Statehood and Governance in the History of the West 100-1700: From Rome to the Age of Reason 1685071449, 9781685071448
"The subject is historical and cultural, and focuses on the unfolding of the big movements and people that have sha
238 58 15MB
English Pages 367 [408]
Polecaj historie
![[Dissertation] ANTIDOTES TO DEISM: A RECEPTION HISTORY OF THOMAS PAINE’S THE AGE OF REASON, 1794-1809](https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/dissertation-antidotes-to-deism-a-reception-history-of-thomas-paines-the-age-of-reason-1794-1809.jpg)
Citation preview
POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY
STATEHOOD AND GOVERNANCE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WEST 100-1700 FROM ROME TO THE AGE OF REASON (100-1700)
No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.
POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY Additional books and e-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website under the Series tab.
POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY
STATEHOOD AND GOVERNANCE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WEST 100-1700 FROM ROME TO THE AGE OF REASON (100-1700)
ROBERT IGNATIUS LETELLIER
Copyright © 2021 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. https://doi.org:10.52305/ICAT3703 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. We have partnered with Copyright Clearance Center to make it easy for you to obtain permissions to reuse content from this publication. Simply navigate to this publication’s page on Nova’s website and locate the “Get Permission” button below the title description. This button is linked directly to the title’s permission page on copyright.com. Alternatively, you can visit copyright.com and search by title, ISBN, or ISSN. For further questions about using the service on copyright.com, please contact: Copyright Clearance Center Phone: +1-(978) 750-8400 Fax: +1-(978) 750-4470 E-mail: [email protected].
NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ISBN: H%RRN
Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York
CONTENTS List of Figures
ix
Preface
xiii
Introduction
xv
Part 1: Europe 100-1400
1
Chapter 1
The Roman Empire
3
Chapter 2
Diocletian (284-305)
13
Chapter 3
The Reign of Constantine (305-337)
17
Chapter 4
The Fourth Century in General (330-410)
25
Chapter 5
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
33
Chapter 6
The Dark Ages
39
Chapter 7
The Barbarian West
43
Chapter 8
Frankland
47
Chapter 9
Ostrogothic Italy (493-596)
51
Chapter 10
Byzantium
59
Chapter 11
The Church
65
vi
Contents
Chapter 12
The Rise of Islam
75
Chapter 13
Charlemagne
87
Chapter 14
The Vikings
101
Chapter 15
The Holy Roman Empire
111
Chapter 16
The Eleventh Century
123
Chapter 17
The Investiture Conflict (1075-1122)
131
Chapter 18
France
139
Chapter 19
The Twelfth-Century Renaissance
145
Chapter 20
The Magna Carta
155
Chapter 21
The Medieval Universities
161
Chapter 22
The Medieval Church
167
Chapter 23
The Decline and Failures of the Medieval Church
173
Chapter 24
The Medieval Empire
183
Conclusion
191
Part 2: Europe 1500-1700
195
Introduction
197
Chapter 25
The Beginnings and Growth of Nationalism in France
203
Chapter 26
The Rise of the Habsburgs
211
Chapter 27
The Turks in South Europe during the 16th and 17th Centuries
217
The Expansion of Europe: 16th Century Colonialism
227
Chapter 29
The Renaissance
241
Chapter 30
The Development of Scientific Thinking
253
Chapter 28
Contents
vii
Chapter 31
The Reformation
259
Chapter 32
France in the 16th Century
273
Chapter 33
The Thirty Years’ War and the Peace of Westphalia, 1648
285
Chapter 34
The Rise of Dynastic Absolutism in France
297
Chapter 35
Poland in the 17th Century
307
Chapter 36
The Rise of Prussia
313
Chapter 37
Sweden the 17th and 18th Centuries
319
Chapter 38
The Rise of Russia
325
General Conclusion: Europe in 1414 Compared with Europe in 1714
335
References
341
About the Author
353
Index of Names
355
Index of Terms
361
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.
The Roman Empire (Western and Eastern).
10
Figure 2.
Emperor Augustus.
11
Figure 3.
Emperor Diocletian.
15
Figure 4.
Emperor Constantine.
21
Figure 5.
Constantine and Constantinople.
22
Figure 6.
The Council of Nicea.
22
Figure 7.
Eusebius of Caesarea.
23
Figure 8.
St. Jerome in the Wilderness.
29
Figure 9.
Emperor Theodosius.
29
Figure 10.
General Stilicho.
30
Figure 11.
The Abdication of Romulus Augustulus.
30
Figure 12.
Odoacer coin.
31
Figure 13.
General Aetius.
38
Figure 14.
Pope Leo the Great.
38
Figure 15.
The Conversion of Clovis, 496.
50
Figure 16.
The Baptism of Clovis.
50
Figure 17.
Theodoric solidus.
54
Figure 18.
Boethius.
55
Figure 19.
The Consolation of Philosophy.
55
x
List of Figures
Figure 20.
Cassiodorus.
56
Figure 21.
Theodoric the Great.
56
Figure 22.
St. Benedict and the Monastery at Subiaco.
57
Figure 23.
Constantinople.
63
Figure 24.
Emperor Justinian.
64
Figure 25.
Pope Gregory the Great.
72
Figure 26.
The Mass of Gregory the Great.
73
Figure 27.
Bede the Venerable.
73
Figure 28.
Alcuin of York.
74
Figure 29.
St. Boniface cuts the Sacred Oak.
74
Figure 30.
Mohammed receiving revelation from Gabriel.
85
Figure 31.
Mohammed in Arabic.
86
Figure 32.
Charles Martel.
90
Figure 33.
The Battle of Tours, 732.
91
Figure 34.
The Song of Roland.
95
Figure 35.
The Coronation of Charlemagne.
99
Figure 36.
Charlemagne and the Carolingian Renaissance.
100
Figure 37.
Charlemagne Reliquary.
100
Figure 38.
Viking long ship.
108
Figure 39.
Viking voyages.
109
Figure 40.
The Vinland map.
109
Figure 41.
King Alfred the Great.
110
Figure 42.
Snorri Sturluson.
110
Figure 43.
The Crown of the Holy Roman Empire.
118
Figure 44.
Emperor Otto the Great.
118
Figure 45.
The Holy Roman Empire under the Hohenstaufens.
120
Figure 46.
Pope Leo IX.
128
Figure 47.
William the Conqueror.
129
List of Figures
xi
Figure 48.
Pope Gregory VII.
136
Figure 49.
Emperor Henry IV.
137
Figure 50.
The Castle of Canossa.
137
Figure 51.
King Phillip II (Auguste) of France.
143
Figure 52.
The Battle Bouvines, 1214.
144
Figure 53.
Notre Dame de Paris.
144
Figure 54.
Emperor Frederick II.
153
Figure 55.
Thomas Aquinas.
153
Figure 56.
King John.
159
Figure 57.
The Magna Carta.
160
Figure 58.
The University of Bologna.
164
Figure 59.
Jean Gerson.
165
Figure 60.
Pope Innocent III.
171
Figure 61.
The Fourth Lateran Council 1215.
171
Figure 62.
Pope Boniface VIII.
180
Figure 63.
King Phillip IV (the Fair) of France.
181
Figure 64.
Avignon: the Palace of the Popes.
181
Figure 65.
Emperor Charles IV.
188
Figure 66.
The Golden Bull.
188
Figure 67.
The Golden Seal.
189
Figure 68.
Johann Gutenberg.
189
Figure 69.
King Louis XI of France.
208
Figure 70.
Charles the Bold of Burgundy.
210
Figure 71.
Emperor Frederick III.
214
Figure 72.
Emperor Maximilian I, with his family (Maximilian, Philip the Fair, Mary of Burgundy, Ferdinand I, Charles V and Louis II of Hungary) (Bernhard Strigel, 1516).
215
Suleiman the Magnificent.
225
Figure 73.
xii
List of Figures
Figure 74.
The Battle of Lepanto 1571.
226
Figure 75.
Christopher Columbus.
239
Figure 76.
Vasco da Gama.
240
Figure 77.
Ferdinand Magellan.
240
Figure 78.
Niccolò Machievelli.
250
Figure 79.
Sir Thomas More.
251
Figure 80.
Nikolaus Copernicus.
257
Figure 81.
Andreas Vesalius.
257
Figure 82.
Martin Luther.
265
Figure 83.
Emperor Charles V.
272
Figure 84.
Catherine de’ Medici.
279
Figure 85.
King Henry IV of France.
284
Figure 86.
Emperor Ferdinand II.
293
Figure 87.
Albrecht von Wallenstein.
293
Figure 88.
Johann Tserklaes, Count of Tilly.
294
Figure 89.
Gustavus Adolphus Vasa of Sweden.
294
Figure 90.
The Treaty of Westphalia.
295
Figure 91.
King Louis XIII of France.
305
Figure 92.
Cardinal Richelieu.
305
Figure 93.
King Louis XIV of France.
306
Figure 94.
Jean-Baptiste Colbert.
306
Figure 95.
The Szlachta of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
310
King John III Sobieski of Poland and the Battle of Vienna, 1683.
311
Figure 97.
The Great Elector of Prussia.
317
Figure 98.
King Charles XII of Sweden.
324
Figure 99.
Tsar Peter the Great.
334
Figure 100.
Ivan III and Sophia Palaeologus.
338
Figure 96.
PREFACE The subject is historical and cultural, and focuses on the unfolding of the big movements and people that have shaped Western History from Roman times to the late 17th century. It would be informative and exploratory in asking questions, and suitable for all students of history and political philosophy at postgraduate level, as well as for a wider readership. The history of Western Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire (476 AD) until the dawn of the Enlightenment saw a process of discontinuity, deconstruction and loss transform, through the various reengagements and regroupings of the former Barbarian invaders, into increasingly selfdefined and viable national associations. Over the centuries of the Dark Ages and early medieval period, these would consolidate further into evermore closely defined nation states. The Renaissance, Reformation and Age of Discovery carried the process further, and through absolutism, colonialism and mercantilism, saw the re-emergence of concepts of empire spread globally.
INTRODUCTION Our lives, our values, interests and well-being all derive from the places where we live. These in turn have emerged from long processes of development that have shaped our origins and identities. These have resulted in the states where we were born which in turn have grown out of the heritage of history and the manifold forces that have shaped the systems which have been formative factors in our family histories coming down the ages to us in our present times. This study is the first of three that look at the nature of this heritage, from the inception in society of the Christian Faith and its development through the ages, a process that has reacted to, proposed and helped to transform our societies. This first volume traces the emergences of systems of governances that have shaped Western history from Roman times until the Age of Reason (100-1700 AD). What defines and constitutes society shaped by a sense of order and control? Theories of statecraft and government, whether traditional or elaborated, depend on the capacity of rulers and politicians to make them functional. The depth and effectiveness of the systems depend on such factors as trade and economics, learning and education, law and religion. All these matters are integral to the examination of human society emerging from the chronological consideration of the issues that have shaped our heritage.
xvi
Robert Ignatius Letellier
THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CONCEPTS OF STATEHOOD, LEADERSHIP AND LAW The extraordinary polity of the Roman Empire has been one of the most significant, if not the foundational factor, in the emergence and development of Western society. This political association, born of the energy, power and genius of the Latin-speaking people of central Italia, has provided examples of society and statecraft that still mould our times. The reality of this empire, that expanded from the city of Rome (founded 21 April 753 BC), and incrementally expanded into a vast political system, draped around the Mediterranean Sea, from the Euphrates in the East to the Borders (Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall) in the West. Its political and economic unity, its civil codes and system of law, remain perennial exemplars of a nigh-ideal system. The Romans instilled a sense of difference and superiority in their subject peoples and external neighbours. This was because Rome thought of civilization in terms of a few prime factors: stable government; a system of law; business-like administration; and an urbane and civilized society. The Empire was increasingly vulnerable in the weakness of some of its key institution. There was the Emperor, who was elected or acclaimed rather than hereditary, a situation incrementally exacerbated by growing economic problems, the social system of slavery, and the appearance of intrusive and aggressive movements of peoples from the North and the East (the Barbarians). Many of them entered the Empire as mercenary soldiers, becoming peasant farmers, and even began intermarrying with Romans. The growing disparities between the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire were also a factor, and one that would assume tremendous social significance for history when the Empire in the West fell in 476. The Eastern Empire, centred on the city of Constantinople (established in 330), had a more highly developed sense of society, trade, urbanization, greater cultural unity, and would survive in some legal form or another until 1453 as the Byzantine Empire. The two halves came to represent significant
Introduction
xvii
social imprints on society, underpinning the Latin and Greek heritages of each half, and affecting the cultures of the Barbarian nations who settled in the West and the Slavic people who became the heirs to the culture of the East. These characteristics are present in our societies to this day. The role of the Emperor Constantine is crucial here. He was converted to the Christian faith (310), introduced freedom of worship (313), endowed the Bishop of Rome, and took a role in defining Christian doctrine in calling the first ecumenical council at Nicea (325). His role seems to have straddled both secular and religious functions, and his influence would be followed in the East with the concept of Caesaro-Papism, where the head of state is also the head of religion. This concept would prove of the utmost importance in the emerging histories of governance. This notion became engrained in the Eastern Empire, but was never definitive in the West until the Reformation. The concept of law which governed the functioning of the Roman Empire was also to be of decisive importance for future ages. Even after the fall of the West, the whole body of this law was codified in the East by the Emperor Justinian, who in a sense completed the work of Constantine, in his military prowess, in his building of the great Basilica of Hagia Sophia, and most importantly in his great codification of Roman Law. The full rediscovery of this system of law would be of decisive consequence for civilization in later centuries. If the term ‘culture’ is difficult to determine, then ‘civilization’ can be thought of as the sum total of all social patterns designed to preserve life as a group—attitudes, ideas, values, held to turn existence onto the good life, and to preserve the continuity of existence in this way. The Roman Empire left an indelible mark on the collective memory of mankind, and all through the following ages, the Roman Empire (that ‘curious dream’) still haunted people’s imagination, like some lost ideal to be somehow recovered or replaced. The fall of the Empire in the West, already invaded by the Goths and the Huns, seemed like a disaster. But it was the beginning of a re-forging of concepts of statehood through the new Barbarian polities. Italy came under the rule of the Ostrogothic king Theodoric the Great, who,
xviii
Robert Ignatius Letellier
established in Ravenna, sought to preserve and maintain Roman structures and concepts. During this brief Indian summer (493-598), three figures emerged whose heritage would be vital for the development of Western civilization: the philosopher Boethius (for writings and translations of Plato and Aristotle), Cassiodorus (for his historical records), and Benedict of Nursia (for the founding of the Benedictine Order and its crucial monastic establishments).
THE UNIQUE ROLE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH But this lull was soon to pass and Rome was left rudderless and exposed. The vacuum of leadership was filled by the Papacy under Gregory I (the Great) who re-established civic order in the city and launched missionary outreaches, especially to England (597). Popes Damasus (366-384) and Siricius (384-399) began resistance to the emperors at Constantinople. Pope Siricius was the author of the famous declaration of the Primacy of the Pope over the whole Church (385). Pope Leo I (the Great) had already, before the Fall of the Western Empire, shown a dynamic leadership in asserting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in doctrine (the Council of Chalcedon, 451) and in deflecting the invasion of Italy by the Huns (by travelling to meet Attila). “The Chair of Peter has become a Head and through the awe and reverence shown in the presence of its pastoral office, it protects and preserves what Rome no longer can enforce with arms.” Already the Papacy and the Church were assuming an irreplaceable role in the guidance of the West. Pope Gelasius (492-496) was the first to define the theory of the Two Swords (or Two Powers, sacred and temporal), which remained a potent concept until challenged at the time of Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303).
Introduction
xix
THE BARBARIANS AND THE RE-EMERGENCE OF EMPIRE The Barbarians set up political entities that varied in durable success. The Vandal kingdom in North Africa was transient; the various Germanic tribes who settled in England after the Romans left (410) were disparate. Here, where no living Roman influences survived, we find the purist kind of Barbarian society and their search for some kind of civic order. A general pattern emerges. The people were predominantly agrarian with little need for trade since they could plunder. Moreover, their laws dealt mainly with village farming. Justice came in the form of fines for social breaches. An important feature is the way in which between the 7th c. and 10th c. their laws became more humane under the influence of the Church. These systems show the beginnings of some idea of law, but without the concept of justice behind it. It seems that especially in England kin, for a long time, played an important part as social insurance. If a man could not pay his fine, then his kin had to pay on his behalf. At the head of the social system was the powerful clan chieftain, who eventually became the king. He guaranteed the order, generating the concept that became known as the ‘King’s Peace’. In the case of English history, the idea of the King’s Peace was very gradually extended to cover wider areas of land and more kinds of people. The story of the enlargement of the King’s Peace supported by abbots and bishops, helps to explain the distinctive ideas of English Law. The King found it profitable to extend his ‘Peace’; he received fines for any ‘breaches of the peace’. The political grouping of the Franks, dating from the founding figure of Clovis and his conversion to Christianity in 495, was different. The Frankish kingdom that emerged over the following 200 years was peculiar. For what we would call administration, it relied partly on a traditional assembly of ‘Free Franks’ in a meeting traditionally known as the Thing. It was not like the nomadic empires. In the case of the Huns and the Avars, these folded up easily, with no system of rule unless another factor came into play, like the Arab invasions. Eventually in the figure of Charlemagne, crowned Emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day 800, we find the first attempt in the West to re-create some form of the Roman Empire.
xx
Robert Ignatius Letellier
But the Frankish Empire was very different from the Roman Empire. This had encircled the Mediterranean Sea, whereas the Frankish State was continental. The Roman Empire was a highly developed urban civilization, with an age-old culture, Latinized and rational with a system of law. Charlemagne was trying to build with primitive resources a pattern of government and range of jobs a king should undertake. Not since Theodoric in Italy had these ideas been really operating in Western Europe. It gave a ‘Frankish Peace’ to a vast area of Western and Central Europe based on the work of the great missionary St. Boniface. He attempted what was perhaps impossible, the creation of a civilized Christian state. In the dreadful chaos of the 9th c. (with invasions by Vikings, Arabs, Saxons, Slavs, and Magyars), the myth and vision of Charlemagne’s Empire remained as an inspiration in perhaps the bleakest patch in Europe’s history. The movement was very important in the broad pattern of European history because not many cultural achievements survived the century. Here we have the blending of a sort of Barbarian-warrior type with the ideals of the Church. The Carolingian Empire was a half-way experiment between the old Roman Empire and what later became the Holy Roman Empire (962-1806). The Carolingian Empire is important because of the ideas behind it and the way it captured peoples’ imaginations as a Golden Age in a grim period. Not only geography makes us describe Charlemagne as ‘the architect of Europe’, but also the emergence of new ideas and characteristic Western institutions—namely the idea of civilized monarchy which dominated European thinking until the 17th c. Alcuin of York had identified the three powers of the Papacy in Rome, the Eastern Roman Empire at Byzantium, and Frankland at Aachen. Looking back, one can accept Alcuin’s judgment on this position, with a new Europe in the making. This was now under attack from all sides.
Introduction
xxi
AN EASTERN MODE OF IMPERIALISM The rise and spread of Islam represents the Eastern alternative to the emergent states of Western Europe. A phenomenal expansion took place with the Near East, Persia and North Africa falling to the victorious Arab armies within 50 years of Mohammed’s death. This was a different sort of empire from the dream of Rome. It was a much looser sort of political concept. Soon afterwards the Arabic language became the official or state medium for the whole empire providing a vehicle of communication from the borders of China to Timbuktu. The conquerors also introduced their own coinage and began to develop the higher status of a new kind of state. Their empire owed a great deal to the provinces of Byzantium and Persia which they took over. The dynamic force of a new religion held them together. The Arabs were transformed by their own empire. Ahead in the 13th c. there was a similar example in the Mongol (Tartar) Empire. It ruled over areas from Peking across to the fringes of Europe and owed a great deal to the conquered Chinese Empire. The centre of power now shifted from Arabia to Baghdad where the Abbasid Caliphate was established, providing some sort of succession from Mohammed’s family, and an office, the Caliphate, representing both political and religious leadership. The conquest of most of Spain (711) was halted only by the Battle of Tours (732) led by the Frankish Charles Martel. The presence of Moorish Spain was a major factor in the history of Western Europe, establishing the concept of a Crusading re-conquest marked by the highly symbolic turning points of the Capture of Toledo (1085) and Grenada (1492). The first date was also important for the dissemination of the ‘new knowledge’ from Arabic sources into Europe, and hence of great influence on the resurgence of learning in the 12th c. This Arabic concept of empire would be taken over by the Seljuk Turks (the Battle of Manzikert 1075) and then by the Ottoman Turks who would help to shape the course of modern Europe after the capture of Constantinople in 1453, and their conquest of the Balkans (the Battle of Mohacs, 1526). The beginning and the end of their intrusion was marked by the two massively symbolic sieges of Vienna (1529, 1683). The
xxii
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Ottoman emperor was vested with absolute power, and embodied the roles of Sultan and Caliph in one person. The sudden triumph of Islam in the Arabic Empire and its Ottoman successor generated the concept of ummah, the lost dream of an extended polity and influence of a militant religion, still potent in the 21st c.
THE LATER BARBARIAN INVASION: THE VIKINGS If the Arab conquest marked the 7th and 8th cc., then the other great pressure on Europe were the Northern intrusions of the Scandinavian Vikings. If the Arabs achieved so much with so few numbers, then the same could said of the Norsemen. While numbering only a few thousand, their sustained raids on Western Europe during the 9th and 10th cc. resulted in effects seemingly out of proportion to their size and apparent cultural significance. Their power lay in their shipbuilding, navigational skills and vast daring. From their attacks on the Northumbrian Coast to the founding of Dublin in the West, they also travelled down the rivers of Eastern Europe to the Black Sea and Byzantium, founding Novgorod (by the chieftain Rurik of the Varangian tribe Rus, 862) and so incidentally the Russian nation. The network of river trade routes were the foundation of the territory of the Rus, but their empire slowly grew to encompass land as far south as the Black Sea, as far east as the Volga River, and as far west as the Kingdom of Poland. The Vikings made a very important trade agreement between the city of Kiev and the Byzantine Empire. They discovered and colonized Iceland and Greenland, and even reached Nova Scotia and the legendary Vinland. Rollo rowed up the River Seine and obliged the weak king of France to hand over the territory of Normandy (911) (with immense consequences for Europe in the conquest of England in 1066 and the Norman enterprises in Southern Italy and Sicily). Despite the great damage inflicted on the Saxon culture of England, the heritage from these Northern people was very considerable. There was a strong sense of democratic representation in their typical Nordic institutions. In Iceland, the local Thing was one of the first
Introduction
xxiii
parliaments, the Althing a meeting of representatives of all the Things. In 1000 it passed the laws converting society to Christianity. The kingdoms from where the Vikings sailed did themselves change. By the 10th c. these polities were beginning to be consolidated with their own trade. In the 9th c. the Latin (Frankish) Kingdom was subjected to appalling strains (like the break-up of the Carolingian State). It was assaulted on every side, and the most effective and destructive attacks were from the Vikings. It would not have been surprising if the Latin Kingdom had crumbled, but it did not. It met the challenges with fortitude. In fact, it imposed its religion and ways of life on the Vikings. In the 11th c. it found within itself new vigour and great resolution.
THE HAUNTING DREAM OF EMPIRE From the coronation of Otto in Rome in 962 develops one of the central institutions of the Middle Ages—the Holy Roman Empire, lasting more as fiction than as fact until 1806. In the study of the Medieval Empire, the perennial problem is always how to relate the ideal to the actuality. Both the ideal and the Empire are important. The Empire was an ideal, an attempt to implement the theory of the Two Swords: the Empire as standing for the secular unity of Christendom, sometimes balancing, sometimes opposing the spiritual power of the Papacy. The figure of Otto the Great made the Empire almost the symbol of European unity, perhaps a militant Christendom. By the 11th c. Europe was recovering from nearly 500 years of intermittent attacks and migrations. Now there was some sense of stability and security hitherto not experienced. There were no dramatic economic advances but there were quite important developments on a smaller scale. It is impossible to tell if the Barbarian absorption into European stock or the exhilaration of having triumphed socially explains the new advances and successes of Europe in the 11th c. There was no central state which could coordinate all efforts, whereas by the end of the 15th c., smaller and less important countries like England, France and Spain had formed
xxiv
Robert Ignatius Letellier
themselves into some kind of nation-state. Germany had all the vitality but no central coordination. From 1000 onwards, we can begin to discern a distinctive identity between Latin Christendom and Europe as we think of it today. The outstanding features were the conversion of Scandinavia and its outpost Iceland which brought these countries into ecclesiastical structure and the social patterns of the West. The same is true of Bohemia and Hungary. The conversion of Hungary made it possible to travel fairly safely by land to Byzantium. Culture also spread to Russia as in the rest of Europe. If one thinks of a country as having patterns of government and stability, then Russian history can be said to begin with the foundation of Kiev (988). Kiev was not only important for the conjunction of trade between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea via the Dnieper River but became the centre of the Russian Orthodox Church (1051-1240). In some ways the political geography was settling into a medieval framework with some kind of balance between the two forms of Christianity.
THE UNIQUE ROLE OF THE CHURCH In the 11th c. and thereafter, there were dramatic confrontations between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor, but the result was nearly always compromise. Small kingdoms, and by the 12th c. universities and towns, could play off one against the other and enlarge their liberties. In the 20th-21st cc. national sovereignty is seen by some thinkers as a great handicap to international cooperation and world peace. In the medieval world, royal power found it difficult to claim sovereignty for many reasons. Among them was not merely the power of the medieval Papacy, buts its insistence that kings, like other people, ought to obey divine law and natural law. It was not until 1215, seven centuries after the collapse of Rome, that the Church was strong enough to abolish trial by ordeal because of other methods based on the re-discovery of Roman Law. By then Latin
Introduction
xxv
Christendom was complex and diverse, so that it was almost a physical and moral impossibility to establish a civil theocracy. But the Papacy had undoubtedly great and noble concepts of what ought to be, and as its organization developed ahead of any other body in Europe, a point was reached by the early 13th c., if not earlier, when its great power, intelligence, and organization might have stifled all the other growing points of Europe. The Medieval Church was authoritarian in basic beliefs. The Church had dogma, a system of ethics, and a surprising amount of local initiative and diversity. In quest towards the fulfilment of ideals built up by the time of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), we find a fascinating structure running right across Europe from Iceland to Hungary, including many different layers of society, many different peoples, and new patterns of social and political organization, This spectacle led some to argue that if one looks at the structure of the Church, we find the structure of a supra-national state. If one anatomizes the structure of the Medieval Papacy, one can see it as a most remarkable piece of organization in support of the doctrines it upheld. That apparatus had grown up with the changing textures of Europe from the 4th c. onwards. It enabled the Church to do much that was good. It fostered the new learning of the 12th c., had been the patron of universities and towns, and had been a very important check on the barbarity of feudalism. It had taught firmly that war is a means and not a goal in itself. By the early 13th c., it was beginning to feel its way outwards, to make new kinds of contacts with communities growing up in small congested towns. The Church was among the chief architects of medieval civilization from the moment it deployed the first missionary monks as unarmed emissaries of a more civilized form of life.
