern Europe_, Vol. 2, pp. 173-180. [454] In 1869 Spain was without a king, and the crown was tendered toLeopold of Hohenzollern, a very distant relative of William I ofPrussia. This greatly excited the people of Paris, for it seemed to themonly an indirect way of bringing Spain under the influence of Prussia. The French minister of foreign affairs declared that the candidacy wasan attempt to "reëstablish the empire of Charles V. " In view of thisopposition, Leopold withdrew his acceptance of the Spanish crown earlyin July, 1870, and Europe believed the incident to be at an end. TheFrench ministry, however, was not satisfied with this, and demanded thatthe king of Prussia should pledge himself that the candidacy shouldnever be renewed. This William refused to do. The account of the demandand refusal was given in such a way in the German newspapers that itappeared as if the French ambassador had insulted King William. TheParisians, on the other hand, thought that their ambassador had receivedan affront, and demanded an immediate declaration of war. [455] Reference, Fyffe, _Modern Europe_, pp. 988-1002. [456] Alsace had, with certain reservations, --especially as regardedStrasburg and the other free towns, --been ceded to the French king bythe treaty of Westphalia (see above, p. 473). Louis XIV disregarded thereservations and seized Strasburg and the other towns (1681) and soannexed the whole region to France. The duchy of Lorraine had upon thedeath of its last duke fallen to France in 1766. It had previously beenregarded as a part of the Holy Roman Empire. In 1871 less than a thirdof the original duchy of Lorraine, together with the fortified city ofMetz, was ceded back to Germany. [457] The monarchical party naturally fell into two groups. One, theso-called _legitimists_, believed that the elder Bourbon line, to whichLouis XVI and Charles X had belonged, should be restored in the personof the count of Chambord, a grandson of Charles X. The _Orleanists_, onthe other hand, wished the grandson of Louis Philippe, the count ofParis, to be king. In 1873 the Orleanists agreed to help the count ofChambord to the throne as Henry V, but that prince frustrated the planby refusing to accept the national colors, --red, white, and blue, --whichhad become so endeared to the nation that it appeared dangerous toexchange them for the white of the Bourbons. [458] See above, p. 75. [459] See above, pp. 514, 517-518, 535. [460] See above, p. 640. [461] Herzegovina is a small province lying between Bosnia and theAdriatic. Both Bosnia and Herzegovina appear on the map as a part ofAustria, to which they now belong, to all intents and purposes. See map, p. 649, above. [462] In 1885 South Bulgaria (formerly known as Eastern Roumelia)proclaimed itself annexed to Bulgaria. The Sultan, under the influenceof the western powers, permitted the prince of Bulgaria to extend hispower over South Bulgaria. [463] See above, pp. 351-352. [464] See _The Progress of the Century_, Harper Bros. , pp. 181-188, 232-242. [465] Reference, for the development of the inventions, Cheyney, _Industrial History of England_, pp. 199-216. [466] See above, p. 488. [467] See above, p. 500. [468] See above, p. 553. [469] Reference, Cheyney, _Industrial History of England_, pp. 224-239. [470] For factory legislation in England, see Cheyney, _IndustrialHistory_, pp. 244-262. [471] Reference, Cheyney, _Industrial History_, pp. 277-293. [472] England, like the continental countries, has gradually, during thenineteenth century, conceded the right to vote to almost all adultmales. Before 1832 a great part of the members of the House of Commonswere chosen, not by the voters at large but by a few individuals, whocontrolled the so-called "rotten boroughs. " These boroughs had once beenimportant enough to be asked by the king to send representatives toParliament, but had sunk into insignificance, or even disappearedaltogether. Meanwhile great manufacturing cities like Birmingham, Manchester, and Sheffield had grown up, and as there had been noredistribution of representatives after the time of Charles II, theselarge cities were unrepresented in Parliament. This evil was partiallyremedied by the famous _Reform Act_ of 1832. At the same time the amountof property which one must hold in order to be permitted to vote wasreduced. In 1867 almost all of the workingmen of the cities were grantedthe franchise by permitting those to vote who rented a lodging costingat least fifty dollars a year. This doubled the number of voters. In1885 the same privilege was granted to the country people. [473] See above, p. 492. [474] See Sir Charles Dilke on "War, " in _The Progress of the Century_, 333 _sqq. _ [475] The works here enumerated are those referred to in the notesthroughout the volume. They would form a valuable and inexpensivecollection for use in a high school. The prices given are in mostinstances subject to a discount, often as high as twenty-five per cent. ANNOUNCEMENTS AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF WESTERN EUROPE By JAMES HARVEY ROBINSON Professor of History in Columbia University IN ONE VOLUME 12mo, cloth, 714 pages, with maps and illustrations, $1. 60 IN TWO VOLUMES VOLUME I. 12mo, cloth, 368 pages, with maps and illustrations, $1. 00 VOLUME II. 12mo, cloth, 364 pages, with maps and illustrations, $1. 