TESTING THE PERIMETERS OF POWER Was the Medieval Empire, regarding itself as the temporal leader of a Christendom, strong enough to take a stand against the Papacy, and to assert for instance the rights as well as the duties of the secular power? In
xxvi
Robert Ignatius Letellier
the great duel between the Popes and the Emperors what took place was not a crude feud, but a great debate about political obligation. Because of this debate, smaller institutions like towns, cities, universities which might have been snuffed out or ruthlessly controlled if either side had been completely triumphant, were able to establish themselves with a measure of independence. And in Western European history, what has been able to distinguish Europe from Russia, has been the preservation of diversities, as distinct from monolithic uniformities. It is possible to go further and argue that in the sorting and sifting of challenging ideas that emerged in the later Middle Ages, there also surfaced, even if only theoretically, the vital idea of the importance of testing power as a means and not as an end, and respect for the individual ‘person’—which is also characteristic of Europe at its best. It is arguable that if medieval practice had matched the best of medieval theories, a close approximation to the perfect society would have been achieved. Where is the explanation of this change? The re-discovery of trade and commerce continued in the 11th and 12th cc., and went on expanding until the 14th c. Part of the explanation lies in the new ideas in the learning at the universities, especially in Law and the new skills of those who built the great medieval castles and the great Gothic cathedrals. The monarchs Emperor Frederick Barbarossa and King Philip Augustus of France provide examples of medieval kingship: the way they faced problems, and how problems had changed since the days of Clovis and Charlemagne. Methods of statesmanship were more complicated. Although elements of feudality added to the complexity of the art of politics, the feudal formula cleverly played could be useful implement in the royal hand. Kings had more power because they were beginning to be less dependent on the Church for administration, and were able to extend law courts and pay their own officials. Both Frederick Barbarossa and Philip Augustus regarded themselves as patrons of learning and the arts, and gave more dignity to the notion of monarchy. It is also true that if one looks at countries like England or Sicily, where Norman influences predominated, we see even greater efficiency than in the German and French monarchies.
Introduction
xxvii
THE IDEAL OF REPRESENTATION AND RESPONSIBLE CONTRACT It would seem that what was happening in the minds of Europe at the time was the beginning of a process of sorting: men were arguing about politics and economy, and accepted that society and social patters were accidental, and not fixed by God for all time. They could be changed on grounds of utility and reason. Quite apart from high levels of discussion of Christian theology, we have to accept that the greatest teacher in the Church at the time, Thomas Aquinas, was marking out the zones of human action. The phenomenon of Magna Carta (1215) as the result of baronial rebellion against the royal tyranny of King John of England was a useful tool for lawyers and reformers. Although Magna Carta was confirmed and re-used 55 times, it is importance in English history is undeniable because it gave a working basis for freedom and liberties which began as privileges for a few and became the rights of everyone over a long passage of time. Magna Carta is really the best known example of a more general trend in European history as a whole. We can consider it as an example of a frame of mind or attitude to be found in most countries in the 13th c., one which helps to explain what one must not forget: namely that by the early 14th c. in Europe, almost every single country had a kind of parliament: in Spain in both Castile and Aragon, in France, in Germany, in Sweden, in Poland. The whole structure of feudal society turned on mutual rights and duties. At this time custom counted almost as law. The bond between the king and the feudatories came to be seen as a contract binding on both. The idea of power and government turning on contract resurrects itself in different contests, e.g., in the Reformation in France, and in the later treatises written by Hobbes and Rousseau. It followed that the contract and law were binding on king and subject alike. This of course was a view very strongly supported by the Church who regarded kings as functioning for the Church and the maintenance of
xxviii
Robert Ignatius Letellier
law and custom. The central idea of the supremacy of law was one of the great ideas of Western European history. In England and in different ways in other countries, there were experiments in winning Royal consent to gain more money until Edward I in 1295 developed the standard pattern of the Model Parliament. He summoned the bishops, abbots, barons of the realm to council (an assembly that became the House of Lords); also two citizens from every town with a cathedral, and also two knights from every shire of the country (which became the House of Commons, the burgess). There was the metaphysical difficulty of trying to reconcile the Vicar of Christ with a parliamentary institution. Institutionally the Church dovetailed with the life of different countries where bishops and abbots were usually members of every king’s council: in England they were members of the House of Lords. The new learning of the 12th c. was assimilated and built upon. At the end of the 14th c. there was a change of tone. University dons were not only thinking about problems, but speaking out and immediately feeling the backlash of the state, as with John Wycliffe and the Lollards in Oxford. John Hus of the University of Prague was burned at the stake by order of the Emperor Sigismund in 1415. There was a different approach in the 14th and 15th cc. by figures like the Nominalist theologian Jean Charlier de Gerson at the University of Paris. He was a student and don at the time of the Hundred Years’ War with England and civil war in France. It was not easy to persist with ideas and theories but he did. And with quiet propaganda he was one of the main instigators of the Conciliar Movement which between 1409 and 1447 tried to reform the Church “in head and members” by a series of great European councils. Western civilization has a great number of institutions and ideas which, if they have survived, have helped the world forward. Medieval civilization did not die, it survived in parliaments, universities, concerns for the individual irrespective of status, with determination to find the veracity of things. It can be said that Western civilization has often fallen short of ideals, lapses very easily into barbarism, but has always retained the habit of thinking, of investigating to find out the truth, and of questioning what is right, and the best that could have been done.
Introduction
xxix
THE REFORMATION The Germans were a people with great ability and resources, splendid traditions behind them, but a complete lack of political cohesion. Countries like France, England and Spain were finding in the 15th c. unification around a dynasty, and a fairly strong constitutional organization. But in Germany, the particularisms of the Princes, marked since 1231, prevented growth of a central rallying point. The German Reformation started in Wittenberg in 1517, with Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses concerning Indulgences. In Germany there was tremendous disillusionment, a great quest for leadership and intellectualism. But there was a lack of unifying power, in which both Church and Empire failed. Emperor Maximilian tried reforms, but because of the Princes and his Italian Wars, nothing was achieved. Given the Imperial power, the course of Lutheranism seemed doomed. That it survived can be explained only by the political situation. Luther was outlawed, but the Elector of Saxony gave him protection in the Castle of Wartburg. The decade 1521-1531 (the formation of the Schmalkaldic League) was the period crucial for the establishment of the Reformation in Germany. Lutheranism enjoyed a decade of security. Emperor Charles V had too many responsibilities in his huge realm. He was not able to devote time to the Reformation. The Holy Roman Emperor was concerned with the wars against France. The Pope and the Emperor often disagreed, so that the mainstays of the Church were divided. Furthermore, the French made Alliance with the Turks. In 1526 at the Battle of Mohacs the Turks defeated Hungary, and in 1529 tried to seize Vienna. They were a constant threat to the peace and stability of the Empire. When in 1547 Charles won a great victory over the Protestant Princes at Mühlberg, it was a barren victory: by now the Protestants were too powerful to be crushed. The Turks thus indirectly contributed to the survival of Lutheranism in Germany, and more broadly to the success of the Reformation as a whole. The bitter religious wars in France demonstrated that theological disagreements inevitably revealed powerful political overtones, and
xxx
Robert Ignatius Letellier
exposed a lack of strong central government. Only when Henry IV was prepared to put the country before his personal allegiances could there be peace (the Edict of Nantes, 1598). In Germany hostility simmered. The spectacle of divided 16th-c. France, and the Netherlands ravaged and struggling, held back Germany. The divisions retarded things until the formation of armed camps: the Evangelical Union (1608), and the Catholic League (1608). Both looked outside the Holy Roman Empire for support. The basic cause was religious disunity and the association of religion and politics founded on the Augsburg Diet (1555). Neither the Catholics nor the Protestants had observed the territorial provisions that had been laid down, and there was a conflict about land and ecclesiastical reservations. The result was the catastrophic Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) where under the guise of religion nations struggled for advantage. The great general and patriot Albrecht Wenzel Eusebius Wallenstein could have unified Germany. He suggested securing the North German coast, and making a moderate peace so as to win loyal Protestant support. But his great plan failed once Sweden was drawn into the conflict.
THE COLLAPSE OF UNITY AND THE BALANCE OF POWER The collapse of the concept of a united Christendom under the basic supervision of the Pope was the beginning of a whole group of states determined by national characteristics. In earlier times the feudal nobility had close ties and boundaries were not rigid. By the end of the 15th c. national characteristics were appearing. The Hundred Years’ War saw such development in France and England. The emergence of nationalism continued until the Renaissance with the manifestation of absolutism in many states. Renaissance literature is full of allusions to this. The essential quality of Renaissance political theory shows that the medieval balance of rights and duties was disappearing. This was paralleled by the idea of a national state. Patriotism was fanned and enforced by incessant wars (as between the Valois and the Habsburgs) and religious differences. Both Catholic and Protestant rulers claimed to be
Introduction
xxxi
absolute in their realms. The classic example is Louis XIV who thought of himself as the deputy of God and the very embodiment of the nation. A new brand of royal servant emerged: the diplomat, representing kings and rulers in the Courts of other leaders. Through them there was often a way round religious difficulties. France and Spain often defied the Pope. Catholic rulers did not hesitate to align themselves with Protestant ones. Religion ceased from c. 1648 to play a vital factor in international affairs. Diplomacy on the other hand hinged on the equilibrium of the balance of power. Several weaker states made pacts or alliances to circumvent more powerful nations. Machievelli’s The Prince (1532) marks the climax of a series of endeavours to secularize the state completely. It is not about what ought to be done but rather what was actually done. Machievelli was a shrewd commentator on current affairs. The popularity of his book relates to its bluntly stating what many men believed: “The object of a ruler is to maintain power.” All these characteristics had already been manifested in the person of Louis XI of France. He was a shrewd politician in the Machiavellian sense. The question was: What is expedient? Not what is right or wrong. Louis provided a working example of the Renaissance politician. There were no great Court and ministers to execute his policies. His chosen advisers and agents were from the middle-class. He exacted from them a standard of efficiency unknown in the West. In his coronation promise, he undertook to restore to France all the lands lost or alienated, and in successfully doing so, increased the power of the monarchy greatly, preparing the way for the absolutism embodied in Louis XIV. Hugo Grotius’s De jure belli et pacis (1625) was the first in a series of theses governing international law. The basis was that each state was sovereign: it consisted of a society of men, and was therefore subject to Lex Natura (the Law of Nature). It was an attempt at finding some kind of unity for the collapsed power of a united Christendom and the ascendancy of the Pope. He drew on a Classical heritage. No work on classical lines had been written before and his work became the basis of all modern studies of international relationships. This wide background formed his
xxxii
Robert Ignatius Letellier
thought which culminated in his book, becoming the blueprint of Renaissance politics.
EXPLORATION, MERCANTILISM AND EMPIRE In the Renaissance a new economic theory was born: supply and demand. It was not long before kings and popes were caught up in the new economics. Kings needed cash. It was necessary to borrow, with interest charged. Kings and popes depended on the bourgeoisie. The Church continued to denounce usury in theory, but in practice supported it. By the 13th and 14th cc., they were exploring the idea of taking capital. People began experimenting with new banking ideas. Lip-service to the idea that business is merely a human relationship subject to moral control was discarded. And among some Protestant groups, to work and save were regarded as highly desirable and virtuous characteristics. In Renaissance economics, ethical restraint ceased theoretically and pragmatically. A new economic individualism was justified and made respectable. Given the rise of new nation states, the economy began to develop along new lines of theory. Renaissance business men were practical, faced with problems and concerned with making the state as rich as possible. Mercantilism was used to explain economic theories, the commercial side of state-making. The theory tended to take a comprehensive view of society, and looked at the State as the appropriate administrative machine to assure its needs. The dynamic of the new age was symbolized in the great voyages of discovery, and the issues of dominance and governance that resulted from the colonization new lands. After 1517 when the old faith was being questioned, Spain began to organize its great overseas empire. With all its imperfections, this was one of the chief glories of 16th-c. Iberia. The impress remains on the South American way of life and outlook to this day. From the beginning, it had all the vision of great social ideals. What Spain planned for South America, was to civilize and develop it economically. The pattern on which it was
Introduction
xxxiii
based was that of the old Castilian State which stood behind the Spanish Empire. Philip II tried to build an autocratic monument. Although it seemed based on new foundations, these in theory were medieval ideas. The Spanish government had to implement its theory. This could be seen as a liberal view (from the idealists’ stance); a moderate view (from the official standpoint); or one based on racial superiority (from the colonists’ point of view). There were wider consequences. After the debacle of the Armada (1588), Spanish sea-power declined. England and the Netherlands invaded Spanish interests in the Americas and the East. Both of them organized East India Companies, grouping together piratical activities into mercantile associations. By the beginning of the 17th c. they were bringing back vast profits though trade, and were only a step away from Empire. In England there were other trading companies: the Muscovy Company trading with Russia; the Levantine Company trading with the Eastern Mediterranean. Attempts were made to settle Newfoundland. Others were also dreaming of colonies in North America. In Virginia the tobacco trade was flourishing. This set the pattern for new colonies. These economic patterns or mercantilism meant that each nation should be as economically free as possible. The most valued colonies were those that supplemented the motherland. Colonies were also founded by religious dissidents, with extremes on both sides. Indeed, the first colonies in North America were not complementary to England, and sustained a tradition of antagonism that would eventually result in the American War of Independence (1775-83). In New England the pattern of governance was modelled on old England. The Governor represented the Crown supported by a bi-cameral parliament: Upper House (nominated for life), Lower House (where the colonists were represented). The very roots of democratic government were transplanted to the colonies. In New France there were also attempts to take over the forms of old France. Feudal nobles were established, with seigniorial jurisdiction. The colony was well-organized under a governor representing the king. The governor held autocratic power, subject only to the king.
xxxiv
Robert Ignatius Letellier
In science there was a cautious but adequate approach to problems. The growth of science was parallel with that of nation states and empires. The more practical aspects of science in the 17th c. was that it provided the necessary theory behind the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th cc. Renaissance scientists not only added to knowledge but posed very relevant moral problems.
THE GROWTH OF ABSOLUTISM AND FAILURE OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT The growth of the personal power of the monarchy increased all the time. The situation was only exacerbated by the terrible wars of religion in 16th-c. France which were finally resolved by the accession of Henry IV: he sacrificed his own religious alignment for the sake of the kingdom by becoming a Catholic. He issued the great act of tolerance, the Edict of Nantes (1598). Henry was concerned for the well-being of the country and the people. He symbolized what France stood for. But Henry did not clear away the grave entrenched problems from the past. The situation was continued under Louis XIII and his great minister Cardinal Richelieu. Taxation and representation were serious problems. Richelieu’s government was even more destructive in securing the unity of the state. It crippled the Estates General, curbed religious toleration, controlled the nobility whose opposition and participation in politics put a break on absolutism. Total absolutism was secured by Louis XIV. Wars committed France to continual hostilities. But while Henry IV, Richelieu, and Mazarin left France strong, Louis XIV did nothing to rectify the great ills of his country. Corrupted by power, he left France in a state of weakness and bankruptcy. But a perfect foil to the absolutism in France could be found in Poland where power was in the hands of an irresolute and corrupt nobility. At the beginning of the 17th c. Poland was a very great Catholic state. The landlords were petty nobility or gentry formed from the Polish people. The
Introduction
xxxv
peasants were Slavs and serfs. All land with serfs on it was the property of the lords. The leading role of the nobility found clearest expression in the Diet or Sejm from the end of the 15th c. This was not an assembly of estates, but exclusively a parliament of nobles. Polish kings, in contrast to France, were bound by the strictures of the Diet. In England, there was a balanced working between the King and Parliament. In Poland the nobles were jealous to guard local independence, and national interests were sacrificed for personal influence or gain. As in the Holy Roman Empire, the main claim to power in this elective monarchy was the voting nobility. Every election saw the demand for new concessions, wrested from the Crown by blackmail. This personalized right of rebellion and confederation saw Poland lapse into anarchy. The principle of unanimous decision was also introduced into the Diet sometime in the 16th c. It was now constitutionally possible for any member of the Diet to wreck any proposal. Later this was extended to the right of deputies even to dissolve the Diet, the Librum Veto. This was cherished by the Polish nobles as one of the most valuable of their liberties but reduced the nation to an increasingly disfunctional state and proved fatal for Poland’s freedom. The Great Elector of Brandenburg, by contrast, was the architect of modern Germany which was Prussian, Protestant and patriotic. Northern Germany was the centre, the focal point of German power, a prophet of things to come after the First World War. There was initially a process of the Prussianization of the Hohenzollern lands, and then of Germany as a whole by Bismarck. History and geography drew the outlines of Prussian policy, with an object to unify the various states and build up a single nation. That Prussia later dominated Germany is indicative of the Elector’s success. The Landtage was instructive about giving taxes, and kept alive the notion of representative institutions, but as a result of fiscal policy the Elector was able to cripple them. They were excluded from the executive. Officials were responsible to the Elector with no say in any military policy. He needed more money than he had for the army. The Elector had to divide and rule. He harnessed the medieval partitions of society to the modern state. In France, absolutism prevailed. But the Elector used these social structures in the formation of the state, and with great success.
xxxvi
Robert Ignatius Letellier
A compromise between absolutism and constitutionalism can be found in Sweden. Between 1523 and 1718 the history of Sweden was closely associated with the Vasa dynasty, so that the history of Sweden was that of kings. The Swedish Estates or Rikstag was composed of elements of the nobles and the peasantry, leading to a healthy constitutional life. King Gustavus Adolphus recognized the importance of the Rikstag, and realized that a strong executive was necessary. Law courts were reformed. He began to develop a mercantile policy in Sweden, maintaining law-andorder as essential to the economy. The position of the Rikstag was carefully defined so that each estate played a part. Policy was left entirely to the King and his ministers. There was great clarity of definition, subtle process of decision-making, and co-operative leadership that made Gustavus Adolphus the true founder of modern Sweden. He realized that one of the great problems of the age was the reconciliation of freedom with decisive action. For a total extreme one must turn to Russia where complete absolutism exited with a representative body that had no power at all. From the 15th c. the idea of an ecumenical community was always present. The Russian Tsar with the Church as servant was regarded as the ‘Father of the People’. Ivan the Terrible set up his own civil service and police, a select group immune from ordinary law. It was a sort of secret service. The theory survived in practice through Communist times until today. Modern Russia is the product of Western technology and Byzantine absolutism. A stable Tsar fostered strong government, the backbone of recovery in the 17th c. The power of the Tsar increased at the expense of the nobility and the Church. But the first democratic body to be called in Russia was the Duma, only in 1905. The control of the Tsar over the Church strengthened. The Patriarch was always appointed by the Tsar. In Russia the Church’s duty was to see that Imperial policy was obeyed explicitly. By the 17th c. serfdom had increased tremendously, and while the new commercial emancipation of Europe was leading peasants to freedom, the opposite was true in Russia. Serfs were increasingly subjected to the lords. Almost every problem of the 19th c. can be found in the 17th c.
Introduction
xxxvii
The situation was given a final twist by Peter the Great. With his sharp mind he grasped the mechanics of Western civilization and sought to impose this on Russia. He was one of the greatest exponents of secular politics, Machiavellian in thinking that might is right, life is cheap, and the end justifies the means. At the head of society was the Tsar. All men in Church and State must serve him. The centre of administration was the Senate nominated by the Tsar. A Western-style bureaucracy was now grafted onto a primitive agricultural society. All this was made possible and paid for by the servitude of the country. Peter the Great, like the Great Elector in Prussia, had to bring Russia up to Western standards: his steps were necessary in the light of the size of the country and its huge population. But the real problem was the entwining of economic and social conditions, and eventually it needed a real revolution to emancipate one from the other.
PART 1: EUROPE 100-1400
Chapter 1
THE ROMAN EMPIRE ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS The Ancient World was characterized by four great civilizations:
China (with its Great Wall keeping out invaders, keeping in Chinese civilization) India Parthia The Roman Empire
There was no close contact between the four, although there was conflict between Parthia and Rome. The Romans knew of China. The odd traveller had penetrated into China and even some of the Pacific Islands, while in Europe some Chinese served as migrant skilled artisans. But on the whole, the four empires were self-consciously separate. There were some characteristic common to them all. They possessed stable boundaries, indicating defined areas. The ordering of government was fairly well organized, with society centred on cities that served as centres of governance, and formed complex centres of stability.
4
Robert Ignatius Letellier
They were conscious of their identities, of the factors which bound them together (a mental image of themselves) and alive to their own traditions, They all had their own organized religions and/or their own code of ethics, with their own patterns of organized social behaviour in accordance with their beliefs. They all showed a capacity to meet challenges, to adapt and change in the process of meeting these challenges (a vital argument of Arnold Toynbee in The Study of History, 1934-54). The way a challenge is met and reacted upon is a sign of growth. The world was old before established civilizations emerged: all 26 civilizations accounted for are now dead, proving that there is no guarantee that civilization means security. Vast areas of Europe and Asia were not civilized. The work of archaeologists has revealed many areas without civilization had fine systems of governance and a high order of artistic achievement, especially in metal work. These people were nomadic, with a tribal basis and rural character (part farmers, part nomads, part artisans). The area within the Roman Empire contains remains of older civilizations, destroyed or submerged into the Roman State (like the Egyptians, the Hebrews, the Hittites, the Carthaginians, and the Greeks).
THE SECOND CENTURY AD MARKED THE MIDWAY POINT IN THE COURSE OF HISTORY Beyond the Roman limes (borders) vast areas of Europe and Russia were occupied by ‘Barbarians’. But because of migrant traders and artisans, there was contact between the Romans and the Barbarians. Although there were traces of contact between Rome and other contemporary civilizations, there is no clear evidence of cross-cultural fertilization. We tend to concentrate on the Mediterranean civilizations edited by the Romans that developed into most European civilizations, and also that of pre-Communist Russia.
The Roman Empire
Europe
5
Kiev Rome Constantinople Mediterranean Civilizations
There has been a great extension of areas of civilization around the world. These areas are not inter-dependent. Taking Europe and Russia as joint heirs of Rome, this legacy has changed in the course of history. Civilization has spread by migration and adaptation, but also by conquest and dispossession, by sharp reaction to conquest. These elements became clear in the 1880s. In the case of Africa and Asia, this emerged in the 20th century. We could be witnessing the suicide of the West, not because of weakness of power, but through the abandonment of ideals and standards which were striven for centuries.
THE TERM ‘EMPIRE’ The term ‘empire’ changes meaning according to context. There are a number of different meanings. It may refer to status (like Napoleon III’s Second Empire). It may be used to describe power in a general kind of way (like Henry VIII’s declaration that the British realm was an empire). It may stand for tradition and ideals (like the Holy Roman Empire). It may be used in a general way roughly meaning ‘knowledge’.
Structures called empires have been so numerous that it is impossible to write history if the concept is omitted. But since the 1920’s the term ‘empire’ has become one of abuse and shame.
6
Robert Ignatius Letellier
THE ROMAN IMPERIUM Rome was not the first of empires, but one of four contemporary entities. The Romans differed from the Greeks, showing more practical and engineering skills. All the provinces (except Britain and Dacia) were acquired while Rome was still a republic. It became the most rational and stable organization of power the world had ever seen, and its influence has survived its political collapse. The concept of ‘Imperium’ was used in the time of the Republic, implying civil and military rule. Until the Emperor Diocletian (285-305), power theoretically was not centred on the Emperor, but on a diarchy (power divided between Augustus and the Senate); practically power, wealth, military control was in the hands of the Emperor. This was a concealed and padded autocracy, limited to an extent by the Senate and the power of the law courts. There was no fixed rule of succession: heirs were nominated, and adopted if approved by the Senate. This was not a satisfactory constitutional pattern, and liable to break down. Many characteristics were inherited from the Republic. The constitution pulled together two basically different zones of human settlement:
The Levant. Although Latin was official, Greek was the common language (lingua franca). Most people were trilingual (speaking their own vernacular as well as the two dominant languages). This was the centre where ancient civilizations had developed. It was highly commercialized (with cities, trade and manufacturing), and followed a distinctive pattern of life. The Occident. These were ‘New Lands’, with a Celtic and Germanic substructure. It was without native traditions of town life, without the experience of living as a state before the Roman conquest. Southern France and Spain were thoroughly romanized, thought like the Romans did, and contributed to Roman life. France north of the Loire River and much of Britain were not profoundly altered by Roman occupation.
The Roman Empire
7
Rome Imposed a Single Pattern of Government on Widely Different Areas The Empire was not unlike a modern state. It has a professional bureaucracy, a rational system of trial and code of laws. These were applied without exception to those with the status of Roman citizens (mutatis mutandis) The style of life was based on the municipium. The city of Roma (founded by legend on 21 April 753 BC, ab urbe condita) provided the civic prototype, particularly in the Occident where there was a deliberate imitation of Rome, with streets, a forum, temples and amphitheatres. Citizenship meant the right to enjoy the benefit of Roman law and to participate in Roman civic life. After 212 AD citizenship was extended to all those who could establish themselves as Romans. In city politics citizens had an important role to play. The wealthy competed to provide the city with public buildings and institution which would make it stand out. In schools and daily life there were efforts to impart Roman virtues and maintain high standards of speaking and writing. The old Republican virtues were really fitted to the old rural state: pietas, gravitas, industria, frugalitas, and patriotism. Pro Patria meant the Roman Empire for all its inhabitants. The population was not all urban. There was the rural way of life. Some lived on great estates in the country (villae), both for pleasure and profit (as exemplified in Virgil’s pastoral writings like the Georgics, 3730 BC). The poet loved rural life at its best.
The Military Pattern of Life In Republican days and the heyday of the Empire (176 AD) the army was not only the backbone of defence, but a way or romanizing people (all commands were in Latin). There was a camp-life community which fostered pride in the legionary achievement.
8
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Within the security of the Roman Empire frontiers, there was not only safety for public life and enterprise, but for commerce too. The Mediterranean Sea became a ‘Roman Lake’. The Romans were the greatest road builders in history, with great highways for military purposes also used by merchants. There was extensive trade between Rome and the Barbarians, like amber from the Baltic Sea. There was also brisk trade through the Red Sea to India, and then via Indian merchants even further afield. The Roman Empire preserved the legacy of Greece and other ancient cultures which had survived in the Levant. Their great cultural aqueducts are an example of the translation of the ancient East, especially of the Greeks, to the new lands of the Occident. The knowledge of the Greeks would, for the next 1000 years, be known only in Latin. Rome built what was a model empire, with sound law, civic life, professional administration, communications and internal security. One comes to appreciate the grip of Rome and the PAX ROMANA (‘Roman Peace’) when gauged by the great crises of the 4rd-5th cc. All men could imagine that the only way to survive was to restore Rome. All through the medieval period, the Holy Roman Empire was a way of perpetuating a lost ideal (that ‘curious dream’) that still haunted people’s imagination.
THE VULNERABILITY OF ROME A perfect society exists only in the imaginings of what one should be like. So models are important. Rome was undoubtedly vulnerable from within. The central point of control, the office of the Emperor, was unstable, as it was neither hereditary nor fairly elected. Roman society was fairly flexible in many ways. Socially it was possible for a man of genius to rise to the top (particularly from the equestrian class). The criterion of success was either military qualification, wealth or a polished level of Romanization. Even the imperial title was not limited to inhabitants of Italia.
The Roman Empire
9
There were also a number of schisms in the structure of Roman society. There was the difference between the Occident and the Levant. There were also tremendous gaps between the rich and the poor, both in urban and rural life. In towns there were both many unemployed and unemployable people. The idea of social rehabilitation was unheard of in Rome. Rather the City and later Constantinople provided the people with free doles of corn and with entertainment. There were difficulties in rural areas as well. Since the closing years of the Republic, the burden of taxation had increased. The yeoman farmers after retirement from the army, gave up some status of freedom to become coloni. Some kept some land; some gave up the rest to the nearest land baron who undertook to pay his taxes for them. Thus there were signs that economy was not stable, and that society was unhealthy. There was a great gap between the free and the unfree. There were vast numbers slaves of all descriptions and colour. Educated Greek slaves were often used as tutors and managers. Many great farms attached to villae were run by Greek and other slaves in return for food. The institution of slavery which rendered it easy to keep up produce explains why the Romans, so clever in engineering, and so fascinated by the elegances of rural life, never improved methods of farming. There were further gaps between the free and the fully Romanized. Many were technically citizens, but not romanized citizens, often enrolled as tribal units on the tax lists of nearest towns. Two parts of the provinces in the Roman State in both West and East were among these where the veneer was very thin: Northern France and Egypt. People had no concern whatever for Roman ideals, might covet what a neighbour had, but did not value it as a heritage. Rome had no means of mass literacy. Whatever was attempted was done slowly. Given time and reasonable economic prosperity, some gaps might have been closed gradually. By the end of the 2nd c. deep deference and concern for the idea of Roman Patriotism was dying out among the puzzled élite of the of the Roman world. To the poor, Roman virtues meant little, other than serving as guiding lines for the élite.
10
Robert Ignatius Letellier
There was no organized state religion. There was a vague concept of Emperor Worship, which meant nothing to most of the populace. Many turned to exotic cults imported from the East, Others turned to the philosophy of Stoicism (enabling man to rise above pain and sorrow in neighbour as well as self). This was a kind of religion of humanity, a kind of escapism. Toynbee argued that when a society loses a sense of form in religion, it serves as a sign that it is breaking down (and found this to be the case in 26 civilizations). There was a loss of confidence and certainty in the Roman world by the end of the 2nd c. From 180 to 285 Rome, beset by forces from without, was in danger of exploding from within. It is surprising that the Roman State survived at all. But it did so because it offered to its inhabitants a way of life they valued. At various times the borders of the Empire were hammered. In the 3rd c. it was confronted in the East by the resurgent power of Persia under the Sassanids. At the same time Germanic tribes thrust across the Rhine and the Danube. Pirates from Scandinavia began invading the British coast. These intrusions were so frequent that war became permanent. In Northern France some invaders actually established themselves. The frontier chaos upset the economic balance of the Roman State. It has been reckoned that it was 1000 years before the volume of trade reached that of the 2nd c.
Figure 1. The Roman Empire (Western and Eastern).
The Roman Empire
11
Central control, unstable in the person of the Emperor, began to break down. Every victorious general imagined himself potentially the monarch. Added to the external chaos, internal clashes began. Between 235 and 285 there were 26 emperors; 25 of them were murdered. Salvation came by way of one of these self-made emperors, who won his way up to general proclaimed Emperor by his troops: Diocletian.
Figure 2. Emperor Augustus.
Chapter 2
DIOCLETIAN (284-305) Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus (245-313) only visited Rome once in a reign of 30 years, obsessed as he was with his own vision of Rome’s greatness and destiny. He undertook a kind of revolution based on a soldier’s view of the crisis. He saw the difficulties faced by Rome as a military crisis—and he was right up to a point .A state which no longer exists can no longer be improved or reformed. Most of his reign was spent campaigning against Parthia. He was convinced that the Emperor should look the part: he wore the crown regularly; he dressed in imperial purple and jewels. He had no use for the Senate, and treated the senators merely as a privileged class. He issued edits in his own name, and put in place an elaborate courtly protocol. Diocletian instituted a series of reforms. The principal one was military: how to save and preserve the State. The exalted position of the Emperor meant that he should be commander-in-chief of the army. The Empire was divided into four defence zones (two in the West under coCaesars; two in the East where he took command with Maximian, 286305). He pulled back crack troops from the frontier to behind the lines. The frontier was manned by lightly armed troops (usually recruited from Barbarians outside the limes, but never before on such a scale).
14
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Internal fort (crack troops)—Frontier post (maintained by mercenaries) The cavalry was always recruited, and after 16 years service, settled within the Eastern Empire. The maintenance of such a huge standing army put tremendous strain on food supplies and affected taxes. To help keep life lines of food and money running smoothly, it was necessary to undertake a thorough reform of the State.
The provincial structure was altered, and divided into dioceses. Military control was separated from civil control. The system of taxation was re-organized, so that more money could be collected. Because of efficient control, this was initially less of a burden. Old coins were called in and a new coinage issued to clarify value. To render tax collection easier, every man was to stay where he was born and follow his father’s trade. It was decreed that magistrates from towns (curia) should be collectively responsible for collecting a quota of taxation. So that corn supplies were constantly available in cities to quieten the mob and in military camps, merchandise could be confiscated by the government.
These reforms were efficient, honest, intelligent—to a point, as long as the orders were fulfilled. Diocletian’s programme bore the characteristics of a modern totalitarian regime. Apart from his belief in saving Rome, there was not one original idea. He tried to make his own inspiration apply to all. He ordered the systematic persecution of the Christians who were more densely clustered in the East and would not pay lip-service to the Emperor nor espouse patriotism—two patterns of life distinctly Roman. The sum total of Christian victims (who made up one-tenth of the State) is unknown. Many magistrates connived at a partial conformity on the part of the Christians. Perhaps it was necessary to sacrifice freedom for survival by
Diocletian (284-305)
15
stifling initiative. But in so doing Diocletian ruined the Rome of his dreams. Diocletian definitely and consciously aimed at creating a totalitarian state based on Eastern examples (Egypt and Parthia). He did not found a new kind of empire. The Emperor had always had autocratic power: Diocletian merely gave the Empire a new façade by changing the image of the ruler, extending bureaucracy, and instituting military and civil reforms. But the inherent social and economic faults were probably too deeply ingrained by 285. Had Diocletian come earlier in Roman history, his shortterm solution might well have endured.
Figure 3. Emperor Diocletian.
Chapter 3
THE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE (305-337) In 305 Diocletian suddenly abdicated. He thought his work was done, but he had not really solved the military and moral problems facing Rome. During the next 18 years old patterns of incessant wars on the frontiers and internal struggles for power ensued. The period 305-323 saw a series of wars on the frontier and within the Empire. The general Flavius Valerius Constantinus (c.280-337) defeated his principal rival at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312), and feeling inspired by his vision of the Cross before the battle, became a Christian (313), granting tolerance to the religion by the Edict of Milan. In Hoc Signo Vinces (‘In This Sign Thou Shalt Conquer’): this expression mysteriously appeared to Constantine in the sky accompanied by the Chi-Rho or Chrism (the six-pointed cross). In 325 he called the bishops to the Council of Nicea to foster unity in the Empire and harmony in the doctrine concerning the nature of Christ. In 330 on the site of the town of Byzantium on the Bosporus, he founded his own city in the East, Constantinople. By 323 Constantine had established himself as the sole ruler. In the interim period he had shown himself not merely a brilliant soldier, but a firm administrator in the Diocletian style. Military reforms and the introduction of a gold coinage showed that he was a disciple of his predecessor. While in many ways he was more sensitive and imaginative,
18
Robert Ignatius Letellier
he could also be quite ruthless. Legend has it that the vision Constantine experienced at the Milvian Bridge led to his personal conversion and then to the momentous proclamation of Edict of Milan (313). His imperial instructions were clear: the Christian Church was to be tolerated. The Church now had a legal existence, so could own property and was protected by Roman law.
THE DECISION OF 313 WAS A TURNING POINT IN HISTORY The Christian Church was now able to establish itself and so altered the lives of generations of people, both Christian and non-Christian. It introduced the element of compassion into the West. Christianity has always evinced feelings of compassion. Ancient India and China were wonderful achievements, but compassion and individual concern were absent from their view of the world. Among Constantine’s close friends was Eusebius of Caesaria who in re-thinking the history of the world after the Edict of Milan gave out what is subconsciously accepted as history; a world history divided into three main periods: Before Christ, Anno Domini, and the Second Coming of Christ. This view of history influenced thinking until the 18th c., and even today is given lip-service. This grand view broke the Classical idea that history is a human treadmill, that goes round and round from the Iron Age to the Golden Age and back again. Eusebius was a good historian, and Constantine was his hero.
THE CHURCH The History of the Church (324) is the pioneering work of the 4th-c. It details the chronological history of early Christianity from the time of Christ to Constantine and his defeat of Licinius. This monumental work of
The Reign of Constantine (305-337)
19
history stands apart from other contemporary histories as the first fulllength record of early Christianity from a Christian point of view. A fierce advocate for his religion, Eusebius lived in Caesarea Maritima, a coastal city in Palestine, prior to and during the rule of Constantine. At the time of Eusebius’s life his hometown had became a centre of Christian learning, through the work of the theologian Origen and his follower Pamphilius, Eusebius’s own teacher. This made Eusebius an ideal candidate to compose a record of the crucial first three hundred years of Christianity. While sometimes criticized as biased and inaccurate, The History of the Church nevertheless provides an indispensable perspective upon the foundations of the Christian church and religion. To continue and function properly, the Church needed some form of governance. Government means finance, and finance means holding property. One must have a known table of beliefs (dogma). There is usually a development of patterns of expected behaviour (an ethical code). The Church had influence on private people as well as groups. The Edict of Milan made it possible for the church to organize its government and ideas in peace and in reasonable security. It was natural for the leading bishop as the wider ecclesial leader to set up his administrative centre in the biggest town of the diocese, Rome. This meant that when the Roman Empire collapsed in the West, this city as administrative unit continued as the seat of Church government. The 4th c. gave the Church opportunity to act as a cultural bridge between the world of Rome and the world as inherited by the Barbarians. The Edict of Milan saw the Church organized. During the 5th and 6th cc. the Church became a bridge between the Classical and Barbarian worlds. The Papacy became one of the great architects of medieval civilization. Christianity and its various churches became one of the many complex elements in Western civilization, both medieval and modern. Constantine’s decision of 313 altered the course of history. But did it alter the course of the Empire? In some ways it did, of course, especially in the second half of the 4th c. But it exposed new kinds of difficulties that fell into two broad categories.
20
Robert Ignatius Letellier
The first was that the Christian Church was divided. There was the Donatist schism in North Africa (concerning the nature of the sacraments) and the Arian dispute originating in Alexandria (denying the full divinity of Christ). These divisions worried Constantine, and orthodox believers. So in 325 he summoned the Council of Nicea [Nicaea] which saw an impressive meeting of the bishops, mainly from the Eastern Empire, with the Emperor presiding. This set the pattern and the tone of situation that would affect the Church in the East for centuries. The Eastern Orthodox Churches have always been subordinated to the state, in a polity known as Caesaro-Papism. This describes a situation when the head of state claims to control the Church, and by implication, directs both the body and soul of man. This is too sweeping because there were occasions where the Church took a separate stand, even in Byzantium. On paper, the Council solved the doctrinal dispute about the nature of Jesus and formulated the Nicene Creed. The followers of Arius persisted, and they were persecuted. Did Constantine’s presiding at the Council render him the head of the Church? Was the Church to be merely a public relations office of state? The second difficulty was that Constantine stood between two worlds: that of the pagans (the majority of Romans and influential among the senatorial class) who believed like Diocletian that the revival of the old religion would save Rome. This group, which became progressively smaller, stood behind Julian the Apostate, the first co-Caesar in Gaul, and later Emperor (360-363) who attempted a pagan restoration.
CONSTANTINOPLE Eusebius argued that when Constantine moved the administrative centre from Rome to Constantinople, he planned a new capital for a new Empire. But the city he founded in 330 reflects the dilemmas rather than the convictions of the Emperor. He offered lavish rewards to the Roman aristocrats who would settle there. There was no ban on pagan settlement. The new capital included all the characteristics Roman buildings: not only hippodromes, but pagan temples as well as Christian churches. The new
The Reign of Constantine (305-337)
21
main gate boasted a gigantic statue. In one hand he held the orb, in the other the sceptre, his head ringed with rays of gold. The pagans were pleased since they thought it was the sun-god Apollo; the Christians saw it as a statue of Christ, light shining from his halo. The founding of the new capital was very important. It stood as a bastion defending Europe from Asian invasions. It held one of the main routes to and from Asia until 1453. Constantinople was what Rome could never be: a great emporium of trade and manufacturing. As a site it could hardly have been better chosen. It became a bottle neck of commerce between Europe and Asia. Because of trade and governmental control, it maintained gold coinage throughout the Middle Ages. In the West, gold coinage disappeared between the 7th and the 13th cc. During the 4th c., the focus of political gravity switched from the West and Rome to the Levant and Constantinople.
Figure 4. Emperor Constantine.
22
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 5. Constantine and Constantinople.
Figure 6. The Council of Nicea.
The Reign of Constantine (305-337)
23
Figure 7. Eusebius of Caesarea.
In 337, the great and enigmatic figure of Constantine died. The frontiers were intact, but the future lay in hands other than his. When beggars die, there are no comets seen. The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes. (Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 2)
Chapter 4
THE FOURTH CENTURY IN GENERAL (330-410) Judging from contemporary writings, no one had any real sense of impending disaster. After 410, people even in Gaul were oblivious. A partial exception can be made with some of the Christians who exulted at the thought of the Second Coming and the end of the Roman Empire. The situation was arguable because all the while frontiers were reasonably intact. There was hope of a peaceful slow transition from the Classical pagan world to a modified Christian world.
THE RELIGIOUS STRUCTURE OF THE EMPIRE The attempted pagan reaction by Julian the Apostate failed. The Christian community could be divided into four groups: 1. Those who hoped for the Second Coming in their lifetime. 2. Those who were convinced that Rome was so corrupt that it was best to flee from it, especially in Egypt where numbers became
26
Robert Ignatius Letellier hermits. Others founded religious communities (monasteries and nunneries) (St. Anthony, St. Mary of Egypt). 3. The majority were orthodox, working for better things through and in the world. Numbers holding office in the Church increased, to the annoyance of Rome since they were exempted from military service. These established the organizations of the Church, their ‘home mission’. 4. Those Arians who had not accepted the teaching of 325. Led by Ulphilas the Goth (311-383, who translated the Bible into Gothic) they decided that if the Gospel is for all men, it must cross the frontiers of the Empire. In some ways this was one of the most original acts of the period. One cannot imagine that Ulphilas and his disciples made any dramatic impact on the Goths and others beyond the Danube, but he did make some impression. Many of the Barbarians who invaded Rome were officially Christians though Arian, not orthodox. Thus because many of the Barbarians were Arian Christians, they were part-civilized and not wholly destructive. But because they were Arian and not orthodox, there was reason for religious friction.
Clearly by the end of the 4th c., the best thinkers, the best scholars, speakers, linguists, and philosophers had accepted Christianity. So Christianity now had the intellectual lead (especially in figures like St. Jerome and St. Augustine of Hippo). Jerome (347-420) translated the Bible into Latin at Bethlehem when Rome was sacked in 410. This version, the Vulgate, had some errors from the copying process, but remained the authorized version of the Bible for the next 1000 years. It would be the first form of the Scriptures to be printed (by Johann Gutenberg in 1454). As a whole, the Church had grown in numbers, stronger in the Western provinces, but leadership still resided in the Levant. Gradually Roman Law altered to meet the new kind of society (as, for example, the provision for Sunday observance). In 392 the Emperor Theodosius (379-396) made Christianity the sole religion of the Roman State and persecution of pagans
The Fourth Century in General (330-410)
27
began. The metamorphosis of culture in the Roman world took place behind frontiers which had always remained stable.
THE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND MILITARY STRUCTURES Confidence in the practical viability of the cultured world for peaceful change was shattered. On the military and political side there was civil weakness in the conflict of Caesar against Caesar, and the grave threats of dangerous thrusts at the frontier. There was never a decade of peace. Until 395, the Empire was theoretically a unity though it had a plurality of Caesars. Between 395 and 476 there were theoretically two emperors, with primacy now claimed for Constantinople. In 476 the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by the Barbarian Heruli leader Odoacer [Odovacar]. But until 812 Constantinople always maintained that there was only one supreme emperor, and that all Barbarian kings were officials of Constantinople. It was accepted that by 360 new factors had come into play: a federacy of alliance of nomadic tribes. The Huns, who failed to enter China, began pushing their way to the rich pastures of the West. They began to break up the Goths, some of whom fled further west, and in their turn began to fragment the tribes they encountered. About 376 the Visigoths asked permission to cross the Danube and settle in the East. If this had succeeded, it would have been a fascinating experience. It would have provided the East with peasants and excellent soldiers; acculturation would have taken place. But the Goths were not paid and not controlled, and twice rose in revolt. On the first occasion they drove towards Constantinople and were victorious at Adrianople defeating the Emperor Valentinian (378) who was killed in action. This defeat was not fatal and it looked as though the Gothic settlement could succeed. But suddenly, at the other end of the frontier, the Franks crossed the Rhine, and the Goths rose under their great leader
28
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Alaric. On the second occasion the Goths moved around the Adriatic Sea and captured Rome in 410.
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STRUCTURES These elements are not easy to determine because the evidence is not complete, and the provinces were so diverse. In North Africa and Macedonia there was a real shortage of man-power. Great landowners would rather pay the State fines than allow their peasants to be recruited for the army. Trade had not recovered from the crises of the 3rd c. The West was pretty stagnant, while the Levant was recovering. In many ways Roman government was extravagant and benevolent. Enormous sums of money and official effort went into providing the food dole: corn, oil and wine were issued to the poor in the great cities. The fundamental trouble was that sustained wars on the frontier for 200 years had put incredible strain on money, morale and food. It was also undeniable that there were plenty of tax-dodgers, privilege-hunters and gross inequalities of wealth. The 4th c. proves rather fascinating. It was a period of cultural transformation from the Classical to the Christian periods. A process of cultural adjustment was taking place among the rubble of a state that seemed to be breaking down. From 410 over the previous 150 years, the work of Diocletian had given Rome a reprieve. But in the interim things happened that were to alter the course of history, even if they did not keep the Roman Empire intact. One could speculate that if Christianity caused the collapse of the Roman Empire, why the Empire survived in the East which was even more Christian than the West? If on the other hand it was moral corruption that caused the collapse of the Roman Empire, why, again, did the Empire survive in the East which, being largely urbanized, probably experienced even a greater moral laxity?
The Fourth Century in General (330-410)
Figure 8. St. Jerome in the Wilderness.
Figure 9. Emperor Theodosius.
29
30
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 10. General Stilicho.
Figure 11. The Abdication of Romulus Augustulus.
The Fourth Century in General (330-410)
Figure 12. Odoacer coin.
31
Chapter 5
THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE The ‘decline’ is associated with the transformation from rational Roman Classicism to faith-based Christianity. One can compare this process to the attitude of people in the Renaissance where the ‘Dark Ages’ of the preceding millennium were deprecated, and emphasis again laid approvingly on the principles of the Ancient Greek and Roman cultures. The growth of Christianity altered the ethos of the Roman State in the th 4 c. Despite statements by Voltaire (1694-1778) and Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 1766-88) it cannot be proven that Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire, as distinct from supplanting the Roman spirit. If we look at the collapse of the Roman State, one sees clearly that the East did not disappear. The whole of the Eastern half of the Empire which was healthier and much more Christian survived intact. Gibbon asserted that the Roman State at Constantinople had an unbroken legal history until 1453. When one grasps the fact that the East survived, many old presuppositions fall away. If we look at the position in the Levant, several factors explain why it survived.
34
Robert Ignatius Letellier 1. Constantinople was impregnable, and easy to defend by land. 2. The Byzantines further had control of the sea in the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean. 3. By a stroke of fortune the period of crisis in the Roman State corresponded with a period of peace in the Persian Empire. 4. On the whole commerce continued, leading to a series of sophisticated political tactics. The cash income of the State made it possible to pay soldiers, officials, and bribe Barbarian leaders to fight elsewhere. Gold was given to Attila to deflect him from crossing the Danube. He moved West and crossed the Rhine instead, there to be defeated in 451. Rather later, under the Emperor Zeno (474-491), a slightly different tactic was used, playing one set of Barbarians against another. When Odoacer in Italy looked too powerful, Zeno commissioned Theodoric as Imperial agent at the head of the Ostrogoths to enter Italy and deal with Odoacer. 5. It seems that in the Levant the fairly strong association between Greek-speaking orthodox members of the Church turned religion into a new kind of patriotism, so obviating otherwise discordant elements.
GENERAL REASONS FOR THE COLLAPSE The burden of defending the great perimeter distorted and overstrained the economic, political and military resources of the Empire. When pressured intensified from 400 onwards, the final cracks opened. This happened in the West because compared with the East, it was economically stagnant and agrarian. Already large areas of Gaul had pockets of Frankish settlement from the 3rd c. In Northern Gaul, Romanization could not have been very thorough. The traditional point of breakthrough had been the Rhine frontier. This whole line gave way in 357. This was partly because the Rhine freezes over more than the Danube, and partly because the natural drift of migration across the German plain was from East to West.
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
35
This invasive push was accelerated by sheer terror as a result of Hunnish pressure.
IMMEDIATE CAUSES One could argue that the Empire collapsed because of a series of accidents. For example, the early death of Theodosius in 395 meant that his two sons were left as virtual teenagers. The Empire was divided between two boys who were kept safely in the royal palace, No dynamic leadership was forthcoming. The rank and file of the army was 50% Barbarian. Many of the best generals worked their way up, intermarried with the Roman aristocracy, and were both able and ambitious. While they did not go as far as murdering a dynasty, they did claim advancement and status which the ‘in-group’ would not give. Then there was the tragedy of Flavius Stilicho (365-408). He first delayed checking the Goths to show how necessary he was. When he might have saved Italy, he was murdered by jealous rivals. J. B. Bury (A History of the Later Roman Empire, 1923) argued that but for the murder of Stilicho, Rome could have been saved. Possibly Stilicho could have beaten Alaric, but it does not really follow that the general collapse could have been averted. The first decade of the 5th c. saw three parallel movements: 1. Alaric swung the Visigoths into Italy and captured Rome (410). 2. Simultaneously, Franks, Vandals, Suevi, Allemandi crossed the Rhine. 3. From c. 350 Britain was attacked on three frontiers: Picts from Scotland; Scots from Ireland; Angles, Saxons and Jutes by sea from Northern Germany. It would seem that these movements of peoples were something bigger and more profound than merely flight from the Huns.
36
Robert Ignatius Letellier
FEATURES OF THE BARBARIAN OCCUPATION OF EUROPE (410-451) When we piece together evidence from documents, letters, and archaeology concerning the events of the first half of the 5th c., a feeling of inevitability begins to emerge. Roman fortifications put up a strong resistance while a great armed emigration flowed sluggishly around the Roman world. In nearly every case rough-working arrangements were made between Roman landowners and the new settlers. On average, Barbarians in nearly every province took up to one-third to one-half of the land, as the two peoples settled down uneasily, side-by-side. Peace was constantly dislocated by new would-be immigrants seeking plunder and land. The Visigoths pulled out of Italy, and ignoring mountains and rivers, sprawled across Spain and France as far as the Loire. The Vandals drove through the Visigoths, and when they could not force settlement, crossed into North Africa, sacked Hippo, took over the Roman province of North Africa, seriously established themselves as a sea-power, seized Sicily in 455, and sacked Rome. There is no evidence of organized Roman resistance movements in the West. This suggests physical exhaustion, and a lack of psychological resilience. It was fortunate that most of the invaders had already been in touch with Rome through trade, the army, relatives and Arianism. They came primarily to settle not to spoil. Only in one province was Roman civilization blotted out: Britain. There was no continuity in history between ancient and modern Britain. The newcomers struggled with the Celts who fled westwards. They died fighting or provided a menial substratum to the invaders. The new settlers who were pagan did not occupy Roman towns, but settled in farming communities on hillsides, “leaving desolate ruins made by giants.” The most important events of the Barbarian invasions took place in the second generation. In 451 the Huns, bribed to give up plundering Eastern Europe, swung into France. A surprising resistance now took place. The
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
37
Roman general Flavius Aetius (390-454) acted as a rallying point for the Barbarians living in the province, and together with the Romans they fought out the great Battle of Châlons (451) where the Huns were defeated but not overwhelmed. They retreated and moved into Italy where there was no power organized to resist them. Here the second great rally took place. Pope Leo the Great led a great procession to confront the hosts of Attila. As if miraculously, Attila faltered. This dramatic moment symbolized that the only power in the West was now the Pope. Attila’s death conveniently followed. The federacy of the Huns melted away, and they settled in Hungary where the Great Plains provided maintenance. Despite the removal of the Huns, there was no Roman recovery in the West. In 455 the Vandals sacked Rome. There was no power, spiritual or military to stop Odoacer, from occupying Italy. He deposed the last Roman emperor in the West in 476, and established the Ostogothic kingdom. He set up his capital in Northern Italy at Ravenna (476-493). Though no man appropriated the title of emperor in the West between 476 and 800, Constantinople still claimed that their imperium extended over all Roman lands. But by 812 even Byzantium recognized Charlemagne as Emperor in the West. As one looks at the events from 410 to 451, there was hardly enough rigour in Roman defences to convey the tragedy of events. To contemporaries and intelligent people, the Sack of Rome in 410 was an astounding blow, and men still puzzle over the meaning of it. What is clear is that it signalled change. In fact two major changes were taking place in the 5th and 6th centuries. The first was the ‘Barbarianization’ of the West. The second was of a different kind which took place within the relative security of the Eastern Empire at Constantinople. The West was changed in the midst of violence and disruption. The East also changed. It was legally still the Roman Empire, but within this polity there was a metamorphosis of a kind that would have filled old Classical Rome with horror.
38
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 13. General Aetius.
Figure 14. Pope Leo the Great.
Chapter 6
THE DARK AGES The term ‘Dark Ages’ raises two sets of problems: 1) When were they? 2) What were they? All scholars find it difficult to divide history into compartments. Any convenient divisions are merely concepts or ideas. The myths, traditions, social ideas of one period survive into another. There are no clean breaks between the past and the present. The present is a postnatal product of a pre-natal past. The term Dark Ages has least five different interpretations.
THE INTERPRETATIONS 1. Some have regarded the medieval period extending from 313 to the 14th c., comprising one long, dark age. This was the view of many in the Renaissance, as well as the view of Gibbon. Subconsciously a great number of people seem to believe this, although it is actually untenable. 2. Others regard the Dark Ages as extending from 410 (the first Sack of Rome) until 800 (the coronation of Charlemagne). 3. Still others (led by Henri Pirenne, 1862-1935) argue that the 5th c. invasions had no effect on trade and social life in the medieval era.
40
Robert Ignatius Letellier The setback comes with the Arab conquests after 632 and the conquest of Spain in 711. This broke links between the East and the West, blocked commerce, and forced the West to become mainly agrarian. 4. Some admit that the centuries after 410 were grim, but the real danger point for Europe was when the Classical past and Christian present went under in the 9th c.