00 The excellence of Robinson's "History of Western Europe" has beenattested by the immediate and widespread adoption of the book in many ofthe best schools and colleges of the country. It is an epoch-makingtext-book on the subject, in that it solves in an entirely satisfactorymanner the problem of proportion. The book differs from its predecessors in omitting all isolated, uncorrelated facts, which only obscure the great issues upon which thepupil's attention should be fixed. In this way the writer has gained thespace necessary to give a clear and interesting account of theall-important movements, customs, institutions, and achievements ofwestern Europe since the German barbarians conquered the Roman Empire. Such matters of first-rate importance as feudalism, the mediæval Church, the French Revolution, and the development of the modern European stateshave received much fuller treatment than has been customary in historiesof this compass. The work is thoroughly scholarly and trustworthy, since the writer hasrelied either upon the most recent treatises of the best Europeanauthorities of the day or upon a personal study of the primary sourcesthemselves. Carefully selected illustrations and an abundance of mapsaccompany the text. GINN & COMPANY PUBLISHERS READINGS IN EUROPEAN HISTORY By JAMES HARVEY ROBINSON, Professor of History in Columbia University. Designed to supplement his "Introduction to the History of WesternEurope" VOLUME I. 12mo, cloth, 551 pages, $1. 50 VOLUME II. 12mo, cloth, xxxii + 629 pages, $1. 50 ABRIDGED EDITION. 12mo, cloth, xxxiv + 573 pages, $1. 50 It is now generally recognized among teachers of history that thetext-book should be supplemented by collateral reading. ProfessorRobinson's "Readings" will supply a need that has long been felt bythose dealing with the general history of Europe. For each chapter ofhis text he furnishes from twenty to thirty pages of extracts, mainlyfrom vivid, first-hand accounts of the persons, events, and institutionsdiscussed in his manual. In this way the statements in the text-book maybe amplified and given added interest and vividness. He has drawn uponthe greatest variety of material, much of which has never before foundits way into English. The extensive and carefully classified bibliographies which accompanyeach chapter embody the results of careful criticism and selection. Theyare carefully arranged to meet the needs of students of all grades, fromthe high-school pupil to one engaged in advanced graduate work. Volume I corresponds to Chapters I-XXII of the author's "History ofWestern Europe, " and closes with an account of the Italian cities duringthe Renaissance. Volume II begins with Europe at the opening of thesixteenth century. The Abridged Edition is intended especially for highschools. GINN & COMPANY PUBLISHERS READINGS IN MODERN EUROPEAN HISTORY _A collection of extracts from sources chosen with the purpose ofillustrating some of the chief phases of the development of Europeduring the last two hundred years_ By JAMES HARVEY ROBINSON, Professor of History, and CHARLES A. BEARD, Adjunct Professor of Politics, in Columbia University Volume I. The Eighteenth Century: The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Period. 12mo, cloth, illustrated, 410 pages, $1. 40 Volume II. Europe since the Congress of Vienna. 12mo, cloth, illustrated, 448 pages, $1. 50 "READINGS IN MODERN EUROPEAN HISTORY" aims to stimulate the student toreal thought and interest in his work by bringing him right to thesources of historical knowledge and enabling him to see the very wordsof those who, writing when the past was present, can carry him back tothemselves and make their times his own. In this way the book offers theproper background and atmosphere for "The Development of Modern Europe, "by the same authors, which it accompanies chapter by chapter and sectionby section. Bibliographies provided in the Appendix start the student on the path toa really thorough study of the field. A goodly number of the readings in this volume are of the constitutional kind which merit and richly reward careful study. A still larger number are of the interesting and lively kind which charm and entertain, and which are valuable because they give the flavor of the olden times. The bibliography is no mere list of unappreciated titles, but an excellent critical classification which guides the student quickly on to the fundamental works. --SIDNEY B. FAY, _Assistant Professor of History, Dartmouth College_, in _The American Historical Review_. GINN AND COMPANY PUBLISHERS TRENHOLME'S SYLLABI By NORMAN MACLAREN TRENHOLME Professor of History and the Teaching ofHistory in the University of Missouri A SYLLABUS FOR THE HISTORY OF WESTERN EUROPE Part I. The Middle Ages 12mo, cloth, vii + 80 pages, 40 cents Part II. The Modern Age 12mo, cloth, vii + 94 pages, 40 cents In One Volume 60 cents This topical outline is arranged to accompany Robinson's "History ofWestern Europe" or to correlate with "Readings in European History" bythe same author. It is not a lecture syllabus, but is meant as an aid instudying the text-books and Readings. Review questions occur from time to time throughout the text, and abrief list of the most serviceable reference books, with the publisherand price, has been prefixed. AN OUTLINE OF ENGLISH HISTORY 12mo, cloth, xii + 122 pages, 50 cents Especially arranged for use with Cheyney's "Short History of England" asa text-book and the "Readings in English History" as collateralreference. It is built upon the same lines as the author's "Syllabus forthe History of Western Europe, " described above, and is arranged insections and subdivisions, there being ninety topics in all. The book is admirably adapted for either short or long courses inEnglish history, and, with its clear analysis of leading movements andsuggestive review questions, should be a welcome aid in the teaching ofthe subject. GINN AND COMPANY PUBLISHERS