The period 410 to 732 was pretty bleak, but there were plenty of growing points The real reason why we use the appellation ‘dark’ is based on slight evidence with cloudy insight. One must see the kind of evidence which historians have and how they use it. One must establish what happened, and what changes were taking place.
HISTORIANS AND RECORDS There were historians working during this period. 1. Orosius, a Spanish disciple of Augustine, in the early 5th c. wrote a history of the world, Adversus paganos historiarum libri VII. 2. In the 9th c. the Saxon King Alfred had histories, including that of Orosius, translated from Latin into Anglo-Saxon, and these included tales and anecdotes. 3. Isidore of Seville (560-636) wrote imperfect history collected in encyclopaedic form in his Etymologies containing temporal and historical facts. 4. Cassiodorus (480-575) wrote a History of the Goths, the original of which was lost and a summary written by Jordanes. 5. Bishop Gregory of Tours wrote a History of the Franks. He died in 594 so could not have experienced events he describes. 6. Gildas (516-570) wrote De calamitate, excidio et conquestu Britanniae, the only extant contemporary account of the AngloSaxon conquest of Britain in the 5th c.
The Dark Ages
41
7. Procopius (500-562) produced a History of the Vandals and a History of the Wars (550-53), a valuable account of the campaigns of Justinian. More accurate historians emerged. 8. It was not until 731 that critical history was written—by the Benedictine monk Bede at his monastery in Jarrow. He usually managed to sift the true from the false in his Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation (731) 9. There were some literary records. The Letters of Sidonius Apollinaris, Bishop of Clermont (c. 430-490), helped to settle a dispute between the Franks and the Romans. 10. By the 7th c. there are fragments of poetry written in Anglo-Saxon and some Latin verse-translations of Classical writers. These do not say much about the contemporary situation, but rather are instances of preserved culture. Certain records were more or less official. 11. The Register of Papal Records catalogued communications both to and from the Holy See. Whenever the Catholic Church converted a country, it took care that any laws were written down so that all should know about them. 12. There were records of the transfer of lands, especially to the Church, and many other records.
THE EVIDENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGY Two main methods have been used. Since the Second World War there were developments in aerial photography, showing the sites of buried towns, patterns of abandoned farming settlements which indicate where it would be profitable to excavate. Then there have been discoveries revealed by systematic excavation, especially of the graveyards of times when people were buried with possessions and statues. These can reveal a lot about the past. Excavations skilfully carried out, as at Sutton Hoo in
42
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Suffolk (1939), reveal much about people of the pre-Viking age: things valued, jewels worn, weapons wielded. There is also an argument by analogy. We have some knowledge of the working of tribal patterns. Such patterns change into monarchy. There are also examples from the outside world, such as the value of traditions handed down in chants and songs. This does not prove identity, such as similarity in parallels between Anglo-Saxon and Frankish societies, but one can learn much about one by studying the other. Even with all these different kinds of evidence, in a world where all sorts of discoveries and changes occur, what we know and have discovered is partly based on evidence, and partly on intelligent guesswork.
Chapter 7
THE BARBARIAN WEST Roman thinking divided the world as it was into two classes: Romani and Barbari. The term ‘barbarian’ should be used with delicacy as these people form the ancestry of most of the European nations. They were remarkable even when Rome traded with them, used them as soldiers, and peasant farmers, and even began intermarrying with them. But a sense of difference and Roman superiority remained. This was because Rome thought of civilization in terms of a few prime factors: stable government; a system of law; business-like administration; and an urbane and civilized society. Barbarian society was totally different. It was based to an extent on kin, and on the larger grouping of tribe. A hero-type warrior chief sometimes established himself as king, making his family royal. War was almost a constant accompaniment of life. Even when settled in villages, every free-man had weapons and a duty to turn out at the call of the leader. Poetry and writing in the vernacular came late. All their stories and legends stress the importance of ‘valiant death’, with the great virtues of courage, generosity and loyalty (not to an idea, but to an individual). If the term ‘culture’ is difficult to determine, then ‘civilization’ can be thought of as the sum total of all social patterns designed to preserve life
44
Robert Ignatius Letellier
as a group—attitudes, ideas, values, held to turn existence onto the good life, and to preserve the continuity of life in this way. If we look at the various Germanic tribes we must admit that most groups possessed highly developed skills acquired in the course of long wanderings from Scandinavia to Northern Germany, to the Black Sea, to Northern Germany. In this peregrination of some 300 years (from the Baltic to the Black Sea and back) they picked up and adapted the skills and techniques of others. The idea of shoeing horses was learned from the steppe peoples of the Black Sea. Heavy cavalry could now move over harder ground. The Saxons, Angles, and possibly the Franks were good at building boats though they could not set sails. They loved bright colours (red and blue) and ornaments, and some became skilled jewellers. When their art is analyzed, they can be seen to have learned and used devices taken from Persia, Scythia, and the Celts. Hence when the term ‘barbarian’ is used to describe these people, it is used partly because the Romans used it, and partly as a way of describing a way of life and social patterns different from Rome. This may have been a lower, less sophisticated form of human development, but does not imply something totally crude. We know a little about them from the point where they came into contact with the Church. Three successive blocks of laws were issued in Visigothic Spain. Roman influences were so old, and Roman survival so strong, that it seems that ideas of ‘systems’ survived. In the case of France and Italy, Roman laws seem to have covered Romans and Barbarian laws to have covered Barbarians. Only in mixed cases do we see from the wergild (system of fines) the social contempt felt by Barbarians for Romans. In England where no living Roman influences survived, we find the purist kind of Barbarian society. We also see the way in which between the 7th c. and 10th c. their laws became more humane under the influence of the Church. A general pattern emerges from looking at laws and other evidence. The people were predominantly agrarian with little need for trade since they could plunder. Moreover, their laws dealt mainly with village farming (with concerns for safeguarding the common bull and ploughshare). Families lived in huts of wood, mud or turf. Newcomers
The Barbarian West
45
were regarded with suspicion, and needed permission before they could enter. The chief crimes were cattle theft, hut-burning, fence-breaking. Advancing above the level of ‘blood feud’, family vengeance took action. There were complex systems of fines, varying according to the nature of the offence and the rank of the victims. We can tell from the scale of fines, the wergilds, the ranking in which men stood. At the height of all was the king, generating the concept of the ‘King’s Peace’. These systems show the beginnings of some idea of law, but without the concept of justice behind it. It seems that especially in England kin, for a long time, played an important part as social insurance. If a man could not pay his fine, then his kin had to pay on his behalf. Care of widows was also part of the kin’s duty. The ‘bride price’, however crude, was the way the kin secured a woman’s protection. In the case of English history, the idea of the King’s Peace was very gradually extended to cover wider areas of land and more kinds of people. The story of the enlargement of the King’s Peace supported by abbots and bishops, helps to explain the distinctive ideas of English Law. The King found it profitable to extend his ‘Peace’; he received fines for any ‘breaches of the peace’. From the 12th c. the king devised with lawyers better methods of trying people so courts became quite popular in the sense that men preferred them to the arbitrary feudal courts. In the course of time, the King’s Peace became the King’s Law which extended across the whole realm. To this day in Britain all breaches of the public order are against the King’s Peace. These changes took 1000 years to be worked out. Methods of trial by compurgation, and if finally accused, trial by ordeal, lingered longer outside England. Compurgation, also called ‘wager of law and oathhelping’, was a defence used primarily in medieval law. A defendant could establish his innocence or non-liability by taking an oath and by getting a required number of persons, typically twelve, to swear they believed the defendant's oath. The wager of law was essentially a character reference, initially by kin and later by neighbours (from the same region as the defendant), often 11 or 12 men, and it was a way to give credibility to the oath of a defendant at a time when a person's oath had more credibility
46
Robert Ignatius Letellier
than a written record. It can be compared to legal wager, which is the provision of surety at the beginning of legal action, to minimize frivolous litigation. Compurgation was found in early Germanic law, in early French law (très ancienne coutume de Bretagne), in Welsh law, and in the English ecclesiastical courts until the 17th c. It was not until 1215, seven centuries after the collapse of Rome, that the Church was strong enough to abolish trial by ordeal because of other methods based on the re-discovery of Roman Law. Do not grieve, wise warrior! It is better for each man that he avenge his friend than to mourn him much. Each of us must accept the end of life here in this world—so we must work while we can to earn fame before death. (Beowulf, Anglo-Saxon, 8th c.)
Chapter 8
FRANKLAND The pattern here was different from that in England. The Franks were pagan, barbarian, agrarian, who settled on lands mainly in Northern Gaul and along the banks of the Rhine, There were two main groups:
the older established Salian Franks (in Neustria, Northern France) the Ripuarian Franks (in Austrasia, along the Maine and the Rhine).
In the 5th c. these groups moved to Northern Gaul. The South was held by the Arian Visigoths where there were surviving influences of long Romanization. In due course the Visigoths hustled across the Pyrenees into Spain. Even after the political shape of modern France began to emerge, the ageold line of division between the France of Paris and Mediterranean France still persisted. Indeed, the history of France tends to crack along the River Loire. (At many critical points in French history, the line of division roughly along the Loire is a useful monitor to watch. In the 12 th c. the English were to the South; it was the heartland of the Albigensian [Manichean/Arian] heresy at Albi and Carcasonne leading to war between northern and southern France, 1205-29; at the Reformation, Protestantism
48
Robert Ignatius Letellier
was stronger there, around La Rochelle; at the French Revolution, Roman Law persisted in the South, with resistance from the Girondists centred in Bordeaux; at the Second World War, it became the heartland of Vichy France.) Some groups of the Franks had settled along the border and in the Roman Empire itself since the 3rd c. They had a legendary founder Meroweg, of semi-divine, mysterious origins. This helps to explain their peculiar familial capacity to survive all sorts of disaster. People believed in them and their charisma. The early ruling family, the Merovingians, survived until 751, growing more useless (‘the Sluggard Kings’) until they were deposed. In the North there was no general massacre of Romans, and some Roman influences undoubtedly survived. The turning point came with the reign of Clovis (465-511), a man of great physical courage, cunning and shrewedness, and an example of how to build up power by barbarism. He destroyed the last Roman settlement under Syagrius, and by guile established his hold over other petty Frankish kings (like Sigebert, King of the Ripuarians). Most of what we know is derived from Gregory, Bishop of Tours, who wrote 80 years after the events described. The Church was greatly indebted to Clovis, who was on the whole favourably disposed and truthful to it. Having untied the Franks, Clovis extended his influence. He married Clothilde, the daughter of the Burgundian ruler, and a Catholic. She was unlucky in converting him until 496 when Clovis was fighting a losing battle against the Visigoths at Tolbiac. Clovis thought of Clothilde’s God, and made a strategic acceptance of Christianity. He seemed to be awarded by victory, and adopted Catholicism. (The story has miraculous analogies with Constantine’s vision at the Milvian Bridge.) This was followed by the official conversion of the Franks, the first major Barbarian tribe to embrace the Roman Church. Clovis became known as “Son of the Church.” From 496 onwards the Catholic Church was the chief supporter of the Crown in France. In 751 it was the Church which disposed of the decrepit Merovingians and installed Pepin and the Carolingian dynasty. In 987 when the Carolingians died out, the Church again intervened and found a new king, High Capet, and the Capetian dynasty. The Church was not
Frankland
49
merely a religious institution but carried remnants of Roman culture and Roman government. The Church followed the characteristic pattern of not trying to change everything at once, but setting down patterns and security. Salic Law was the first instance of the marriage between Church and Monarchy in France (511). Clovis found a new motive for fighting the Arians, and drove his forces against the Visigoths in France, defeating them at the Battle of Vouglé (507). Although it was another half-century before the Visigoths were finally pushed out, this marks the first point when Frankish power first saw the Mediterranean. If towns survived in France, they were as administrative centres of Episcopal power. Clovis never thought of the problems of statesmanship. He acted rather with shrewd intuition. Both he and his immediate successors were fortunate. There was an aura of sanctity sprung from the legend of his conversion. Frankland was beyond the reach of Byzantinian Justinian’s reach, not smashed as Italy was. The alignment of the monarchy with the stable sophistication of the Catholic Church seems to have held Frankland together. If one considers the government at the time of Clovis and his successors, we see that while the Roman population remained separate, Romans were used to collect taxes, but Franks paid no taxes. Frankish attitudes to the state were to see it as a patrimony. When each king died, the realm was divided equally between his sons. The death of every king was followed by civil war where one or the other beat the rest. By the 7th c. such existing government centred on the royal palace and household officials (mayor, constable, cup-bearer) who were the nearest there was to ministers. Much of the original wealth of the kings depended on land conquered, treasure looted. In time, the sources of loot dried up, with all the land granted to the greedy nobles (the land and its inhabitants). There was some decline in freedom. The great nobles began hogging the land and acted like petty kings, some even minting their own coins. If one considers the constant civil wars, the cornering of power by the Frankish nobles, the danger the Church was in, then the state was demoralized. It had to recruit man-power from Barbarian stock, and put up with chaos. It was difficult to imagine any prosperous trade, though there
50
Robert Ignatius Letellier
was trade in luxury goods, and what the Church needed. In whole parts of Austrasia barter replaced trade because of the shortage of small coins (even copper ones) by the end of the 7th c. Probably what saved Frankland was the emergence of a new kind of heroic figure in 714 in the person of Charles Martel, the bastard son of a Mayor of the Palace.
Figure 15. The Conversion of Clovis, 496.
Figure 16. The Baptism of Clovis.
Chapter 9
OSTROGOTHIC ITALY (493-596) “No man can enjoin religion” (Theodoric)
Theodoric the Ostrogoth spent much of his childhood at the Byzantine Court, but like Charlemagne later, he could not write. He became the head of a great Barbarian federacy which differed from the Franks in that it was Arian and not Catholic. When he invaded Italy it was as the agent of the Emperor Zeno, to depose Odoacer. He began his move into Italy in c. 486, but it was only in 493 that he was able to seize Ravenna. Theodosius began his reign with the assassination of Odoacer, and ended it with the murder of Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (473-525). The interim was like a Golden Age for Italy. Theodosius attracted to his service any of the senatorial class. He kept up some kind of administration and government. Cassiodorus (478-570) kept the papers prepared for Theodoric, like letters and despatches. Theodoric tried hard to maintain Roman Law. But in practice the Goths did not take kindly to this control of police and army, and he had to give them separate courts. Theodoric was one of the few people who for the next 100 years had any notion of the importance of tolerance. More than once he became unpopular with the Roman Church because like most Arians he was more tolerant towards the Jews. In the generation of peace which Theodoric
52
Robert Ignatius Letellier
imposed, the Pope and the Catholic party looked to Byzantium (to the Emperor Justin who was persecuting the Arian remnant in the Levant) to deal with the Arian Goths in Italy. Despite there being no evidence of a plot to overthrow him, suspicion and fear led Theodoric to arrest Boethius and his group in the Roman Senate and in effect to order his trial and execution. Because of the generation of security, it seems that many of the more intelligent among the Romans realized the importance of preserving learning before it was too late. Boethius planned and tried to organize the translation into Latin of all the works of Plato and Aristotle. He made some headway, and the little that the Middle Ages knew of Plato came from the translations of Boethius. No one knows what happened to his manuscripts: it is thought that during the chaos of the Gothic Wars some found their way to the Celtic monasteries of Bobbio and St. Gall. (A similar mystery would later surround the disappearance of Emperor Frederick II’s library.) What Boethius feared was that the Western lands had almost forgotten Greek, and that Classical writings would be lost. He tried to keep alive the old pattern of the liberal arts. It was due chiefly to Boethius and Cassiodorus that some notion of the liberal curriculum was kept alive. This would become the backbone of the medieval universities from the 12th c. onwards. Study of the arts turned on two fields: the Trivium (Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric) and the Quadrivium (Mathematics, particularly Geometry, Arithmetic, Music, Astronomy). Philosophy in the 5th c. was concerned with the problems of life, not the meaning of words. Boethius’s great work The Consolation of Philosophy, written during his imprisonment, was widely read, and influential through the whole medieval period until today. It was a justification of his years of research. It is a dialogue of alternating prose and verse between the ailing prisoner and his ‘nurse’ Philosophy. Her instruction on the nature of fortune and happiness, good and evil, fate and free will, restore his health and bring him to enlightenment. It was translated into Anglo-Saxon by King Alfred in the 9th c., and by the 10th c. into German. Some 400 manuscript copies survived. More copies were listed in the catalogues of monastic libraries.
Ostrogothic Italy (493-596)
53
Cassiodorus did not have the intelligence of Boethius, but plenty of gusto and common sense. His career unfolded in two stages. He was first a high civil servant in the Gothic State and kept the despatches. Then when the Gothic Wars hit Italy after 536, he retired to his country estate Squillace (Vivarium) and invested his energy into collecting manuscripts of the Bible. Part of one found its way to Jarrow. He gathered together a group of monks and undertook large-scale translation of manuscripts. His History of the Goths was lost, but a summary made by Jordanes survived. “It is a glorious art to be able to write decently what you would say, and to read aloud properly what has been written.” St. Benedict of Nursia (480-544) was of the noble senatorial class, wealthy, traditionally associated the business of governing. He too was disturbed by the decay of learning and the fall of the civilized world. He reacted in a different way, selling all his possessions, and founding a small monastery at Monte Cassino. The original foundation was wooden, with about 15 monks. The patron of Western monasticism saw himself as devoting time to prayer and to helping people through prayer. Monasticism was not new: it had begun in the East where groups of hermits had begun to live in communities. It was also found in Ireland, probably introduced by St. Patrick. Celtic monasticism was clearly related to a way of life. Its feats were quite outstanding, penetrating into the heart of Barbarian Europe, and founding Bobbio and St. Gall, but never achieving stability, with its members coming and going. Eastern monasticism was too harsh. Celtic monasticism was splendid but erratic. The great merit of Benedict’s pattern was that it was simple and practical; humane; and turned on regular routine, operating under the discipline of an abbot which gave it an extra measure of stability.The Benedictine Order spread throughout Italy, France, Spain and Germany. Monasteries became oases, since wherever they went they performed special salving functions. They preserved scholarship and learning, and were unarmed centres of missionary enterprise. At first sight the ideas of Theodoric seem to have been torn up. He was survived by his clever daughter Amalasuintha who was assassinated. Chaos resulted. Between 526 and 537 the Gothic monarchy did not find a
54
Robert Ignatius Letellier
point of stability. The situation gave the Emperor Justinian excuse for intervening. Between 537 and 553 the Gothic Wars between the Ostrogoths and the Byzantines raged. Rome was taken and lost 15 times. The aqueducts and pipes draining the marshes of the Campania were destroyed. Malaria returned and would be problem until the 20th c. More damage was done to Roman engineering feats during these wars than during the Barbarian sacks of 410 and 455. The Goths were broken and fled over the Alps to Hungary. As one looks at the sweep of history, it seems ironic that the crude descendants of Clovis managed to hold Frankland together even though not one creative idea was produced. In the case of Gothic Italy, the fascinating experiment of Theodoric was destroyed although the work of men who lived at the time (Boethius, Cassiodorus and St. Benedict) continued to work as leaven in medieval Europe. When one looks at these three great figures of the ruling class amidst the ruins of their world, one sees how practical they all were. They got down to doing something valuable in the world as it was. And although they felt some responsibility for the future, they did not imagine that they could do anything outstanding. But their legacy was of enduring consequence for civilization. After the death of Justinian in 565, another group of Barbarians swept into Italy, the Lombards. They conquered Northern and Central Italy so that Italy was divided between the Lombards and the Greeks. Thereafter, the history of Italy was one of invasions and disunity until 1870.
Figure 17. Theodoric solidus.
Ostrogothic Italy (493-596)
Figure 18. Boethius.
Figure 19. The Consolation of Philosophy.
55
56
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 20. Cassiodorus.
Figure 21. Theodoric the Great.
Ostrogothic Italy (493-596)
(a) Figure 22. St. Benedict (a) and the Monastery at Subiaco (b).
57
(b)
Chapter 10
BYZANTIUM One could observe that the history of Europe after the 5th c. was mainly a blending of three cultures: Teutonic, Christian and Classical (Latinized Greek). If one looks at Byzantium, one also observes a hybrid, seemingly a compound of Roman Law and Hellenistic tradition. Christian Orthodoxy provided not merely religion but new forms of patriotism, with every battle in the Name of the Lord, and an attempt to convert every people they came into contact with. They passed on their culture in time to the Bulgarians, the Serbians and the Russians. Although there was plenty of agriculture, the great centre was the city of Constantinople with its industry, commerce, gold coinage, and great splendour not equalled anywhere in Europe. Because of its geographical placing, it was much closer to the lands of the East than were the Barbarian realms. Writings about Byzantium shows more understanding today than before. Older studies enjoyed the scandals, seeing not much more than that, and did not try to understand the culture. More modern historians have found other interesting points: Complex threads were woven into a new culture. There is interest in the radiation of Byzantine influence on to the Slavic people. There is also interest in the effect of Byzantium especially from the 13th c. in economic, artistic and intellectual matters. The Renaissance itself is seen by some as
60
Robert Ignatius Letellier
beginning in Byzantium not Italy. It is thought that great numbers of displaced philosophers (not for the first time) journeyed to Persia which was more tolerant, and taught there. This was one of many ways in which the Arabs in due course picked up threads of Greek learning. This was undoubtedly through Persia which they conquered. There is no clear point when we can say a new distinctive Byzantine culture emerged. There were always contradictions within the Empire. There is no infallible ruling as to when the ‘tang’ of Byzantine culture really evinces itself. The Eastern Roman Empire was perhaps intended to be Christian from the time of Constantine. This would make his reign the crucial point. Others opt for the reign of Justinian, and others the reign of Emperor Heraclius (who oversaw the Battle of Nineveh in 627 and the Iconoclasm Crisis). Perhaps it is the reign of Emperor Leo the Isaurian who saved Constantinople from the Arabs in 717? From this point Byzantium lost its grip on Egypt, Palestine, and much of Syria, and had to adapt its structure to living with defeat. The case of Emperor Justinian faces both ways, He set his face to the West, but his religious policy and style of building was not Classical. His name is associated with the great codification of Roman Law in Latin which he sponsored. Nevertheless, later laws and edicts were issued in Greek, and so could be understood. He also closed the schools of Athens, where Plato and Aristotle had taught. In his devotion to the state and patronage of the arts, he is likened to Louis XIV of France, and slaved himself to death for his ideas. If genius is the infinite capacity for taking pains, then he had genius, His great dream was traditionalist: to re-conquer the lost provinces of the West, to restore the structure of a single state Empire united by one Government, one Law, one Church. The critical period of Justinian’s reign was the early years, and his marriage to Theodora. In 532 the Nika Riots gave Justinian the opportunity of restoring order. Thereafter his real design seemed to move forward with vigour and urgency. The building of Hagia Sophia (the Church of Holy Wisdom) introduced the Eastern Dome, and was so splendid that Justinian was thought to have outdone even Solomon. He seemed to blend a new culture with the Eastern Roman Empire.
Byzantium
61
Trebonian (485-542) was ordered to muster a team of experts to undertake the mammoth codification of Roman Law and the composition of The Institutes which explained the principles behind the Law. This was divided into: 1) The Digest; 2) The Institutes; 3) The Novellae; 4) The Panclets. Justinian’s plan for the re-conquest of the West began to take shape. Vandalistic Africa was conquered after a huge expedition. In 537 the attack on Gothic Italy began, with occasional side-shows like the attack on Spain. He was unfortunately faced with war on three fronts. During this period there were three major conflicts with Persia so that the great Roman generals Belisarius (505-565) and Narses (478-573) were kept short of troops in Italy. The Goths also put up a magnificent resistance. Most damage was done by the Byzantines rather than the Goths. By 552 the struggle was over, and the Goths fled across the Alps (mingled with the Lombards, and settled in Hungary). In terms of great imperial ideas, the assumption that the Easter Empire had the know-how gave confidence that the damage could be repaired. The victories in Africa, Italy, Sicily and South-Eastern Spain were a remarkable military achievement. For a while traffic around the Mediterranean was restored. But the sequel cannot be ignored. Within three years of the death of Justinian, the Lombards were dividing Italy with the Greeks. Within a century of his death, the whole of North Africa fell into the hands of the Arabs. We know the sequel, but Justinian could not. Yet he could have realized the impossibility of fighting major wars on two fronts while the Danube frontier was vulnerable. On the other hand, Justinian’s war with Persia was defensive. The new vigorous dynasty of the Sassanids was renewed the old conflict between the Eastern Roman Empire and Persia. At stake was not only mere territory but control of the caravan routes bringing silk from China. The conflict zone was Armenia.
62
Robert Ignatius Letellier
But the three wars were ruinously expensive although Byzantium recovered after the initial defeats. Armenia was partitioned. The real triumph was not in war but from the successful business theft of the cultivation of silk. It is said that monks returned from China with silkworm eggs. Henceforth Byzantium manufactured its own raw material, with a monopoly in the West. Another point of commercial conflict between Byzantium and Persia was the Red Sea. Some trade routes from India were up the Red Sea. Others were overland by caravan. Justinian was particularly active in the affairs of Abyssinia, and encouraged it as a kind of satellite to central Yemen. If one looks within the Byzantine State, all was external evidence of splendour and power. St. Sophia was the greatest of a whole family of ecclesiastical buildings. Long the Eastern frontier, there were new fortifications. But the price of war on two fronts meant that taxes were crippling and the treasury exhausted. There was not sufficient manpower to meet the strategy. Government seemed harsh and oppressive. Equally serious was considerable religious dissent. In North Africa Arianism and Donatism persisted. In the stronghold of Hellenistic Greece, and arching from Athens to Antioch, the agile minds of philosophers turned to theology, toying with ideas of the Trinity, and the perennial dispute about the nature of Christ. The Nestorians in Syria argued that since Christ had an earthly mother, his humanity reduced his divinity. Conversely, for the Monophysites in Egypt and in Abyssinia Christ took on a temporary human guise and the Incarnation was more God than man. Justinian’s vision was of one State, one Law, one Church. Orthodoxy was closely related to Greek patriotism. Hence, since the Empress Theodora was of Monophysite persuasion, Justinian tried to limit the persecutions such as did take place. But these grew bitterer after his death. To Byzantines, orthodoxy was a mark of loyalty and patriotism. To Syrians, Nestorian belief was a kind of local patriotism—pro-Syrian and antiByzantine. The same was true of the Monophysites in Egypt. Religious separatism became a problem in the Byzantine Empire.
Byzantium
63
WHAT IS THE PLACE OF JUSTINIAN IN BYZANTINE HISTORY? Justinian wanted to restore the old Roman Empire. He had Roman Law scientifically codified in Latin, and he spoke Latin. His celebrated triumphs were built to perpetuate his renown. On the other side, he was not only Christian, but also bent on political orthodoxy. The style of his buildings shows the influence of Syrian and Oriental art styles. Court protocol was developed clearly on Persian models. What does one make of Justinian’s closing of the philosophical schools (an attack on Classical learning)? If one looks closely at the Byzantine State, particularly the bureaucracy, they were devoted to the Hellenic past. Procopius (500-562) wrote in the Classical tradition. One finds this trend throughout Byzantine history. It is full of contradictions and controversies. It is also ironical that the great codification of Roman Law was contemporary with the simple statements of the early English kings. With the possible exception of points made in Northern Italy in Ravenna and Lombardy where Justinian’s Law was introduced, it seems to have exercised no influence on Western thinking until c. 1140. This epitomized the Byzantine essence of contradiction.
Figure 23. Constantinople.
64
Figure 24. Emperor Justinian.
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Chapter 11
THE CHURCH “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.”. (Matthew 16:17)
THE BEGINNING OF PAPAL THEORY The primacy of the Bishop of Rome turned on historical factors, Scriptural references and Church tradition. Until the founding of Constantinople, Rome was the capital of a great empire. It was the seat of the power of the state and the centre of influence of the Church. Traditionally it was the place of the martyrdom of Saints Peter and Paul, and the scene of the missionary work of both of them. The Church set more store on its own tradition than on the words of Scripture. In practice, Rome was in deadly peril in the 5th c. The great sees of Antioch and Alexandria claimed parity with Rome; and Constantinople, in the shadow of Imperial power, claimed standing on its own right. As late as the reign of Justinian, Pope Virgilius (538-555) was manhandled in Constantinople as the result of a theological dispute. He contended for the Catholic faith with Justinian.
66
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Popes, even when fortunes were at zero, were the Apostolic successors to St. Peter, and believed that each was truly Vicar of Christ on earth. This line of thinking was argued by Pope Leo the Great (440-461). It implied that papal power in all matters of morals and faith, was superior in every way, and universal. This was boldly stated in the middle of the 5th c. when the known world was described as divided between pagans, Arians, Greeks, and orthodox Christians. Pope Gelasius (492-496) followed in the steps of St. Ambrose of Milan and sought to define the position of the Papacy in relation to the state. He argued for power of two kinds (Two Swords):
Auctoritas, the power to make laws, rules, and decisions belongs to the Pope. Temporal states are necessary and exercise Potestas or executive power. They function to serve the higher power, i.e., the Church.
This was a revolutionary idea illustrated in various ways because the soul is more important than the body. In two sets of ideas, the basic structure of the moral superiority of the Church to the State laid the foundations of the medieval Papacy. They were enunciated when the Papacy was at a high pitch of power, and stand for a ‘vision’ and not a ‘triumph’. Whereas in the Byzantine Empire church and state were clearly enmeshed, with the armed state tending to predominate (Caesaro-Papist in outlook), in the West the position of the Church was different. It is true that the Latin Church sometimes claimed to be a theocratic church where the church claims to dominate and control the civil life of the state. But there are other mitigating factors. The Church is nor armed for one. Then Latin Christendom was complex and diverse, so that it was almost a physical and moral impossibility to establish a civil theocracy. In the 11th c. and thereafter, there were dramatic confrontations between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor, but the result was nearly always compromise. Small kingdoms, and by the 12th c. universities and towns, could play off one against the other and enlarge their liberties.
The Church
67
In the 20th-21 cc. national sovereignty is seen by some thinkers as a great handicap to international cooperation and world peace. In the medieval world, royal power found it difficult to claim sovereignty for many reasons. Among them was not merely the power of the medieval Papacy, but its insistence that kings, like other people, ought to obey divine law and natural law. But this broad outline of Papal Theory has pushed ahead of chronology.
WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO THE CHURCH IN THE SIXTH CENTURY? The prospects of the Latin Church surviving in the 6th c. were hardly brighter than in the 5th c. Italy was scarred by the Gothic Wars and the Lombard invasions. Two significant developments explained the survival of the Church. 1. The founding of the Benedictine Order at Monte Cassino soon spread to other foundations in Italy and Frankland, where these communities helped the Church to survive. 2. The end of the century saw the emergence of a great leader, Pope Gregory the Great (590-604), a Benedictine monk. He was not a great intellectual, and indeed was afraid that learning of the Classics would harm Christianity in a world swarming with pagans. But he was a man of great administrative ability and imagination, and a hard worker.
THE PONTIFICATE OF GREGORY THE GREAT Practically, Gregory reorganized the Papal Curia and the City of Rome, providing charity for the starving. His arbitration between the Lombards and the Byzantines brought peace to Italy. He pressed the
68
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Visigoths in Spain, and the Lombards in Italy to move from Arianism to the Catholic Church. He also worked hard to keep up the morale of the bishops in Frankland where there was civil war. He saw that the Church needed to recruit from Barbarian stock. Probably to help forward the idea of enlarging and re-educating the Church in peril, he wrote vigorously.
The Dialogues set down what was known about St. Benedict. The Moralia was a commentary on the Book of Job. The Book of Homilies was a collection of sermons written for simple-minded peasants. De Curia Pastorali was a book of instruction on the duty of bishops and those who served with him. It was translated into Anglo-Saxon by King Alfred the Great, and copied many times in Latin. His Collection of Letters.
Just as in a different way Justinian had tried to recover the lost provinces of Rome, so Gregory made his bid for the lost province of Britain.
THE CONVERSION OF ENGLAND By the end of the 6th c., in Britain the pagan tribes were at war with one another. England was divided into monarchies growing out of the tribal pattern. Gregory decided to send a full-scale mission under Augustine (d. 604) heading a group of 40 monks, to convert the Kingdom of Kent. This was the closest to the continent. The king, Ethelred, had married a Christian wife. The mission to South-East England landed in 597, the very year in which one of the greatest Celtic Christians died: St. Columba of Iona. So two groups were working at converting the English,
The Church
69
and given that the kingdoms were frequently at war, there was some friction between these two groups. By 664 these frictions and overlapping fields of activity necessitated the calling of a meeting, the Synod of Whitby, an outstanding landmark in both English and continental history. It was decided that the churches in England would follow the Roman pattern, for practical convenience. While it is true that the Celts were distressed, and some withdrew from the synod, others continued, and this resulted in a Celtic and Anglo-Saxon impulse to the continent. In 716 the Celtic Church decided to follow Roman practices. As far as England was concerned, we know that before 664 the Church had begun to follow the practice of setting down laws in writing. This was closely associated through the Synod with the practical business of government. Benedictine houses were founded all over the Britain, and provided an intellectual élite of a very high quality until the end of the 8th c. Some of the best scholars in this rather pathetic era emerged from England: Bede (672-735) and Alcuin (735-804). The latter was summoned by Charlemagne to his Court. There was further a good minority of men and women (like Hilda, Abbess of Whitby, 614-680) as highly educated as anyone could be at the time. Equally remarkable was the growth of literature in the vernacular. During the 7th and 8th cc. good quality poetry emerged, full of the vigour of the pagan myths, glossed over with a Christian dressing, finding preeminence in the long poem Beowolf (c. 700). The immediate consequences of the Synod of Whitby were connected with ecclesiastical organizations. Canterbury became an archbishopric so that the country had a united church structure long before any political unity. The pattern of church unity helped to educate the idea of political unity for England. But the Synod also brought to the service of the English Church—and so to the English kings—some of the best of the continentals. England became a part of an ecumenical community. The first Archbishop of Canterbury was a refugee from the Islamic advance: Theodore of Tarsus (668-690), a Greek. Other Christians came with him from North Africa,
70
Robert Ignatius Letellier
including Hadrian, the Abbot of St. Augustine’s Monastery in Canterbury, and the headquarters of the monastic educational movement.
WHAT WAS CONVERSION? WHO WAS CONVERTED? Amidst universal illiteracy and superstition, the élite accepted Christianity, something that caused confusion among ordinary people for centuries. This was, however, an illiterate society where new ideas penetrated by example and oral methods. Hence we notice in the laws how careful the Church was to try and adapt Barbarian practices because it was impossible to abolish them. We know this from various collections of popular medicines (Leechdoms) which reflect a mixture of traditional remedies, superstition and faith. The Anglo-Saxons dived at taking the new faith too their original homelands on the continent. Even before the whole of England was converted, Benedictine missionaries from England settled in European wildernesses where not even the Legions had marched before, like Frisia and Southern Germany. In the broad swing of European history, it is clear that these ‘unarmed commandos’ did excellent work. These Benedictines were scholars, who spent much of their time copying Classical and Christian manuscripts. In the case of some monastic houses, ‘good luck’ meant that they were off the beaten track of the invasions of the 9th c., and their work survived by chance. A part of the Latin poet Livy survived only because it was copied in an Anglo-Saxon hand. Of the great houses founded on the Continent in the 8th c., the most important was founded by St. Boniface of Crediton at Fulda (744), in the hope that he could spend his old age and die there. They played an important part on the reign of Charlemagne in the 9th c., and produced the great Frankish Benedictine philosopher Rhabanus Maurus (780-856). They kept alive the great traditions of Classical and Christian learning. They formed great monasteries, centres of learning, acting in communities, not as individuals.
The Church
71
There is no evidence that the Anglo-Saxons were disturbed by the Arabic invasions in Spain. If one looks back on the pattern of events in the 8th c., we can see what was affected: the re-adjustment of the balance between two different religions, Christianity and Islam. Anglo-Saxon Britain to Frisia Germany Bavaria Arabia to North Africa Spain The greatest missionary, St. Boniface (680-754), was a statesman of unusual ability: a monk, missionary, bishop, archbishop, and finally almost a legate of the Pope. He did a great deal for the ecclesiastical structure of the Continent. Particularly, aspects of Charlemagne’s work could not have been possible but for St. Boniface. There were missions in Frisia and the South-East as for as Bavaria, all non-Frankish territory. The stability the Church had provided made it easy for Charlemagne to absorb them into the Frankish realm. In the great, wild Frankland, some unification of a dicey, chancy kind was brought about by the Mayors of the Palace of Austrasia and Neustria, e.g., Charles Martel and Pepin III. The Franks defeated the Arabs at the Battle of Tours in 732, and pushed to the Mediterranean Sea. Two centuries of war and civil war had resulted in a primitive, divided state, and a demoralized Church. In 739 Charles Martel was asked by Pope Gregory III to help in fighting the Lombards and the Arabs. In the same year St. Boniface founded bishoprics at Passau, Ratisbon and Salzburg. Charles Martel died in 741, dividing his territory between his sons Carloman (Austrasia, Alemannia, Thuringia) and Pepin (Neustria, Burgundy, Provence). In 746 Carloman suddenly abdicated and retired to a monastery near Rome, leaving Pepin to rule the entire Frankish realm. St. Boniface,
72
Robert Ignatius Letellier
with the support and encouragement of Pepin, reunited the Frankish Church in 745 at the joint Synod of Neustria and Austrasia. Two years later, in 747, Charlemagne was born, the eldest son of Pepin. Intervention in Frankland followed in 751. With the permission of the Pope and agreement of the bishops, the Merovingians were retired to a convent. Pepin was crowned King of the Franks and became the founder of the Carolingian dynasty. This renewed the old partnership between the Church and the Crown and the Papacy. In 754 Pepin moved into Italy to rescue the Pope from the Lombards. He was crowned anew by the Pope. Pepin in turn bestowed on the Pope a block of land won from the Lombards from which the Papal States developed. In the same year St. Boniface, ‘the Apostle of Europe’, returned to Frisia where he was martyred.
Figure 25. Pope Gregory the Great.
The Church
Figure 26. The Mass of Gregory the Great.
Figure 27. Bede the Venerable.
73
74
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 28. Alcuin of York.
Figure 29. St. Boniface cuts the Sacred Oak.
Chapter 12
THE RISE OF ISLAM “The sword is the gate of Paradise.” (Mohammed)
When Christianity developed, it struggled for 300 years, often against persecution. It was only tolerated in the Roman Empire in 313, and became the state religion in 392. It was not an armed religion, but rather developed very closely in association with Hellenic philosophy. Moreover, after 313 the hub focused on the city of Rome. It moved more slowly among peasant and agrarian peoples. It became a militant only in the Crusading movement of 1095. Mohammed (570-632) saw himself as a prophet sent by God in succession to Jesus Christ, and launched a new religion (610) that advanced with explosive rapidity. He united the peoples of Arabia before he died in 632. Within a century of his death, there extended a great crescent of Arabic imperial power from the Pyrenees to the Bosporus. It was already beginning to thrust into the heart of Asia, and out into Africa. After 750, the Arab Empire and political unity of Islam split. By that time the Arabic language had become one of great culture, and thereafter the religion of Islam continued to spread in Africa and Asia. Today there are nearly 1.9 billion Muslims in the world.
76
Robert Ignatius Letellier
MOHAMMED AND THE RELIGION OF ISLAM In the first place, the religion as a creed is very simple and clear-cut. It requires no intellectual sophistication, It teaches a categorically simple doctrine: there is one God whose rule guides Nature and Man—Allah, who is omnipotent and omniscient. He reveals himself to the prophets and his teachings are found in the Old Testament, sometimes in the teaching of the New Testament where Jesus is also a prophet, but the greatest prophet is Mohammed. Many of the prophets have successors. Those who obey will be with God, as taught by Mohammed and set down in the Koran. This especially so if they die on the path of faith. They will have everlasting life in a heaven envisaged in terms suitable ‘for desert people’. Backsliders will go to hell. The emphasis is on monotheism and everlasting life. The social discipline imposed by the religion turned not on introspection or soul-searching but on the acceptance of a rigid social discipline. For a warrior of faith there are certain taboos (like pork and alcohol), and the application of prime duties (regular prayer, fasting at Ramadan, giving alms, making a pilgrimage to Mecca—the Haj). It is very puritanical and insistent on rigid social discipline. Providing the main rules were observed, there are certain other allowances—like polygamy and infanticide. It is a religion, passive and comforting. All that happens is the Will of God. This explains the appeal for so many people in Africa and Asia: it is about doing rather than thinking, adapted to semi-tribal patterns.
ARABIA At first sight, the huge Arabian Peninsula, three-quarters desert, seemed like stony ground for starting anew religion. Most of the central part was peopled by nomadic tribes with camels, and geared to a harsh climate with frequent wars. In the South was Arabia Felix—Yemen. Here there were more oases and grasslands, and towns of some size. Since the 5th c. this area had been conquered from Abyssinia by the Persians. To the
The Rise of Islam
77
North great caravan routes carrying gold, spices and incense, moved through Mecca and Medina to the Mediterranean ports. There were sizable small towns here, and the overland route to the Persian Gulf moved from West to East. One could say there were two Arabias: the great core of tribal nomads, and the fringe areas where trade routes between the East and the West crisscrossed for centuries. Where there is commerce of goods, there is also commerce of ideas. To know something of the structure of Arabia is to know something of the growth and structure of Islam. Mecca, the great traditional centre of paganism, was adapted, with the Kaaba (shrine of the idols) ‘converted’ onto the great centre of Muslim pilgrimage. The social disciplines imposed by the Muslim religion were in part dictated by the need to come to terms with the desert tribes who could not suddenly be changed. Some caliphs favoured the Yemen which was more sophisticated and urbanized. Other looked to the desert sheiks. The revelations of Mohammed began in 610. He gradually converted his family and clan. By 617 he was a refugee, and sought shelter in his uncle’s fort, then in Yathrib. Mohammed re-named Yathrib Medina Nah Allah, and established himself as the leader of the new faith, a secular ruler. His influence grew so much that Medina was assaulted by Mecca. After minor conflicts, there was a great battle in which Mohammed and Medina defeated Mecca. Mohammed took three dramatic steps. He sent embassies to Persia and Byzantium to demand that they should accept him as a prophet of God. Then he rounded on the Jews of Medina who had not supported him in his last great fight. He advanced on Mecca, the centre of his family and birthplace, the heart of Arabian paganism. He did not enter by force but through diplomacy. He married the aunt of a soldier of genius who might otherwise have held against him, Khalid. The Flight to Medina in 622 (the Hegira) from which Muslims date their history, and his triumphant entry into Mecca in 630, symbolized his initial achievement. He had established a new simple faith where peoples of towns and deserts found satisfaction. The pattern of social discipline kept men together. He proclaimed not a faith of peace but war:
78
Robert Ignatius Letellier “Whatever you may be, death will overtake you, even though you should be raised up in high towers.”
When he died, he had achieved a great deal. By 632 Arabia was on its way to becoming a politically integrated society, He had indicated that the path of Islam would be the faith of the sword. He died without indicating a successor, and until 750, the death of the Caliph carried the risk of a succession crisis. Within a century of his death the Arabs had altered the whole balance of power from the Pyrenees to the frontiers of China, from Antioch to the valley of the Indus.
TWO MAJOR PROBLEMS ARISE The first is how could it come about that a few desert tribes (a quarter of a million men) could conquer on such a scale? With the exception of the Mongul Empire in the 13th c., nothing so dramatic was ever to occur. Muslims would have explained the success as the will of Allah imposed by the agency of men who if they lived enjoyed victory, and if they died, salvation. Fanatical bravery also came into it, as they used neither heavy armour nor heavy weapons. They produced an outstanding general. Khalid used fast-moving troops in a war of great movement and tactical skill. Part of the explanation for the initial triumphs lay in the particular situation in the Levant at the time. Persia had been shattered at the Battle of Nineveh in 627. The Byzantines were exhausted by the long struggle with Persia. They had further alienated their subjects with crippling taxations, and spasms of persecution of the Nestorian (in Syria) and the Monophysites (in Egypt). Never had resentment against Byzantine rule been greater than in this 7th century. For their part, the Arabs in the early conquest were willing to spare people of the Book: Christians and Jews. They did not seek to convert but rather to tax and despoil. News of the relatively benevolent regime spread, city after city opened their gates for Arab occupation. In this way, by
The Rise of Islam
79
betrayal and negotiation, the Arabs walked into Damascus in 635 and in due course into Alexandria. If one turns to the provinces of the Byzantine Empire, we find that when Persia fell back to the ancient centres of Iraq, a tougher resistance took place, with great bloodshed. If one moves along the North African coast, there was an initial crumbling of resistance. The Byzantines were loathed by the Vandalic remnants. But the Berbers put up a great resistance. They were a nomadic people of similar mannerism to the Arabs. The latter now developed a different tactic: conversion and military service, or death or slavery. Most of the Berbers converted. The force which in 711 moved from North Africa into Spain was treequarter Berber, not Arabic, a factor which tremendously expanded their manpower. The first rush was led by the Berber Jebel Fariq. By 713, with some Arabian reinforcements, he had conquered the whole of Spain except Navarre and Asturias. Among the explanations of success of the conquest was the survival of divisions between Arians and Catholics, and the fact that many Jews had suffered bitterly from Catholic persecution. From Spain the armies moved into Southern Frankland. Gibbon averred that if Charles Martel had not been victorious, there would have been no Christendom. More recent opinion inclines to the view that the Saracen forces that Charles Martel confronted were not very big, and that the importance of the Battle of Tours (732) has been exaggerated. Others argue that this was the first victory of Frankish knights. The introduction of the stirrup had made the heavy cavalry charge possible. There is no conclusive proof of this. But whatever explanation is offered for the Frankish victory, it remains the case that only in 759 were the last of the Arabs, who had made a firm bid to establish themselves there, driven out of Southern France. Although halted at Byzantium and in the West, the Arabs were expanding into Asia. They were remarkably quick in learning from their adversaries. Hardly anything escaped their acquisitive minds. From the Chinese in 751 they copied the art of paper-making. Moreover, they used the camel and had no contact with sea-power, but they learned quickly from the Jews, Greeks, and Syrians of the Levant, and by 649 had
80
Robert Ignatius Letellier
conquered the island of Cyprus. In 711 they launched their third attack on Byzantium, by sea as well as land. They were beaten back for the third time in 717. However, by 750 they had recovered control of the whole of the Levantine Seas (the Eastern Mediterranean). One could say that the Arabs were excellent pirates but did not have much sense of naval strategy. Piracy and trade were clearly related in most of the bases of the North African coast (Tangiers). It was not until 827 (13 years after Charlemagne’s death) that the Arabs conquered Sicily, and became controllers of the Mediterranean seaways. There have been several great empires built up by nomadic peoples, most of them short-lived; but the Arabs contrived to hold onto most of what they won, the essential difference. Understanding the nature of their conquest and rule is important. Two phases can be discerned. In the early stages of their conquest, in the Eastern parts of Egypt, Syria and Palestine, they were content to dominate by the sword and to make a profit by plundering and taxing non-believers. They left the existing structures of government in the hands of quislings and the Arab militias who all served a basic four years. Gradually a second phase developed, an imperial style of their own. This was distinguished by a professional army equipped like the Byzantines and Persians. They seemed to have encouraged conversions resulting in a new class of mawali. These were Muslim by faith but worshipped in separate mosques. They usually provided skilled craftsmen and scholars, but were treated as second-class citizens even though the empire was largely dependent on them. Within 50 years of the Prophet’s death his recitals were set down in writing. For most Muslims this was the infallible criterion for every social, religious and intellectual aspect of life. Soon afterwards the Arabic language became the official or state language for the whole empire providing a vehicle of communication from the borders of China to Timbuktu (where there was a Muslim university). They also introduced their own coinage and began to develop the upper status of a new kind of state. Mohammed, it must be remembered, was the member of a clan, and had many wives. Most of the political quarrels in the centuries after his
The Rise of Islam
81
death were among his descendants. In Persia, the Abbasids were descended from Mohammed’s uncle. He, together with Ali, descended from his sonin-law, was supported by the Persians [the Shi’ites]. The Mawali rose in rebellion against the ruling family. They led a revolution (part family, part social, part Persian patriotism), and drove out the ruling Caliph Omayyids [the Sunni]. They disposed of every Omayyid they could find. One, however, escaped and established himself in Spain, with his centre at Cordova. Meanwhile in the East, the Abbasids made a new start, and founded a magnificent capital at Baghdad (one of the greatest commercial centres of the Muslim world.
WHAT EFFECT DID THE SPREAD OF ISLAM HAVE ON SHAPING BYZANTIUM AND ON THE SHAPING OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION? Byzantium The loss of Egypt, Palestine and Syria was final. The loss of Asia Minor was temporary. They hit back on the strength of the Byzantine reorganization of government. They came to rely, although never entirely, on the landed aristocracy to provide manpower. It is also probable that an empire exposed to some of the ideas of the Islamic world was influenced by them. A principal concept was to stop what the Muslims would have regarded as a workshop of idols—since Mohammed had forbidden making an image or icon of God or Christ. The move to destroy the images in Byzantium was a puritanical movement against superstition, and partly influenced by Islam. It caused the bitterest dissentions in the Byzantine State for centuries. The veneration of icons was banned by Emperor Constantine V and supported by his Council of Hieria (754), which had described itself as the seventh ecumenical council. The Council of Hieria was, however, overturned by the Second Council of Nicea only 33 years later (787), and thus rejected by both the Latin and Greek churches. This
82
Robert Ignatius Letellier
was one of the many things that influenced the tendency of Christian churches to drift apart since the Latin Church would not accept iconoclasm.
Spain From one point of view this is a miserable record of conquest and reconquest (reconquista). The Celts, Romans and Visigoths, and after 711 the Arab-Berber invasion of 711 by the primitive Almoravides, had each left a mark on the Iberian Peninsula. It is not easy to sum up the influence of this on Spain. In the long-run Latin was modified, but the Latin Church survived, and re-established itself in 1492. It can be confidently asserted that there was a visual impact, with the introduction of new crops and skills (like working in leather and steel). It was also manifested in the architecture and decorative arts.Spanish, like French, is based on Latin. Spanish vocabulary, and via Spanish wider European vocabulary, was considerably enriched by new words, like ‘admiral’, ‘tariff’, ‘chemist’, ‘algebra’, ‘kaffir’. There were deep-seated and less measurable consequences. Christian Europe assumed as a duty the need to re-conquer Spain from Islam. Charlemagne tried unsuccessfully. By the 11th c. armed pilgrim adventurers reinforced the little Spanish states in the North, and committed Spain to civil war—with echoes as late as 1936.The first major Christian success was the Capture of Toledo in 1085.The long conflict with bitter consequences went on longer than it needed to, and left an impress on Spanish society and the inherited attitudes of Spaniards. Leadership was taken over by the Church and the feudal aristocracy. The reward of success was land, hence the overwhelmingly over-endowed Church and aristocracy. The close association of both flowed into Spanish patriotism. One could liken Spain to a Latin Byzantium where patriotism was closely linked to both orthodoxy and the Church. If one looks at two Spaniards who more than any made their mark on European history, we see a reflection of the Spanish temperament: St. Dominic and St. Ignatius Loyola. St. Dominic in the high Middle Ages,
The Rise of Islam
83
the 13th c., founded the Dominican Order, producing scholars of great renown (St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Albert the Great). The order was put in charge of the Papal Inquisition before which heretics were questioned and tried. In the period of Reformation in the 16th c., one of the most outstanding figures was St. Ignatius Loyola. He established a mission to convert Protestants and make a stand on religious orthodoxy, to purify the dogma of the Church. He also established a world-wide mission, especially through St. Francis Xavier, to Japan and India. The re-conquest of Spain brought the West into new contacts of learning, particularly after the Capture of Toledo in 1085. At Baghdad, the centre of the Abbasid Caliphate, a great cultural exchange had taken place. Old ideas of the Ancient Greeks, newer Indian mathematics, Persian traditions and learning, provided a new corpus of knowledge. The Arabs built into this. Because the Arabic language was used throughout the Arabic world, the new learning also came to Spain. This was mainly at Toledo in the 11th c., often using Jewish scholars as translators, and on rare occasion even Spanish scholars learning Arabic or Hebrew. Latin scholarship recovered some of the lost learning of Greece, and the new learning of the East. It must be observed that during the great crises of the 7th and 8th cc. the learning of the Arabs was not apparent to the West.
Frankland and the Mediterranean World Henri Pirenne (An Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe, Mahomet et Charlemagne, 1937) altered for a time the whole approach to the pattern of history between the 5th and 9th cc. What he argued in effect was a main proposition and two subordinate ones. The break in European history did not come in the 5th c. with the Barbarians but with the Arabs who broke the unity of the Mediterranean Sea, the secret of the cultural and commercial life of the Classical world. It was Arab mastery of the Mediterranean which forced the Frankish State to fall back to the purely continental pattern of agrarian life and government. The empire of Charlemagne (768-814) coincided with economic relapse and is not a
84
Robert Ignatius Letellier
period of new beginning. This conquest of the Mediterranean and North Africa changed this Classical and Christian zone in a way that was pretty well final. One has to remember this before accepting Pirenne’s deductions. The cleavage between the old Greek East and the Latin West was older even than the Barbarian invasions in the 5th c. This was accentuated when Constantinople replaced Rome as the hub of the Roman Empire. There is good evidence that the Latin West by the 4th c. was economically stagnant, and trade was declining. Between the 4th and 8th cc. no new towns were founded, no true sign of urban renewal. Moreover, if one looks at the nature of Frankish society as shown in Salic Law, it was clearly, from the beginning, an agrarian society. If we look at Frankish politics, there were constant civil wars. And by the 7th c. the shifting of the balance of Frankish power from Neustria to Austrasia and the Rhineland suggest factors within Frankland which determined the lines of development. Finally, we must keep in mind that Frankish power spread southwards to the Mediterranean zone. Although Roman influences survived directly, they did not predominate. Pirenne drew most of his examples of trade in the 5th c. from areas where one would expect it to survive—South Frankland and the old port of Marseilles and up the Rhône Valley. There undeniably was trade in papyrus, incense, rare silks and other luxury items needed by the Church and Frankish nobility. This was important, but not a thriving commerce. And if one considers the tricky problems coinage, Philip Grierson, the numismatist, warned of the difficulties of using evidence of this kind (Dark Age Numismatics, 1979). Gold coins are evidence of plunder not trade. The fact that the Franks often put Imperial heads on coins does not prove acknowledgement of Byzantium. It is further supported by fact that that there was clearly a shortage in Frankland of the small change needed and used if there were a flourishing of trade. If we look at Pirenne’s subordination proposition, that the Frankish State, pushed back, relapsed into an agrarian pattern, then we need to think that area held by Charlemagne’s Empire was almost as great as Napoleon’s. It included within itself great diversity. When Charlemagne
The Rise of Islam
85
smashed the Avars he opened up easier land routes to Byzantium. He drove his forces down to the Northern end of the Adriatic Sea. Further, Byzantium regained control of the Eastern Mediterranean. We know from some of the decorative art in Charlemagne’s buildings that Syrian and other craftsman made their way to Frankland. The great Caliph of Baghdad Harun al-Rashid further gave Charlemagne the present of an elephant. Undoubtedly, trade with the Mediterranean was dislocated by Arab (Saracen) pirates. But to picture Charlemagne’s Empire as stagnating in agrarian isolation makes no sense. The importance of an epoch in history, its social structures and aspirations, clearly has some relationship to economic resources. The isolation and self-containment of Charlemagne’s Empire tends to be distorted by economic historians. One must also take a number of other facets into account in looking at his realm. It gave ‘Frankish Peace’ to a vast area, and Charlemagne himself has been called ‘the Architect of Europe’. Despite all the failings, he did his best to build on the on the work of St. Boniface. He attempted what was perhaps impossible, the building of a civilized Christian state. In the dreadful chaos of the 9th c. (with Vikings, Arabs, Slavs, and Magyars), the myth and vision of Charlemagne’s Empire remained as an inspiration in perhaps the bleakest patch in Europe’s history.
Figure 30. Mohammed receiving revelation from Gabriel.
86
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 31. Mohammed in Arabic.
Chapter 13
CHARLEMAGNE The Frankish Empire was peculiar. It was not like the nomadic empires. In the case of the Huns and the Avars, these folded up easily, with no system of rule unless another factor comes into play, as with the Arabs. There had been two Arabias, and their empire owed a great deal to the provinces of Byzantium and Persia which they took over. The dynamic force of a new religion held them together. The Arabs were transformed by their own empire. If we look ahead to the 13th c., there is a similar example in the Mongol (Tartar) Empire. It ruled over areas from Peking across to the fringes of Europe. It owed a great deal to the conquered Chinese Empire. The Frankish Empire was very different from the Roman Empire. This had been draped around the Mediterranean Sea, whereas the Frankish State was continental. The Roman Empire was a highly developed urban civilization, with an age-old culture, Latinized and rational with a system of law. Three hundred years separate the death of Charlemagne from the death of Clovis. During that period, the Classical tradition as a living and working basis had disappeared. Something of the vacuum had been filled by the Church struggling against appalling odds. The basis of economic life (in spite of river trade) was agrarian. The little gold coinage
88
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Charlemagne made was for foreign trade. Government was largely personal, and although Frankish kings were accepted, different areas were governed by different nobles, recognized as counts. The real assets of the Frankish monarchy were:
Manpower and warrior traditions which came alive at the Battle of Tours (732). Vast areas of land belonged to the Crown, and if necessary, the king with a peripatetic court could consume the land. Some of the land was allocated to trusted warriors who would maintain horse soldiers, usually vassals, sworn to be faithful to him. He held the land firstly on set conditions, and secondly that the grant was for life only. This was not a feudal system. Even the Church was required to provide a quota of warriors. There was a very old Frankish custom that every free Frank was obliged to keep for himself a complete set of armour, and to parade it if necessary once a year (the May Field). It meant that whenever the King planned a campaign, he had the basis of an army. When he went to war, he went with a host of man and vast provisions. For what we would call administration, he relied partly on the counts and partly on a traditional assembly of ‘Free Franks’ in a meeting traditionally known as the Thing. In due course, he relied upon the bishops in their dioceses, inventing a new kind of official, the prototype of an ‘inspector’, the missi dominici. Their job was to take Charlemagne’s orders to the Thing, the counts etc. and see that every Frank whatever his rank was doing his duty.
The Romans would have called this a caricature of a state. But while Charlemagne lived, it worked well. It was an excellent example of adapting means to an end.
Charlemagne
89
CHARLEMAGNE’S CONQUESTS If an empire is the rule over territories conquered or assimilated, then Charlemagne was emperor long before being crowned. But his coronation was recognition of this, and did not create the situation. There was hardly a year of peace in his reign from 768 to 814. He inherited a fairly united Frankland, and clinched his position by putting Carloman in a monastery. He became the sole ruler of a state that had just discovered a new weapon—the mounted warrior. Charlemagne’s first move was traditional. He interfered in Italy to save the Pope from the Lombards, just as Pepin III had done before him. He had himself crowned as King of Lombardy, and pulled into the Kingdom of Italy those areas the Lombards had conquered from the Greeks (the Exarchate of Ravenna). Charlemagne saw the strategic importance of the line of the Danube. When the Duke of Bavaria (Tassilio) was non cooperative, he annexed the territory to the Frankish State. For about a half-century, both the Frankish realm and Byzantine Empire suffered from the raids of the Avars. In a massive campaign, Charlemagne broke the Avars and seized their king. The destruction of the Avars provided a new kind of security to Europe, and enriched the realm of the Franks. He made lavish presents to other European potentates. In the world of facts it is doubtful about what reputedly happened when Charlemagne invaded Spain (778). It seems that he intervened in Muslim politics. It is certain that a force no bigger than a commando, including some of his best commanders (Roland, Oliver, Bishop Turpin) were caught in a rear-guard action. This occasion generated one of the dramatic legends about Charlemagne, and inspired minstrel poets in the 12th c. to produce the great epic, the Chanson de Roland (1130-1170). The poem raises the problem between knowing what took place, and what people thought took place. Perhaps the role of history is to cut through the myths to clear one’s understanding. The net result of the campaign was clear, the sealing off of the Mediterranean end of the Pyrenees by creating the Spanish Mark or
90
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Marche, a strongly fortified barrier zone in the hands of selected troops to guard the frontier. Charles Martel and Pepin III had long struggled to master Frisia, and opened in turn another frontier with the Saxons, from the Rhine across the Weser to the Elbe. Conflicts with the Saxons began as reprisals. From these developed full-scale wars that lasted for 20 years. The Saxons put up a magnificent resistance. Charlemagne’s first attempt to consolidate victory was barbarism—conversion or death. Attempts at conversion by force provoked a bitter retaliatory barbarism. Alcuin seems to have taken the line that it is impossible to convert by brute force. From a policy of extermination Charlemagne moved to a process of acculturation. More was made of founding monasteries and churches, with die-hards removed to other parts of the Empire. These conquests followed a traditional Frankish pattern. The Eastern frontier had been hammered for generations. Charlemagne moved into areas where Roman power had never penetrated, giving a new kind of shape to a new kind of Europe. Towards the end of his reign he was left with a final problem: we find him vigorously at the head of the Adriatic (Venice). No one knows if he intended to cut across to Byzantium.
Figure 32. Charles Martel.
Charlemagne
91
Figure 33. The Battle of Tours, 732.
CHARLEMAGNE’S IDEAS ABOUT GOVERNMENT Was Charlemagne a Barbarian or a stage above? Many (like J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Barbarian West 400-1000, 1952) have seen him as a Barbarian. More recently he has been perceived as a man whose official vision was original and creative. Was his difficulty the attempt to carry it though, or the actual situation he faced? On the whole he was the force behind the remarkable achievement. Though much of it was destroyed in the 9th c., the legend and much of the cultural achievement survived. Charlemagne gathered around him the most learned men of the time from Italy and England. He chose as his capital Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) in Austrasia, near the frontiers, and with hot water baths. Backed by scholars (especially Alcuin), he made his palace the centre of an attempted intellectual revival. Other centres as famous as Aachen were Tours, Utrecht and Fulda. The Frankish Kingdom had been largely based on family traditions. The office was also sanctified by coronation. Charlemagne had a new idea of kingship. He regarded himself as holding a divine office, and to rule ‘by the grace of God’. He was a conscious innovator, not just content with setting down custom. He held solemn debates with wise man and issued
92
Robert Ignatius Letellier
capitularies although not systematically, without exaggerating their importance. He had the idea that it was the King’s right to change laws and regulations and “to announce our will to our people.” If the capitularies are analyzed, they are found to deal with all types of business.
Regarding his enormous private estates, he discussed manors, explaining how accounts are to be kept, salaries, the amount they were expected to yield. These were important since they yielded his chief source of income. He expected other landowners to follow the pattern he set. He dealt with the duties of the Thing, the duties of the counts, the duties of the bishops. He set out a programme of inquiry to be followed by all the missi domenici. There are interesting instructions in economics. He sought to stabilize the coinage. The silver solidus was established and remained current for a long time. There was a limited amount of gold coinage for foreign trade. He introduced regulations to control fairs and limit throngs of people. In times of scarcity he limited the price of corn. He controlled a vast area with its own internal trade and a trickle of external commerce. Naturally, he dealt with the business of mustering armies in times of campaigns and how to organize the campaign overall. He had, because of the times, to use land as a ‘counter’. Those who served him were rewarded with land. While he lived, especially in his 10 last years, he enforced three important rules: Holding of land depended on proper performance of duties for which the land was given. Grants of land (fiefs, benefices) were for life only, and not automatically hereditary. He would not allow any of the counts to usurp the jurisdiction of the Thing and the powers of the Crown.
Charlemagne
93
It would seem that Charlemagne was trying to build with primitive resources a pattern of government and range of jobs a king should undertake. Not since Theodoric in Italy had these ideas been really operating in Western Europe.
THE CAROLINGIAN RENAISSANCE More difficult is the question of the Carolingian Renaissance. One must ask what, if anything, was reborn? One can say that there was a general revival of interest in learning? The arts, and scholars at Court show some clear traces of involvement with Classical writers (Einhard studied Suetonius). There was much interest in the writings of the Early Church Fathers (Jerome, Augustine). It would be wise to understand the Carolingian Period as an amalgam, trying to make something new out of something old. The new learning was led by ecclesiastics, and the finest products of the period were associated with the Church. Though many able men were working for Charlemagne, the most outstanding was Alcuin who gave it something of a pattern. There were specific hallmarks:
An artistic reform of handwriting, Carolingian Miniscule, the basis of modern printing. A drive to collect, collate and purify the text of the Vulgate and the Liturgy. A drive to multiply the number of copies of the Bible available because Charlemagne agreed with Alcuin that the Bible was the source of all wisdom. There was a multiplication of copies of writers like Cassiodorus and Boethius, and the idea of developing the Seven Liberal Arts. Every effort was made in to increase the number of manuscripts in the libraries of cathedrals and monasteries.
94
Robert Ignatius Letellier
There was an organization of cathedral and palace schools. He dreamed that in every parish a priest would teach the children of the parish.
It is clear that at Court and in other centres there was lively discussion of points of doctrine. Alcuin supported the notion of the Latin Church as true custodian of Biblical and ecclesiological truth, and iconoclasm was rejected. One of the reasons why the Latin Church was not iconoclastic was the fact that visual aids were necessary to help ignorant people. Charlemagne did not hesitate to introduce a new clause into the NiceneConstantinopolitan Creed (the filioque: that the Holy Spirit descends from the Father and the Son) which led to a near rupture with East. Alcuin and his co-workers were very keen on discussing matters of theory. They helped to elaborate new ideas of the functions and duties of a king. They asserted that there were three powers: the Papacy, the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) and Charlemagne. Alcuin argued that Charlemagne as ruler of the Christian people “was more excellent on power then the others.” Every man, cleric and layman had to take a personal and overriding oath of allegiance to Charlemagne. There was a great deal of activity in the artistic world, not so much in the erection of great buildings. The survival of Aachen Cathedral nevertheless shows the blending of Roman and Greek styles. Most of the best work of the Carolingians in Charlemagne’s time and in the 9th c. survived in bookbinding, ivory carving, and illumination of manuscripts. One sees clearly the use of human figures in the illustration of Bible stories. If one tries to express the meaning of the whole movement, it can be seen as the beginning of a new European culture of Germanic Barbarianism, with traces of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon influences, but strongly and officially Christian in outlook. Not only geography makes us describe Charlemagne as ‘the Architect of Europe’, but also the emergence of new ideas and characteristic Western institutions; namely the idea of civilized monarchy which dominated European thinking until the 17th c. The movement was very important in the broad pattern of European history because not many cultural achievements survived the bleak 9th c.,
Charlemagne
95
with further emperors standing for peace and restraint. Here we have the blending of a sort of Barbarian–warrior type with the ideals of the Church and the popular image of Charlemagne which survived, rather than the dignified picture presented by his biographer Einhard (770-840) in Vita Karoli Magni (c.820). What lived on in popular songs and legends turned the dramatic defeat at Ronçevalles into a kind of Crusading episode so that in the Song of Roland written in the vernacular French of the 12th c. Charlemagne appears in Crusading armour conducting a war of the Cross against Islam.
Figure 34. The Song of Roland.
96
Robert Ignatius Letellier
THE CORONATION OF CHARLEMAGNE IN 800 One thing emerges clearly from Charlemagne’s crowning as Emperor: it was the first time since 476 that there was an emperor on the West. Moreover the coronation was resented by Byzantium for two reasons. The Eastern Empire disliked ‘the new theology of the West’; and the theorists and lawyers in Constantinople argued that there was one indivisible Empire. Byzantium pretended since the 5th c. that it was the capital city of the whole of Christendom. The fiction was now challenged, and for 12 years Byzantium would not admit that Charlemagne had an Imperial title. At one point Charlemagne’s counts attacked Dalmatia and Venice. Some have wondered whether Charlemagne toyed with the idea of attacking Byzantium. We know that there was a papal theory of the primacy of the Church, and that the Gelasian theory of Two Swords was highly developed. In practice, the power of the Papacy was at zero. There is no clear evidence that the coronation of 800 was a planned demonstration of papal superiority. By the 11th c. the Popes were reading back into it ideas which did not exist at the time. It is more valid to argue that when Pope Leo III (795-816) crowned Charlemagne, it was in recognition of fact, and a partial gesture of separation from the Byzantine fusion of Church and State. Whatever the theory, in practice Charlemagne’s ideas about government and succession to the realm did not alter. He described himself as “Charles Augustus, crowned of God, great and pacific Emperor governing the Roman Empire and similarly by the grace of God, King of the Franks and the Lombards.” What the coronation was to mean would be how history would work out, and how popes and emperors would interpret the situation to their own advantage. The modern view is to regard the Carolingian Empire as a half-way experiment between the old Roman Empire and what was later the Holy Roman Empire (962-1806). The Carolingian Empire is important because of the ideas behind it and the way it captured peoples’ imaginations as a Golden Age in a grim 9th c.
Charlemagne
97
THE BREAKUP OF CHARLEMAGNE’S EMPIRE The disintegration of the Carolingian Empire in the 9th c. stemmed from two factors: the weakness inherent in its structure; and how these faults in structure were accentuated in circumstances of external disaster. The Empire covered a vast area in which many different regions and sub-cultures held sway by the power and personality of one (like Saxony and Bavaria). The apparatus which Charlemagne had to control the state was relatively primitive. It depended on his own vigour and the loyalty of his counts. The evidence is that in the last 10 years when he was no longer active there was a great deal of restlessness in the Carolingian Empire. Frankish succession law militated against keeping a vast realm together. In the early part of Louis the Pious’s reign (814-840), the grandsons of Charlemagne began to conspire against their father, and at one stage he was kidnapped. He was released only in 834 after a long and dangerous crisis in which event the Church in Germany was divided. Louis was not a great warrior, and we owe it to him that so much of the Carolingian Renaissance survived. His death in 840 left the stage open for major civil war between Lothaire the eldest, Charles the Bald, and Louis the German. The really major conflict in which Lothaire (theoretically senior and emperor) was defeated was at the Battle of Fontenoy (843). It was decided to make a complete partition of the realm. The Western part fell to Charles the Bald, the Eastern part to Louis the German. The treaty was in three languages (Latin, embryonic French and embryonic German). The whole area along the Rhine, over the Alps into Italy became the middle Kingdom of Lotharingia. In terms of wealth, trade, culture, this was the richest third. There were no defined edges. Both neighbours nibbled away and by the end of the 10th c. Lotharingia had almost disappeared except for a small duchy (later called Lorraine). Of equal seriousness was that the Rhine became the great highway down which the Viking ships would come. The breaking up of the vast realm into three components might in theory have helped the development of strong government in each. Fontenoy could have meant a new start. But external pressures came into play. On the Eastern frontier there were constant attacks from Slav peoples.
98
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Sometime the middle kingdom suffered not only from the Vikings, but also from Saracen pirates based in North Africa. The worst victim was undoubtedly France and Frisia. The famous cloth-weaving town of Dorstede was destroyed by the Vikings. They came up the Seine and occupied Paris. Their first targets were monasteries and cathedrals where there was no armed resistance and rare treasure to be found. Only in the heart of Germany, off the beaten track, did monasteries and libraries survive. Europe was almost re-barbarized. Given the two prime factors— that the successors of Charlemagne in France were weak and ineffective, and that no man’s life or property were safe from attack—a kind of organized anarchy grew up. Counts who once held land conditionally and for life only, became the centres of resistance. In the process, though the theory of royal power remained, in practice the counts retained forces, built castles, began to mint their own coins and to usurp the juridical rights and powers of the Crown. Royal power disintegrated. What made the situation worse, was when not attacked from the outside, each count tried to build up power by fighting his neighbour. War always reacts on the society that wages them. The transformation which took place was not the breakdown of royal power, but the nearcompletion of a process already begun, Such free villages as there were offered up part of their lands to the nearest lord, and undertook to serve him, while he undertook to try and protect them. This did not mean the full loss of freedom but went a long way to complete it. Because the Church itself suffered so heavily, though it tried to make peace (the ‘Truce of God’ called at Lent), it too suffered because the nobility stuck its own relatives in as abbots and began to undermine the whole existence of the Church. Curiously, 911 saw the greatest blow the French Crown had taken: the loss of Normandy to Rollo the Viking. He tricked his way into Burgundy in 910. A new monastic order was founded by the Cluny family who wished to free the Church from the clutches of Feudalism (910). This was a Church which began to recover morale, so much so that in 987 it decided that Hugh Capet, Count of Paris, should be King of France. His descendants made the state of France. St. Odilo of Cluny (962-1048) conceived the notion of the Peace and Truce of God (Pax et Treuga Dei). This became a movement
Charlemagne
99
in the Middle Ages led by the Catholic Church and the first mass peace movement in history. The goal of both the Pax Dei and the Treuga Dei was to limit the violence of feuding endemic to the western half of the former Carolingian Empire—following its collapse in the middle of the 9th c.— using the threat of spiritual sanctions. The eastern half of the former Carolingian Empire did not experience the same collapse of central authority, and neither did England. The Peace of God was first proclaimed in 989, at the local Council of Charroux. It sought to protect ecclesiastical property, agricultural resources and unarmed clerics. The Truce of God, first proclaimed in 1027 at the local Council of Toulouges, attempted to limit the days of the week and times of year that the nobility engaged in violence. The movement survived in some form until the 13th c. Other strategies to deal with the problem of violence in the western half of the former Carolingian Empire included the concept of Chivalry and the proclamation of the Crusades.
Figure 35. The Coronation of Charlemagne.
100
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 36. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Renaissance.
Figure 37. Charlemagne Reliquary.
Chapter 14
THE VIKINGS “The Scandinavians have nothing to contribute to European civilization.” (Norman Cantor, Medieval History, 1963)
Alcuin had identified the three powers of the Papacy in Rome, the Eastern Roman Empire at Byzantium, and Frankland at Aachen. Looking back, one can accept Alcuin’s judgment on this position, with a new Europe in the making. This was now under attack from all sides. In the 9th c. the Latin Kingdom was subjected to appalling strains (like the break-up of the Carolingian State). It was assaulted on every side, and the most effective and destructive attacks were from the Vikings. It would not have been surprising if the Latin Kingdom had crumbled, but it did not. It met the challenges with tenacity. In fact, it imposed its religion and ways of life on the Vikings. In the 11th c. it found within itself new vigour and great resolution. This was in part possibly due to the nature of the challenges: in fact, according to Arnold Toynbee, the Latin Kingdom “made the kind of response which modified in its turn the ways in which the leaders of Europe spoke and acted.” There are many things we do not know about the Vikings. Theories abound about the vik prefix (Old Norse, meaning a ‘creek’ or ‘inlet’). Nor is it known why the raids started, and when they did. It is probable that in each of the three countries of origin (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) there
102
Robert Ignatius Letellier
were political changes taking place which some would not accept, and went to look for new lands. What we do know can on analysis be reduced to three broad factors. We know that in the 2nd c. AD peoples of the Scandinavian continent made contact with the Mediterranean. They possessed a form of writing (runes). At first they were associated in popular belief with magic. By the 9th c. they were freely used for inscriptions and memorials. These people were not literate in any general sense of the word. They did not have a literature but a fund of legends, sagas and folklore. Even if much weight is given to Philip Grieson’s argument/warning, one can state that there was trade between the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean. There is evidence of glassware from the 2nd c. originating only from the Roman West. A quantity and distribution of Roman coins along the Baltic coast cannot be ignored. There seems to have been a break in contact during the period of Barbarian invasions. We do know that they had a highly developed material culture. Archaeology has made it possible to trace something of their invention of ship-building. Drawings of ships on rocks have been found. Excavations have revealed a ship of the 1st c. without keel. By the 9th c. they were producing magnificent long-ships, with keel, rudder, mast, and sails. They voyaged as far as North America (Vinland). The Saxons knew nothing of masts and rudders. We know from excavations that they were townspeople and artisans skilled in the working of wood and metal. They travelled by sledge and cart. They knew little of social patterns apart from some functions like state funerals for leaders. We learn a fair amount from written accounts which fall into two categories:
The unflattering comments of victims. Accounts written sometimes by Arab travellers.
The Vikings
103
Other descriptions can be found in insertions made by King Alfred of Wessex in the translation of the Historia adversus paganos (History of the World) by the Spanish historian of the early 5th c. Orosius. A different kind of evidence emerged by c. 1000 when much of Scandinavia and Iceland had been converted to Christianity. This was followed by the setting down in writing of minstrel songs. It is very difficult for specialist handling of evidence of that kind to determine in the first place how old legends and stories were, and to what extent they were made respectable and literate by those who put them into writing. The kind of picture that emerges is a fascinating one, providing a fairly good picture of the ideal Viking, searching for immortality in the great halls of Valhalla for those who died a hero’s death. Considerable importance was attached to achieving a reputation for bravery, good comradeship, generosity, and the care for the honour of one’s family: “cheerful and active until death” (Hávámal, the Words of Othin). Hávamál is a group of poems from the book Snorra Edda. They are at least 1000 years old, and were probably begun much earlier, as a part of an oral tradition. ‘Hávamál’ means “the words of the high one”, the Norse god Óðinn [Othin]. One is looking at a people with a high material culture but whose first impact on Europe was destructive. If we take the Viking period as c. 793 (the attack on Lindisfarne) to 1000 (the official conversion of Iceland), by which time most of Scandinavia had also converted, one must try to remember that their countries of origin Norway, Denmark, Sweden, were also changing. Within a few years of 1000 the King of Denmark ruled over an empire including most of Scandinavia and Ireland, with England as a colony. Assessing the Viking impact is not simple.
FRANCE AND THE CONTINENT Here the impact was entirely destructive, especially after they began wintering on the Continent. This robbery by sea and land demoralized the Church and led to a loss of kingly or royal control all over France, and the
104
Robert Ignatius Letellier
seizure of power and justice by the counts. Only after 911, when Rollo the Viking was bought off by the King of France, did the situation alleviate. The King gave him Normandy and the Vexin on condition that he did homage and became a Christian. Lotharingia also suffered very badly. It seems that Frisia which had developed a flourishing cloth trade was perhaps the worst victim in the early stages.
THE BRITISH ISLES In Ireland the Celtic civilization which had been so famous in the 6th, 7th and 8th cc. was hammered almost to the point of extinction. In the longrun, Norwegian Vikings founded key towns (including Dublin), accepted conversion, but gave virtually nothing to Ireland except some commercial contacts. The Scots also suffered. Indeed, the Western part of Scotland was often held by Scandinavians until the 13th c. (Orkney) with reinforcements from the national monarchies of Scandinavia. Only in the 15th c. was Orkney ceded to Scotland as the dowry of a Norwegian princess. In the case of England, the rich culture of Northumbria was almost destroyed and a total conquest by the Danes averted only by the heroic resistance of King Alfred of Wessex. By 878 he was strong enough to make a treaty of partition with the Danes. England was divided into two along the line of the old Celtic-Roman Watling Street. The Northern half, by the Treaty of Wedmore became known as the Danelaw. The price that Alfred exacted was that they should become Christian. From that point until 1035, sometimes the Saxons rallied, sometimes the Danish. They took the place of the Vikings and invaded England. It is not possible to sum up the clearly the influence of the Vikings on the course of English history because their raids eventually merged into Danish foreign policy. What is inescapable is the appalling destruction on the North of England before 878. The creative response of Alfred the Great swung the centre of English power to the South. His reign is associated with the attempt to restore the Church and create a deliberately Saxon literature and educated élite (with translations of Boethius, Gregory the Great’s De Cura
The Vikings
105
Pastorali, and Orosius’ The History of the World with its references to the Viking voyages). The writing of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle provided the chief source of the history of this period. It has been suggested on the evidence of William the Conqueror’s Domesday Book (1085-1086) that there were more freemen in the Danelaw than in the South. It could be suggested that the Danish settlement meant new infusion of freemen. The Danelaw clearly has some influence on the shaping of the English language. Place names show clearly the extent of the Danish settlement.
THE VIKING VOYAGES What excited even contemporary interest were the Viking ventures into the Northern and Western waters which led to the settlements of Iceland, Greenland, and even the first European discovery of North America. The history of Iceland fascinates for a number so reasons. One finds there the typical Nordic institutions. The local Thing was one of the first parliaments, the Althing a meeting of representatives of all the Things. In 1000 it past the laws converting society to Christianity. It was Snorri Sturluson (1179-1241), an Icelandic magistrate, who was mainly responsible for setting down in writing so much of Viking tradition in the great sagas. Much of our understanding of the Vikings and their culture comes from these sagas. Snorri wrote the Prose Edda and the Heimskringla (History of the Norwegian Kings), invaluable sources for Norse mythology and history. The Edda is the richest treasure trove of Norse mythology—starting with a creation myth, passing through the struggle of the gods, giants, dwarves, and elves for survival and supremacy, and ending in the Ragnarok, a final all-engulfing battle wherein the world itself is destroyed.
106
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Iceland was the starting point of voyages to Southern Greenland, and thence to North America where pioneers encountered native people like the Red Indians. There may well be reason why there was no permanent settlement. For many years the story that they had discovered a new land across the ocean (Vinland) was thought to be a fiction, but traces of Nordic settlement were found on Labrador Island. Traces of larch wood were found in Greenland and it is thought that it could only have been imported from America. In the late 20th c. a map whose age is disputed but reputedly from the 14th c., shows Iceland, Greenland and America centuries before Christopher Columbus’s voyage of 1492.
THE VIKINGS IN RUSSIA The lines of trade between the Baltic and the Mediterranean had existed in Roman times, but North-South lines had been neglected during the long years of Barbarian invasion. The Swedes re-opened and settled that route using the line from the River Neva. They placed a new stockade town at Novgorod. They then moved to the River Dnieper which flows into the Black Sea. There were several accounts of this from Byzantium and Arab merchants. They traded with wax, furs and honey. More than once there were threatened clashes between the Varangians (as they were called) and the Byzantines. In many ways the rule the chieftain Rurik imposed on the Slavonic people in Russia is similar to what happened in the West. (He was of the Varangian tribe Rus, founded Novgorod in 862, and died in 879; his descendants ruled Russia until 1598.) The intervening factor was the Christian Church at Byzantium, from where in 989 the Varangian Prince of the city of Kiev was officially converted. The impact of Byzantium on Kiev was most marked. From the Byzantines the Russians derived a written language, religion and culture. This was so much so that that to this day the finest remains of Byzantine culture in Russia are in Kiev, the first capital of Russia, put out of action by the Tartar invasions of the 13th c. It is true that there were layers of preChristian culture in Russia as in the rest of Europe. If one thinks of the
The Vikings
107
country as having patterns of government and stability, then Russian history can be said to begin with the foundation of Kiev (9th c.). Kiev was not only important for the conjunction of trade between the Baltic and the Black Seas, but also for the trickle of trade from East to West by caravan.
WHAT DID THE VIKINGS CONTRIBUTE? If one thinks of Russia as far as the Ural Mountains as being the close cousins of the Latin and Teutonic West, then clearly the foundation of Old Russia at Kiev was important. In recent times A. R. Lewis in his book The Northern Seas (1958) has attributed the revival of commerce in the East in the late 10th and early 11th cc. to Viking enterprise. Many have been uneasy about accepting this. It is difficult to separate definite piracy from trade. It is easy to run both together thinking the Vikings as sea-raiders. But the kingdoms from whence they came did themselves change. By the 10th c. these kingdoms were beginning to be consolidated with their own trade. It was conversion to Christianity and settlement that made trade possible. Although we know that the Vikings undertook vast ocean voyages, Europe’s trade by the 11th c. was not oceanic but coastal or alluvial. A growing school of thinkers argue that the Nordic contribution to Western civilization is much greater than the vaunted Classical convention. Attention in particular to Icelandic literature and Norse myths passed into the lore of Europe. One can see the importance of Nordic literature and still point out that this influence was in part owing to conversion to the Christian Church and its drive to commit things to writing. Even if a favourable balance sheet can be reckoned, one cannot ignore the tragedy of the 9th c. and the impact of the savage raids on Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Carolingian learning. The most that can be said is that conversion of the Viking settlers was a European feat. The Viking numbers were small in proportion to their might. It is impossible to tell if their absorption into European stock or the exhilaration of having triumphed explains the new advances and successes of Europe in the 11th c.
108
Robert Ignatius Letellier Scandinavia Iceland Greenland North America Britain Ireland
to
to Frisia
Normandy
Slavs Magyars
Novgorod Kiev Black Sea Byzantium
Islam
Figure 38. Viking long ship.
The Vikings
Figure 39. Viking voyages.
Figure 40. The Vinland map.
109
110
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 41. King Alfred the Great.
Figure 42. Snorri Sturluson.
Chapter 15
THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE If one looks at Christendom in the 10th c., even the map shows clearly the emergence of new points of growth in the Germanic third of the old Carolingian Empire. Here, when the last Carolingian died in 911, the great dukes and princes chose one of themselves as king. In 936, the architect of Germany, namely Otto the Great, was elected. If we try to measure the violence of the Vikings’ impact on Europe, we must admit that Germany suffered less than any other part of Christendom, so we should not exaggerate the role of the Vikings. From the coronation of Otto in Rome in 962 develops one of the central institutions of the Middle Ages—the Holy Roman Empire, lasting more as fiction than as fact until 1806.
SOME OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE MEDIEVAL EMPIRE IN GENERAL TERMS In the study of the Medieval Empire, the perennial problem is always how to relate the ideal to the actuality. Both the ideal and the Empire are important. James Bryce (The Holy Roman Empire, 1864) tended to see the Empire rather as an ideal, an attempt to implement the Gelasian theory of the Two Swords. He saw the Empire as standing for the unity of
112
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Christendom, sometimes balancing, sometimes opposing the spiritual power of the Papacy. He made the Empire almost the symbol of European unity, perhaps a militant Christendom. The tendency of more recent work concentrates on the reality of power. Geoffrey Barraclough (The Medieval Papacy, 1968) stresses that even the name or title is misleading. 1. Until 1034 the term ‘Roman’ was not used. 2. Only in 1157 did Barbarossa insert the term ‘Holy’, wanting to emphasize that he held the Empire from God, not the Pope. 3. The full title dates from 1254, ironically the beginning of a period when there was no Emperor at all (the Great Interregnum). 4. By the 15th c., when men were more realistic, the descriptive title reflected this realism: “The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.” In that guise the Empire was Germanic rather than a European institution. It gave a shadow entity to the German people until 1806. Even in 1806 the Empire had a certain prestige in Europe, like an ancient monument. In all treaties the Emperor signed first, in all processions he moved first. It is not easy to solve the riddles/problems presented by the Empire. Some can be emphasized: 1. The idea of what the First Reich was exercised great influence on the imaginations of the Germans. A study of history was part of the propaganda for unity. German patriots looked back to the First Reich for inspiration. 2. Bismarck, the creator of Germany’s Second Reich, knew that all Germans would understand him when, during his quarrel with Pope Pius IX (from 1871-77), he summed up the history of 800 years when he said, “We will not go to Canossa.”
The Holy Roman Empire
113
Another interesting facet is that probably the greatest period of German achievement was in the 13th c., when in art and commerce they were quite outstanding, and one notices a great expansion of the German people to Eastern Europe, especially in the crusading movements of the Teutonic Knights and the Knights of the Sword. There was a deliberate founding of towns and development of the silver mines in Bohemia. By the end of the 13th c., after 20 years of Interregnum, the Emperor was so weak that he had little power over the whole Germany at all. The real centres of dynamic achievement from the second half of the 13th c. lay in the principalities and cities of Germany. There was no central state which could coordinate all efforts, whereas by the end of the 15th c., smaller and less important countries like England, France and Spain had formed themselves into some kind of nation-state. Germany had all the vitality but no central coordination. There were many different reasons advanced for this phenomenon: 1. The nature of German kingship persisted in remaining elective because dynasties were always running out. 2. Another factor was the great size of Germany at a time when the apparatus of government was rather primitive. 3. In retrospect, it would seem that the fascination of the Imperial title and the idea of the Empire as standing for the temporal power of the whole of Christendom led to too much pre-occupation with the politics of Italy and confrontation with the Papacy. It may be that this had advantages for Germany at the time when much of Europe’s trade moved over the passes of the Alps. It almost certainly was to the advantage of Christendom/Europe. 4. The Papacy had undoubtedly great and noble concepts of what ought to be, but as its organization developed ahead of any other institution in Europe, a point was reached by the early 13th c., if not earlier, when its great power, intelligence, and structure might have stifled all the other growing points of Europe. One is reminded of the great dictum of Lord Acton: “Power tends to
114
Robert Ignatius Letellier corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Historical Essays and Studies, Appendix).
Was the Medieval Empire regarding itself as the temporal leader of a Christendom that was strong enough to take a stand against the Papacy, and to assert, for instance, the rights as well as the duties of the secular power? In the great duel between the Popes and the Emperors what took place was not a crude feud, but a great debate about political obligation. Because of this debate, smaller institutions like towns, cities, universities which might have been snuffed out or ruthlessly controlled if either side had been completely triumphant, were able to establish themselves. And in European history, what has been able to distinguish Europe from Russia, has been the preservation of diversities, as distinct from total uniformity in Russia. It is possible to go further and argue that in the sorting and sifting of challenging ideas that emerged in the later Middle Ages, there also surfaced, even if only theoretically, the vital idea of the importance of testing power as a means and not as an end, and respect for the individual ‘person’—which is also characteristic of Europe at its best. It is arguable that if medieval practice had matched the best of medieval theories, a close approximation to the perfect society would have been achieved.
OTTO THE GREAT The German third of the Carolingian Empire, roughly between the Elbe and the Rhine, suffered little from the Vikings. Its social structure was not badly disrupted. There were five clearly demarcated duchies, each of which had its own regional history, traditions, folklore. This was particularly so with Saxony and Bavaria. Because of local associations, these duchies are called ‘stem’ duchies. It is certainly true that Otto the Great installed one of his relatives as duke, not as the policy of the family, but because of the local attitude of the duchy. It was quite difficult to act as king in Germany: The five major dukes of Lorraine, Saxony, Franconia,
The Holy Roman Empire
115
Swabia and Bavaria were all roughly equal in power. When they elected one of their number as king, it was a position of prestige rather than one of increased power, a primus inter pares. He owed his prestige to his patronage over the Church, to personal valour and ability. In this respect, Otto was fortunate. He was a soldier and strategist of some ability, He had the support of the Church at the very point when the great monastic reforms were making the Church more important than before—the Cluniac movement and the great revival of Benedictine monasticism in Lorraine (910). The key archbishopric was probably Cologne, and Otto’s brother Bruno was appointed to this see. The first problems confronting Otto were obvious frontier ones. In the North-East there was Slav pressure on the Elbe frontier. In a great series of campaigns, Otto established German supremacy between the Elbe and the Oder. To conquer was one thing, to hold another. In this he followed the devices of Charlemagne, and divided the whole area from the Baltic Sea to the Danube, between the Elbe and the Oder, into a series of ‘Marks’—large, strong blocks of territory under the military rule of a great commander. The Nordmark would become Brandenburg. In the SouthEast the danger lay in the Magyars of Hungary who had thrust right up into the Danube Valley. The great Battle of Lechfeld (10 August 955) ended the Magyar menace: they were driven decisively to the East. This was followed in due course by the creation of another Mark to hold the Danube—the Ostmark [Austria].In this way he created the geography of Medieval Germany. Otto saw himself as the man to carry forward the Carolingian tradition. 1. This partly helps to explain his interest in the affairs of Italy. 2. He was also interested in keeping open the lines of communication with the Papacy. He depended heavily on the Church which depended on the Papacy. 3. For more pedestrian reasons, Italy was the centre of culture and commerce, the trade across the Alps.
116
Robert Ignatius Letellier 4. Another determinant was a sense of ducal strategy. He feared least one of the Southern Duchies (i.e., Bavaria and Swabia) would interfere in the chaotic conditions in Northern Italy, and so block his own access as king. In practice, this would confine the Germany over which he ruled to North of the Maine. Otto acted with decision, crossed the Alps, married Adelaide, the heiress of Northern Italy, and turned the tables on the Southern Dukes, committing himself in the process to an Italian as well as a German policy.
It is understandable that he should seek and receive coronation as Emperor on 2 February 962 by Pope John XII (so bringing an end to a period of chaos in Rome). He had established an empire of power, and received ‘Emperor’ as title. He was crowned like Charlemagne, the Empire was revived in the West, and friction created with Constantinople. Since then historians have debated the wisdom of his great coronation. If the coronation is put in context it was a perfectly logical and sensible step. Critics looking at the course of history over the following centuries say it was a fatal move. It meant that the pre-eminence of German interests were sacrificed to Italian ones. It committed Germany to bearing the burden of the Imperial Crown, standing up to the Papacy, fighting the battles of Christendom. In 964 Otto starved Rome into surrender, and forced the reinstatement of his candidate Leo VIII. In 972 Maiolus, the Abbot of Cluny, was captured on the Great St. Bernard Pass by Arab marauders. His monks raised a ransom for his release, and put pressure on Otto the Great to clear the European mainland of Arab interference, and make travel safe once more. Secure in his new position, Otto increasingly relied on the Church to provide him with the kind of administration he needed in the Empire. While the Pope and the Emperor saw eye-to-eye, the reliance on the Church was a great asset to Germany. Otto, for his part, lavishly endowed the Church with land, and created the new Archbishopric of Magdeburg to organize the civilization of the new lands between the Elbe and the Oder. Otto saw no risk for three reasons:
The Holy Roman Empire
117
1. Since he indulged the Church in lands, he exacted feudal homage from the archbishops and abbots. 2. He made the most of his own nominations to these high offices. 3. By German custom, in emergency the proprietor of the land could claim all that was erected on that land. It would seem that Otto found this the perfect and only tool for governing his great empire, and his position was safe when he died (on 7 May 973, aged 60), because he dominated both Pope and Church. Though his son and grandson became too enamoured of Italy, both the Saxon and Salian dynasties built Germany into a formidable state until the tragic death of Henry III in 1056. Otto II was 18 when he succeeded his father. In 976 he dethroned Henry, Duke of Bavaria, and oversaw the beginnings of Austria by granting a margravate to the Franconian Count Leopold. In 981 Otto II marched into Apulia to fight the Arabs who had invaded Italy. The Byzantine rulers allied themselves with the Arabs in southern Italy against Otto II, who was seen as expansionist. The Byzantine Emperor Basil II indeed sent troops the following year to support the Arabs. In 983 Otto organized a new campaign against the Saracens, but hearing of general Slavic rising east of the Elbe, he died suddenly in his palace in Rome on 8 December, aged only 28. Otto II was succeeded by his three-year-old son Otto III, with the child’s mother Theophano as Regent. In 984 Otto III was seized by the deposed Henry the Quarrelsome who claimed the Regency, but was forced to hand him over when Theophano arrived with the boy’s grandmother Adelheid. In May 996 Otto III was crowned in Rome. The 16-year-old dreamed of reconstructing the Roman Empire and was regarded by his teachers as “the wonder of the world,” having already invaded the Italian peninsula and replaced the Pope with his cousin Bruno (as Gregory V). He died on 23 January 1002 of malaria at Paterno, aged 22, while on campaign against the Romans, and was succeeded by his cousin, Duke Henry of Bavaria, aged 28.
118
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 43. The Crown of the Holy Roman Empire.
Figure 44. Emperor Otto the Great.
The Holy Roman Empire
119
When Henry recognized Benedict VIII as Pope, he was crowned Emperor Henry II on 14 February 1014. The Polish-German war was ended by the Treaty of Bautzen in 1018, and a Byzantine army in southern Italy was defeated by the Imperial forces in 1022. Henry II died on 13 July 1024 aged 52, and was succeeded as German King and Roman Emperor by his son Conrad II. The following year Boleslav the Brave made himself King of Poland and gained independence from the Empire, but died a few months later, leaving Poland a powerful nation stretching from the Danube to the Baltic Sea. On 2 February 1032 Rudolph III, King of Burgundy, died, and being without heir, Conrad claimed Burgundy and united it to the Empire. The following year in 1033 King Mieszko II of Poland was defeated by German and Russian armies. Conrad II died on 4 June 1039 at Utrecht, aged 49, and was succeeded by his son Henry. In 1044 Peter Orseolo of Hungary was restored to his throne by Henry III, who then himself gained control of Hungary by winning a great victory at the Battle of Menfo in July of the same year. In 1046 The German King forced Pope Gregory VI to abdicate on the grounds of simony, and also ratified the depositions of Sylvester III and Benedict IX. He instead installed the Bishop of Bemberg as Clement II. In return he was crowned Roman Emperor on Christmas Day in Rome by his appointee. The following year Henry III restored the Duchies of Swabia, Bavaria and Carinthia. When he died on 5 October 1056 aged 56 at Pfalz Bodfeld, he was succeeded as German King by his five-year-old son, Henry IV, with his mother Agnes of Poitou as Regent. In 1062 Anno II, Archbishop of Cologne, seized the 11-year-old Henry IV, King of the Germans. In the coup d’état of Keiserswerth, Henry was forced to give up power to Anno and Adalbert, Bishop of Bremen. In 1075 the Synod of Rome passed a degree against simony. A revolt against Hildebrand’s confirmation as pope gathered, led by German bishops. Pope Gregory VII declared that the Pope is absolute sovereign of the Church. In 1076 Henry IV called the Synod of Worms under pressure from the German bishops; they withdrew their allegiance from Gregory VII and declared him deposed. Henry demanded Gregory’s abdication, and in retaliation, Gregory assembled a Lenten Synod in Rome, suspended and
120
Robert Ignatius Letellier
excommunicated rebellious priests, and deposed and excommunicated Henry. Political chaos followed, and in October the Diet of Tribor ordered Henry to humble himself and stand trial before 27 February. On 21 January 1077 Henry IV presented himself as a penitent at the Castle of Canossa after a mid-winter crossing of the Alps with his wife Bertha. To avoid a public trial at home, Hildebrand accepted the King’s promises and oaths of allegiance. The German nobles in the meantime elected Rudolf of Swabia as anti-king in Henry’s place, with the approval of the papal legates.
Figure 45. The Holy Roman Empire under the Hohenstaufens.
The Holy Roman Empire
121
In 1105 Henry was captured by his 24-year-old son, also called Henry, who declared that he owed his excommunicated father no allegiance. A diet at Mainz forced the Emperor to abdicate, but the conditions of the abdication were broken and the Emperor was imprisoned at Ingelheim. In 1109 Boleslav III King of Poland defeated the Germans under Henry V at the Battle of Hundsfeld. A year later, Henry V invaded Italy and concluded an agreement with Pope Paschal II at Sutri. The Pope promised to crown him Emperor and restore his lands to him, including those given by earlier kings to the German church. When Henry arrived at St. Peter’s in Rome for his coronation on 12 February 1111, the Pope read the treaty terms ordering the clergy to restore the fiefs of the crown to Henry. Uproar ensued, and the Pope was unable to crown Henry, who left Rome taking the Pope with him as hostage. The Pope was obliged to crown Henry under duress. In 1112 the Emperor Henry V was excommunicated by the Synod of Vienna. In 1122 at the Pope’s persuasion, Henry V renounced the right of investiture of bishops with ring and crozier. In September the Concord of Worms recognized the freedom of election of the clergy. This ended the 50-year dispute between the Pope and the Holy Roman Empire.
Chapter 16
THE ELEVENTH CENTURY The word ‘Europe’ was hardly used as an historical term until the 15th c. But it is possible to see the idea of Europe taking shape if we think of Latin Christendom. From 1000 onwards, we can begin to discern a distinctive identity between Latin Christendom and Europe as we think of it today. The outstanding features were the conversion of Scandinavia and its outpost Iceland which brought these countries into ecclesiastical structure and the social patterns of the West. The same is true of Bohemia and Hungary. The conversion of Hungary under King (and Saint) Stephen (1001-1038) made it possible to travel fairly safely by land to Byzantium. There were important changes. The internal political shape of Europe altered in two significant stages.
Much of the old kingdom of Burgundy fell within the orbit of Germany, so marking the end of the old Carolingian middle kingdom. William, Duke of Normandy conquered England in 1066, an event that was to be a dominant factor in the history of both England and France.
124
Robert Ignatius Letellier
In the case of England, it meant the imposition of a fairly strong central government. Therefore there was real unification without the destruction of local institutions inherited from Saxon times. The official language was Norman-French. In the case of France, the fact that the very wealthy Duchy of Normandy was held by the English King retarded expansion of the territories of the French Crown until 1204. Just at the point when Latin Christendom was consolidating itself, in the East Greek Christendom also began a period of recovery that roughly lasted until the great attack of the Seljuk Turks in the last quarter of the 11th c. Emperor Basil II (976-1025) is remembered particularly for two things:
It was in his reign that Kiev converted to the Greek Church and Byzantine civilization began to spread into Russia. The Bulgarians who at one point had threatened to destroy the Byzantine State were beaten and absorbed into the pattern of Byzantine life.
In some ways the political geography was settling into a medieval framework with some kind of balance between the two forms of Christianity.
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PATTERNS By the 11th c. Europe was recovering from nearly 500 years of intermittent attacks and migrations. Now there was some sense of stability and security hitherto not experienced. There were no dramatic economic advances but there were quite important developments on a smaller scale. There were new technologies in agriculture. More wasteland and forest was cleared for agriculture. As the population increased, they were provided for. A new and heavier plough came into common use. The rotation of crops was fairly regularly followed. It seems that it was on
The 11th Century
125
monastic lands that men first learned how to yoke horse or oxen in the modern way. Even so, neither in the increase in cultivated land, nor better methods of farming could really solve the problem of the landless knight. Until the European economy elaborated, younger sons were bound to seek their own land. Through the rule of primogeniture they could not inherit family lands.This made for an undercurrent of restlessness in Europe. Undoubtedly, some of the manpower behind the First Crusade was recruited from younger sons. In the 11th c. there were faint beginnings of urban life with small towns specializing in such basic commodities as cloth, saddles, metalwork of every description were growing up—in some cases forming little communities strong enough to bargain collectively with feudal magnates for their own self-governments. This was, for example, the case of the small towns of Italy who transported some of the Crusaders in 1095, and made a profit out of them. By the end of the 11th c., a new mood in Europe emerged, marked by self-confidence, and a strong sense of its own identity. This as much as anything explains the ‘counter-attack’ on Islam. This can be seen operating at three points:
In Sicily where between 1016 and 1059 Norman adventurers and landless knights captured the island from the Arabs, and in due course added Naples. In Spain where the Christian thrust was almost incessant, and the great landmark was the Capture of Toledo in 1085. The great Crusade preached by Pope Urban II in 1095 at Clermont was the official effort to capture Jerusalem. Persecution of Christian pilgrims to Palestine had begun under Caliph Hakkim in 1000.
126
Robert Ignatius Letellier
GERMANY (THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE) UNTIL 1056 During the first half of the 11th century, Germany more than held the lead given it by Otto the Great. The Emperors constituted themselves protectors and educators of the Holy See, interfering and directing the selection of the Pope. They patronized the house of Cluny and their branches, and easily controlled the Church in their own lands. The ablest, Henry III, began to see how important it was to build a secular apparatus of government. The device he used seemed curious. He seems to have selected from private lands the ablest of his serfs and trained them as castellans or administrators. This marked the emergence of a new class of people who held great offices, technically not free, known as ministeriales, who would have made Germany less dependent on the Church. Henry III had some notion of state-building, and some think his early death in 1056, leaving only a minor son, was a real tragedy for German history.
THE PAPACY AND NEWLOOK PAPAL POLICY UNTIL 1072 At the very beginning of the11th c. Pope Sylvester II was the most learned man of the time. Gradually, although pretty weak in power, the Popes and the clerks in the Curia began to re-think the whole position of the Church in Europe. In this task they were undoubtedly helped by two great monastic orders: the Benedictines and the Cluniacs. All the forgotten claims of the past were resurrected and clarified. One is tempted to say that the death of Emperor Henry III in 1056 provided the first real opportunity to implement their policy. In the first half of the 11th c., dynamic leadership for reform in the Church came not from the Popes in Rome who were usually in a state of disorder. The drive instead was from reformed religious orders, from kings and princes who saw themselves as patrons and guides of the Church,
The 11th Century
127
sometimes from schools growing up around cathedrals and abbeys, like Bec in France. The reform movement had three broad trends.
The Collection of the Canons of the Church appeared. A drive against feudal violence marked by the proclaiming of the Truce of God and by the attempt to prevent feudatories and kings from interfering in the Church and turning the Church into a family inheritance. This was one of the main reasons why the Western Church stood firm on celibacy. There was a puritanical determination to improve the education of clergy and to put an end to simony.
Roughly between 1050 and 1060 the Papacy with a Curia recruited from the reforming classes began to take its own initiative, helped after 1056 by the power vacuum in Germany, In particular, one can note that in 1054 the Pope Leo IX (Bruno, 10491054) made a bid to establish an ecumenical community by asserting the right to control the Byzantine Church. Their refusal to accept by Patriarch Michael Cerularius led to the official schism between the Greek and Latin Churches in the mutual excommunications of 18 July 1054. In 1059 the Pope took a dubious but understandable move. The Normans, having conquered much of Naples and nibbling away at Sicily, wanted to legitimize their position. The Pope, ignoring Byzantine claims, admitted them as papal vassals, becoming their feudal overlord. In the same year, sick and weary of emperors intervening in the elections of popes and the interference of Roman mobs and nobles, the Papacy reformed the electoral procedure: henceforth the Pope would be elected by the cardinals of the Church. If taken together, the three moves can be seen as small revolution in the Papacy, giving a central head lead to all the different reforming impulses already alive in the Church. It was already perceived by more thoughtful people that the key figure on the reforming chessboard was the bishop. If kings and princes were already allowed to appoint whom they would, then the Church could not count on men of the right calibre to
128
Robert Ignatius Letellier
undertake what it saw as its ‘mission’: the Christianization and civilizing of Europe. On the other hand, the fact was that the bishops were often territorial princes holding land as vassals of a king. The Pope for his part could argue that he should be able to appoint his own vassals to such important benefices. It was from the questions over the appointment and function of bishops that the titanic struggle developed between the Empire and the Papacy, known as the Investiture Question or Controversy. This is misleading as it makes it look like a quarrel over the details of a bit of ritual. But in reality it was fundamentally a quarrel over whether or not the Church should be free to muster and man its own hierarchy throughout Christendom—from Iceland to Hungary—and to impose its own moral standards on a still violent and ignorant society.
Figure 46. Pope Leo IX.
The 11th Century
Figure 47. William the Conqueror.
129
Chapter 17
THE INVESTITURE CONFLICT (1075-1122) Behind the confrontation between Empire and Papacy lies the moral principle for which the Church had been striving for generations. Quietly, and in many points, a great deal had been done. By 1073 celibacy had been imposed, simony to a great extent had been stamped out. Moreover, the principles for which the Church stood were to apply to the whole of Christendom. In most countries, even the question of the choice of bishops and their investiture was gradually settled by compromise. In England, there were short conflicts, soon ended. It looks as though with more wisdom and patience on both sides, the great drama between the Empire and the Papacy could have been avoided. Hence it cannot be argued that this dispute was caused merely by a clash of temperament, but that this temperament and character, as well as the curious structure of German qualities, dictated a violent rather than a peaceful solution. Henry IV, after a turbulent minority, was elected king in 1066 at the age of 16. It was only in 1075, after his magnificent victory over his enemies at the Battle of Unstrut, that he achieved any sort of mastery, and he may have been almost intoxicated by victory. Meanwhile in Rome, Hildebrand had been acclaimed pope by a mass of the people, and duly installed with the name Gregory VII. In some ways he was obscure, and the monastic house from where he came is not known. But he was very
132
Robert Ignatius Letellier
well known in Rome, where he served in the Papal Chancellery, a zealous champion of Papal power. He had a kind of dynamic fanaticism that develops in some people who have not rubbed shoulders with the real world. He had for some time been collating on velum all the bits he and others could find on the nature of Papal power as found in Scripture, Papal letters, etc. In 1075 in one of the key bishoprics, where St. Ambrose had defied Emperor Theodosius, a first-class crisis developed. This was partly a crisis in town politics between merchants and workers, and the bishop their overlord. Henry IV imposed his own archbishop on the See of Milan. This probably sparked off two moves by Hildebrand: he pulled together all the ideas of what the Pope ought to be in a fascinating document Dictatus Papae. In it he claimed the right to depose kings and emperors unworthy of their office. In the same year he issued a degree against the lay investiture of bishops. They were to be elected by the Cathedral Chapter and given their ring and staff by the archbishop or the papal legate. Henry IV regarded the right to make bishops as part of his Imperial power, and lost his temper. Henry was at this point supported not only by all his allies but by a large part of the Church in Germany. It was prepared to reform within limits, but was not prepared to be dictated to by the Pope. The angry challenge of Henry IV was countered by a more deadly one by the Pope who excommunicated him. What followed was almost predictable. All Henry’s old enemies turned against him, and civil war ensued. Within months, most of the bishops caught up in the dilemma, were silent or against him. The Princes threatened that if the position did not change by February 1077 they would depose him and find another king. The Pope was journeying North in Italy to be present at the new coronation. To undercut his enemies, Henry IV journeyed secretly across the Alps and did due penance before the Pope at the Castle of Canossa owned by Mathilde of Tuscany, leaving Gregory no option but to forgive him, and re-admit him to the Church. Gregory was reluctant to admit that Henry could function as temporal Sword, i.e., Emperor. Henry returned to Germany and the royal party rallied to him. But the opposition took the lead, and elected a rival emperor (Anti-Caesar), Rudolf. By 1080 the Pope had made up his mind to crown Rudolf, but fate was on the side of Henry
The Investiture Conflict (1075-1122)
133
who smashed Rudolf and, encouraged thereby with the support of the German Church, elected his own pope (anti-pope), and invaded Italy where after a two-year siege he captured all of the city of Rome but for the Pope’s Castle of Sant’ Angelo. He was crowned Emperor by his own pope. The sequel is well-known: shut away in his castle, Hildebrand called on his Norman vassals who swept up and drove out Henry, sacked Rome, and carried off the Pope to safety where he died in Salerno. The deep cleavage caused by this great conflict lasted until 1122 and the final compromise, known as the Concordat of Worms, a kind of practical solution which could have been reached much earlier (in England it had been achieved in 1106): 1. Bishops were to be elected by the chapter of their cathedral in the presence of the Emperor. 2. The Emperor could bestow on the bishop the temporalities, and accordingly exact due homage from him. The ring and staff, symbols of his office as bishop, however, could be given only by archbishops or the papal legate.
THE EFFECTS OF THE INVESTITURE CONFLICT AND THE REIGN OF EMPEROR FREDERICK BARBAROSSA (1152-1190) Although some order was restored in Germany after 1122, it seems undeniable that the civil war before compromise was reached in 1122 weakened the position of Royal power in Germany and Italy. In Germany, even some of the ministeriales took advantage of the chaos to seize control of the Emperor’s castles. Feudal patterns began to develop as in 9th-century France. Moreover, the tradition of a mustered opposition to royal power established itself, e.g., the Welfs (Dukes of Bavaria and in due course of Saxony) were pro-papal because they were anti-imperial. In Italy the development of trade routes across the Alps and the great fertile plains of
134
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Lombardy encouraged the growth of wealthy cities with large populations. Some had sworn themselves into communes with the idea of expelling overlords and controlling their own affairs. They acted as if there was no Kingdom of Italy, merely an association of towns. In 1152 a quite remarkable man related to the Welfs but also descended from the Salian Emperors—the Duke of Swabia and the head of the House of Hohenstaufen, Frederick I (Barbarossa) (1123-1190)—was elected King of Germany. He was a man who most captured the imagination of the myth-makers of history. He had physical courage, comely bearing, high intelligence in tune with the more progressive ideas of the age. He had two notions of what his job entailed. 1. One was based on purely the Roman tradition and ideas of Roman Law that the king was sovereign and answerable to no man. 2. He saw himself as the true heir to Charlemagne, not merely as King of Germany but leader of Christendom, holding power from God and not from the Papal coronation of the Emperor. Frederick’s relations with the Papacy were largely friendly. Rome was in the hands of the revolutionary Arnold of Brescia (1100-1155) who was trying to restore the Roman Republic of pre-imperial days. Arnold was snuffed out, and the Pope duly crowned Barbarossa, who held the stirrup for the Pope. This short partnership should have made possible some of his dreams, but the situation came to a head in Northern Italy. Frederick wanted to restore the Imperial rights there, and appoint his own official in each town (podestà) and determined what taxes should be paid into the Imperial coffers. On one occasion he even raised Milan to the ground, but he could not break the resistance of the Lombard towns. To the contrary, they took three strategic moves: 1. They formed a league which most of the cities joined and bought an army (the Lombard League, 1167). 2. They made an alliance with the powerful city-state of Venice,
The Investiture Conflict (1075-1122)
135
3. Since the Pope was alarmed at the display of Imperial energy, they secured an alliance with the Papacy. Frederick came down upon them and to the surprise of Christendom, was defeated in the great Battle of Legnano (29 May 1176). Despite all his efforts with Papal mediation, the best he could do in Northern Italy was accept a face-saving treaty, the Peace of Constance. His rights were recognized in theory, but his ability to interfere in the privileges and policies of the towns was eradicated for all time. The crisis after Legnano left him with two options: either to concentrate on Roman affairs; or to find some way of turning the tables in Italy. In the some ways Henry the Lion of Bavaria and Saxony had a better idea of the future for the German Empire by his interest in founding cities on the Baltic and to the East. A vassal of the Emperor, he owed him military service. Equally clearly he defaulted. He was therefore formally tried and condemned, because “covenants without swords are of no use” (Thomas Hobbes). He was defeated in battle, and Frederick was victorious over the most powerful of his vassals. In almost any country in Europe this would have resulted in virtual domination by the king. If Frederick could legally have held two duchies of Saxony and Bavaria in addition to his own Swabia, he could have formed a very powerful kingdom. But generations before 1182 had seen the development of many customs on Germany favourable to the nobles but not the king: 1. Land which belonged in absolute freehold to a prince could not be taken from his family. Such land was called Allods (Allodial Lands). All the paternal lands of Henry the Lion returned to his family. 2. In the case of land held in feudal tenure and on condition of military service, the Princes held that by the custom of Leihezwang (loan obligation, or compulsory loan) the land must re-granted by the king to some other vassal.
136
Robert Ignatius Letellier
The most glorious triumph of Barbarossa, victory over Henry the Lion, the Welfs of Bavaria-Saxony, brought him prestige but no land or power. With checkmate in Germany and Lombardy, he built up power in Central Italy (based on Tuscany), and planned a great dynastic stroke by marrying his son Henry to Constance, heiress of Sicily, gambling that the child of that marriage might inherit Naples and Sicily, Tuscany and Central Italy, with the claims in Lombardy, and also be King of the Germans and Holy Roman Emperor. Frederick was not only a good and devoted Hohenstaufen, but also very conscious of his duties as Christian Emperor, so that when the Third Crusade was proclaimed to recover Jerusalem in 1189, together with Richard the Lionheart of England and Philip Augustus of France, he led a great host on the campaign, only to meet a tragic end by drowning in Cilicia (1190). Frederick was a ruler with more ideas than resources. He might have met with posthumous triumph, but by sheer ill-luck his son Henry VI (1165-1197) reigned only 7 years, leaving one male child, whose mother also died shortly afterwards. The future Frederick II, because his mother stood in feudal relationship with the Pope, became the ward of the most formidable pontiff in history, Innocent III (1198-1216).
Figure 48. Pope Gregory VII.
The Investiture Conflict (1075-1122)
Figure 49. Emperor Henry IV.
Figure 50. The Castle of Canossa.
137
Chapter 18
FRANCE In the 10th c. the leadership of Europe was seen to lie with the Germany of Otto the Great. The French monarchy with its new dynasty the Capetians were puny and helpless. A glance at the map of France in 1180 would suggest that no progress had been made at all. The real power of the King was limited to his private lands—the Royal Demesne. However, the Kings of France had ‘dormant assets’. There was a good understanding between the Crown and the Church which provided a great number of potential advantages. The very coronation set the King above his fellows. The Capetians were shrewd enough to compromise with the Church, and not to confront it. This in turn meant that scattered throughout the French realm the bishops and abbots who worked quietly in the interests of the Crown also wanted peace from the warring feudality. The King was accepted by the feudal lords as the overlord of France. The greatest of the counts, including even the King of England as Duke of Normandy, had, at least once in their lifetime, to pay homage and acknowledge the position of the Crown of France. Their influence was greater than his power. The Capetians had more sense usually than to challenge any count or duke whose was more powerful. They stuck to feudal theories, and their power on paper was impressive. All vassals
140
Robert Ignatius Letellier
owned him military service for 40 days a year. All vassals owed him counsel and advice. They also owed him Suit of Court. If a vassal was accused either by the Crown or a fellow vassal, he had to attend the King’s Court and be tried by his peers. The Rights of Kings was operating in Germany and England. In France and England, though, the King has one extra counter, the Law of Escheat. If a vassal died without heirs, the land reverted to the Crown; if the vassal failed in obligations and was condemned by his peers, the land was held to have escheated. This contrasted with Germany where the custom was different, where by Leihezwang confiscated land had to be re-granted in a year. When Philip II (Augustus) (1165-1223) became King of France as a boy of 16 in 1180, the outlook was particularly hopeless. Louis VII had blundered. He divorced Eleanor of Aquitaine who had then promptly married Henry of Anjou, who became King of England in 1154 and was also the vassal for Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Poitou and Aquitaine. Moreover, at the time Normandy controlled lands at the mouth of the Seine. Roughly between 1180 and 1202, Philip Augustus behaved with brilliant caution. He played off Henry II against his uncles of Blois and Champagne, and was able to acquire lands he coveted in marrying Isabelle of Vermandois. In due course he allied himself the Princes Richard and John against their father Henry of England. When cornered into going on Crusade with Richard and Barbarossa in 1189, Philip took the first opportunity to return and claim his wife’s dowry. While Richard Coeur de Lion continued the Crusade, Philip Augustus could not touch his lands. When Richard began travelling home, Philip bribed Leopold Duke of Austria to imprison Richard. Philip’s real opportunity came after 1199 when John Lackland (Jean sans Terre) became King of England and also vassal of the French King. John was a more vulnerable target. V. H. Galbraith did much to rehabilitate John’s reputation by proving him to have been a good administrator (“Good Kings and Bad Kings in Medieval History”, 1944). This still does not erase the fact that he was quite ruthless, with alternating periods of
France
141
useless idleness and frantic energy. Being an able administrator does not necessarily make one a good king. So during his reign Philip Augustus captured most of the English lands in France. The barons took a dim view of this. Meanwhile Philip Augustus watched and waited and in 1202 his opportunity came.
FRANCE 1202-1214 John was not popular with the French barons, and he made a fatal mistake in kidnapping the fiancée of one of them, Hugh de Lusignan. Hugh appealed to the King who summonsed John as his vassal to answer in Court. John refused to attend, and was held to have broken the feudal bond, and was now confronted with the King of France and his one-time vassals. Within two years during the course of which John probably murdered his nephew Arthur of Brittany, John was totally defeated and lost Normandy, Maine, Anjou and Poitou. Philip Augustus gained advantages from this dramatic reversal of fate. He acquired tremendous prestige and was now the most powerful figure in France, and much wealthier. Although he had begun to reform French government before 1202, after 1205 he seemed to re-model the monarchy on Norman prototypes. He now paid officials, which saw the slow return of bureaucracy. Some officials were administrators trained in law-schools in Italy (bailli or bailifs). He began to establish Royal Courts of Justice, which carried the idea of the King’s Law into new parts of France which now had the profits of justice. Greater power and resource enabled him to begin beautifying Paris. He endowed the masters of the University (1120) with the first university charter. As part of non-military preparations for the great Battle of Bouvines, he promised to build a great cathedral if victorious (this would become Nôtre Dame in Paris). France in fact was taking the lead not only with the architects of the new Gothic style of building, but also with new patterns of learning associated with the Twelfth-Century Renaissance.
142
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Before the end of the 13th c., Paris became for Europeans what Mecca was to Islam. Throughout the period 1204-14 Philip engaged in a delicate fencing match with Pope Innocent III chiefly over the question of his marriage to Ingeborg of Denmark, and his attempts to have it annulled. Despite excommunicating Philip and putting France under interdict in 1200, the Pope had to walk gingerly in case he needed Philip to invade England which he had earlier likewise placed under Interdict. He had also been watching the manoeuvres of John to try and recover the lands lost in France. The crisis point came in 1214 when John in alliance with Otto the Welf, formed a coalition against Philip Augustus, who was supported by the young Frederick Hohenstaufen, the grandson of Barbarossa. In the great Battle of Bouvines which followed Philip was completely victorious. After the Bouvines, Philip continued quietly nourishing new his new model monarchy. When Innocent III began considering the Albigensian Crusade, Philip watched carefully. In the event, he sent his son (the future Louis VIII) to lead the Crusade, one of the most unpleasant and vicious episodes in history. One result of the development of trade between the East and West of the Mediterranean Sea was the infiltration of new heresies from the East (Persian Manichaeism). At the same time much popular resentment was stirred by the wealth and influence of the Church which seemed to be neglecting ordinary people. There were grounds for discontent because the new towns had grown up, and population crowded into them while they remained a part of big rural parishes. The danger point seemed to be in Southern France in the county of Toulouse. Anything that happened in the Southern France was the concern of the King of France. Hence when a Crusade against heresy in Toulouse was proclaimed, Philip was vitally interested. Nevertheless, so far as the making of France was concerned, marriage alliances with the House of Toulouse were secured and ensured reversion of these lands to the Crown of France in 1270. This meant that the cautious foresight of Philip had extended the first tentacle of the royal octopus reaching into the rich lands of Southern France.
France
143
In looking at Frederick Barbarossa and Philip Augustus, one considers examples of medieval kingship: the way they faced problems, and how problems had changed since the days of Clovis and Charlemagne. Methods of statesmanship were more complicated. Although it is true that elements of feudality added to the complexity of the art of politics, the feudal formula as cleverly played by Philip could be useful trick in the royal hand. Kings had more power because they were beginning to be less dependent on the Church for administration, and able to extend law courts and pay their own officials. Both Frederick Barbarossa and Philip Augustus regarded themselves as patron of learning and the arts, and gave more dignity to the notion of monarchy. It is true that if one looked at countries like England or Sicily, where Norman influences predominated, we see efficiency more than in the German and French monarchies. Where is the explanation of this change? The re-discovery of trade and commerce continued in the 11th and 12th cc., and went on expanding until the 14th c. Part of the explanation lies in the new ideas in the learning at the universities, especially in Law and the new skills of those who built the medieval skyscrapers of castle towers and the spires of Gothic cathedrals.
Figure 51. King Phillip II (Auguste) of France.
144
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 52. The Battle Bouvines, 1214.
Figure 53. Notre Dame de Paris.
Chapter 19
THE TWELFTH-CENTURY RENAISSANCE The term ‘renaissance’ was a label invented in the 19th c. to describe the Italian Renaissance of the 14th and 15th cc. It implied a great outburst of creative energy in Italy inspired by the study of the Classics. It also further implied that the 1000 years between the Fall of Rome and the ‘Italian Renaissance’ was wasted energy. Since the term was invented in the 19th c., there have been two broad developments. The interpretation of the Italian Renaissance has changed considerably; and secondly that the term ‘renaissance’ can be used in a more impressionistic and causal way. It is now applied to the Age of Charlemagne, the 12th c., the 15th c., the 18th c. If we look at the great movement in roughly the 12th c., and compare it crudely with the 15th c., one could ask: what the hallmarks were of the European achievement in the 12th c.? The initiative in Europe lay with clerics, not laymen. The Church pioneered the new learning. Pope Gregory VII was critical in promoting and regulating the concept of modern university: his 1079 Papal Decree ordered the regulated establishment of cathedral schools that transformed themselves into the first European universities. The 12th c. was a period when Europe showed great vitality in the field of social inventions. We find the creation of new monastic orders, and the invention of new codes of discipline. We find the organizing of city government, the creation of
146
Robert Ignatius Letellier
universities, and new monarchies beginning to organize royal power on the basis of a more commercial choice, as with Philip Augustus and Frederick Barbarossa. One notices that even feudal structures became introspective, with the beginning of the acceptance of new ideas of chivalry and gallantry. Artists showed the beginnings of great technical skill and imagination, leading into the age of Gothic architecture and painting. It would seem that the revival of learning in the 12th c. was part of a creative process that showed itself in nearly every branch of European life. One can go further and stress that there is good evidence of continuities in learning. Some books that were translated or written in the 12th were among the first to be published after the invention of the printing press in the 15th c. An example is the Latin translation of a treatise by Rhases on smallpox and measles which was printed during the Italian Renaissance, translated into many languages, and went through 16 editions in English, the last being in 1858. (Abū Bakr Muhammad Zakariyyā Rāzī, 854-925, was a Persian polymath, physician, alchemist, philosopher, and important figure in the history of medicine.) Similarly, treatises of Al-Khawrizmi on quadratic equations, lost in their Arabic originals, survived in Latin translation, and when printed played a part in shaping modern mathematics. (Al-Khawrizmi, 780-850, was a Persian polymath who produced vastly influential works in mathematics, astronomy, and geography.) In yet another field it should be pointed out that in the early 13th c. in the famous Court of Frederick II (1212-1250) in Sicily, there took place a quiet growth of vernacular Italian literature, e.g., the sonnet form common in the use in the Court, and not invented by Petrarch. Frederick was a great bibliophile, buying shiploads of manuscripts from Egypt and Byzantium. It is not known for certain what happened to his collections after his death in 1250 and the destruction of his state. It is believed that great numbers of his MSS passed to Florence, establishing some continuity between medieval Naples and Renaissance Florence. This period was part of a vibrant European texture, not stillborn, but exercising a continuity with the 15th c. It was focused on three blocks of learning and tradition:
The Twelfth-Century Renaissance
147
A Teutonic-Latin-Christian strand A Slavonic-Greek (Hellenistic)-Christian strand An Arabic-Indian-Persian-Hellenic strand.
THE REVIVAL OF LEARNING IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY There was a tradition of learning in Christendom. By the late 11th c., it tended to focus on the great cathedral schools. Even in the grim 9th c. there had been scholars whose work showed vigour of mind and sound originality. Learning was mainly concerned with the problems of Christian philosophy, and influenced mainly by the Platonic school of thinking. Already lively discussions were taking place about the nature of reality, whether or not there were other universes. In the early 12th c. the great debate was beginning between the realists and non-realists. Non-realists argued about the ‘reality’ of the idea: that ideas pre-existed things is an example. Nomenalists took the opposite point of view: ideas could only be derived from the intelligent study of particular things as they are. There was also a third thread in the European thinking—the idea or belief that in prayer and meditation it was possible to enjoy a personal experience of God. Something of the vitality the early 12th c. can be appreciated if we see the contrast and conflict between Peter Abelhard (1079-1142) and St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153). The former had some contact with the new learning filtering from Spain. It is doubtful whether St. Bernard has any contact at all. Among the great formative influences of the 12th c. were undoubtedly the development of Canon Law and the study of Roman Law. Canon Law had many bases. It drew on the Scriptures, the opinions of philosophers and letters of the Popes. In the 12th c., the development of Civil Law influenced the ways in which Canon Law was organized and the methods used to determine truth. One outcome of the rapid development was the result of the work of the Italian monk Gratian (d. c. 1159, Bologna), the father of the study of Canon Law in his collection Decretum Gratiani. Church Courts became for a time more efficient than any other court of
148
Robert Ignatius Letellier
justice in Europe. The Church claimed jurisdiction over every aspect of law where a promise was involved, not only debt, adultery etc., but with disputes about wills and contracts. The great Codification of Justinian in the 6th c. had not greatly influenced the shaping of Western Europe, but fragments seem to have been studied in the 11th c. in the exarchates. By the early 12th c. obviously complete texts were available. The most famous teacher of Roman Law was Irnenius of Bologna (1050-1125). He taught the newly recovered code, the Corpus Juris Civilis. It is broadly true that only in the 16th c. did the full implications of Roman Law and its theories seem to hit Europe. Yet there were important ways in which the development of Civil Law shaped it from the 12th c. onwards. It provided a pattern followed by the great canon lawyers. Training in Civil Law provided kings and princes with a team of professional administrators inclined to exhort the power of the king and to discover ways in which he could legally enforce his power, e.g., the idea of majestas was quite important for medieval monarchs. Early towns sometimes owed their existence to the feudal idea of a collective fief. By the end of the 12th c. this was giving place to a firmer idea: one of a fictitious corporate personality. This meant that incorporated institutions which included many people and generations had a continuous life in law. They could own property, as if persons. The idea undoubtedly helped the growth of cities and universities. The intellectual rediscovery of the system and ideas of Roman Law helped to shape the institutional life of Europe, at least in certain fields. The Capture of Toledo in 1085 may be taken as a convenient landmark for the beginning of the process whereby Arabic learning began to pass into Western heritage. It is true that though the political unity of the Arabic world was shattered, because the Koran was written in Arabic, the language was used as part of a shared culture. There had been, especially in the 9th and 10th cc., a revival and outburst of learning centred at Baghdad where three streams of culture, often of great antiquity, found natural cross-roads, particularly the philosophy and mathematics of India. The Hindus had discovered notation in tens, the use of zero, and the system of figures we call Arabic numerals. The development of algebra seems to
The Twelfth-Century Renaissance
149
have been an Arabic advance on these foundations. For centuries, Persia had been in contact with the traditions of Greek learning via Alexandria (Galen and Ptolemy in the 2nd c. AD) and via Byzantium, so Arabs delved into the Greek science of geometry (Euclid), medicine (Hippocrates, Galen), and geography (Ptolemy, who taught that the earth is round and at the centre of the universe). From these foundations, Arabs, first from Baghdad then at points as remote as Timbuktu, Sicily and Spain, built on this in exciting ways. From Spain came the first astronomical tables and lines of longitude, and considerable advances in medicine. Moreover, everywhere Arab scholars were excited by the ideas of Aristotle. Only the translation by Boethius was known to Western Europe. The Arabs themselves translated most of the works: physics, logic, a whole new world of thought which challenged all they believed, and led some to argue that there were perhaps two kinds of truth: that based on faith, expounded in the Koran; and truth based on reason and science. The Capture of Toledo brought the eager minds of Western scholars into contact with a whole new world. They dived in from all parts of Europe, journeying to Toledo. A few, like Gerard of Cremona, spent the rest of their lives there. He learned Arabic and made his own translations. Most Latins relied for help from Jewish and Arabic scholars. Translations were often scrappy. The new learning of the Arabs gave great stimulus to the development of European learning in the 12th c. How did Latin Christendom react to this encounter with its own Classical past? And to the new heady mixture of its own Latin culture with different kinds of new learning which reached it from the East in Arabic? Often far-reaching claims are made for the weight and strength of the Arabic impact, yet we know that the Latins had their own religion, learning, institutions, and we often forget that their own scholars were eager for new ideas. Some specialist have even pointed out that the ribbed vaulting of Gothic cathedrals was copied from the Moors. Yet the basic fact remains that one is not likely to associate a Spanish mosque with Latin Christendom, or a Gothic cathedral with Moorish Spain. The two thought and built differently.
150
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Other specialists emphasize that wondering minstrels and troubadours, who left a trail of poetry all over Europe, owed a great deal to Persian and Moorish customs and styles. This probably true of Southern France and Italy which were both in close contact with Spain. One must remember that if to some extent Moorish influences raided Southern Europe, so also did Nordic influences begin to influence particularly, but not solely, Germany. If we look at the characteristic themes of poetry in 12th and 13th cc. Europe, it is characteristically Western. The Song of Roland, the epic about Charlemagne, is written in vernacular French. The great hymns of St. Bernard are still sung today (“Gesu, dulcis memoria”) and are part of a purely Latin tradition. Poems in Latin and the vernacular show formal but lively interest in nature, love and reckless romanticism (as in the work of the Minnesänger Walther von der Vogelweide and Wolfram von Eschenbach). Some remind one irresistibly of Byron and Shelley. It is understandable that two trends in Islamic speculation challenged the Latin scholars sharply. One is the Logia of Aristotle and most of his other writing. The other is the approach of Arab philosophers like Avicenna (980-1037) and Averroës (1126-1198), and particularly the notion that faith was one thing, and philosophy was another. Each should develop along its own lines. One can find developing between 1150 and 1270 two schools of thinkers: those who argued that reason and religion were in opposite schools; and others who argued that philosophy is very important, but could not explain all the problems associated with it. It is to that school that perhaps the “greatest philosopher between Plato and Marx” belonged; Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). In his great work the Summa Theologiae (1267-73) he dealt with the whole problem of the medieval cosmos. One of his central ideas was that God was in every man; that man comes to realize God by his contact with the world around him, and by using his intelligence. This interest in philosophy as not only defining things, but also highlighting that tension between the general concept of mankind and the particular individual man, led to much re-thinking and reflection on the problems of contemporary society. One can find in Aquinas and his
The Twelfth-Century Renaissance
151
commentators much about his attempt to define law, power, the rights and duties of vassals. We also find a rough correspondence between a feudal emphasis on personal valour and worth, and his philosophical ideas on the reality of the individual. Equally, one can say that humanity began to draw a line between man as a fundamental entity, and his particular rank and function in society at any particular moment. It followed that just as society changes, laws could also be changed. “There are two causes for the just change of human laws. One is on the grounds of reason; the other is on the grounds of men whose acts are regulated by laws.” Because Christianity as a moral system had had its ethos that was meant to touch every branch of human activity, it is not surprising that Aquinas said much about economic activities. He emphasized the need for just prices, questions of interest, and almost every problem of economics. It would seem that what was happening in the minds of Europe at the time was the beginning of a process of sorting out in which men were arguing about politics and economy, and accepted that society and social patterns were accidental, and not fixed by God for all time. They could be changed on grounds of utility and reason. Quite apart from high levels of discussion of Christian theology, we have to accept that the greatest teacher in the Church at the time was marking out the zones of human action. We cannot give a terminal date to this movement in learning: some aspects flow into the 15th c. A possible terminal date is Aquinas’s Summa which interwove philosophy and theology in trying work out the code of ethical behaviour, covering every branch of ethical activity. The study of philosophy and its hand-maiden logic established itself as a separate discipline, a new tool for scholars. Ideas emerged that man’s ‘persona’ was something quite separate from status and rank. In effect two new ideas took shape: each person is of equal concern; status and rank, the trappings of wealth, can be changed because of accidental or incidental factors, and are not the criteria by which a person is judged. These notions opened up the ways of change, and showed men how to grasp them. It is true that much new learning about science reached Europe in the th 12 c., but Europe was slow to develop them. This was partly because universities thought that law, philosophy and theology were more relevant.
152
Robert Ignatius Letellier
More modern scholarship by scholars like A. C. Crombie and H. Butterfield has pointed out that in the 13th and 14th cc. scholars learned to argue rationally, and deductive sciences like mathematics could and did develop. The line of development was an ironical reminder of the fact that sometime narrow-mindedness can prove constructive. There is a classic example. In 1277 the Pope condemned the teaching of Aristotle on theological grounds. It was argued that God could also create a vacuum. Scholars had to find another explanation for the law of movement, like the flight of an arrow. Much of the problem was solved in Paris in the 14th c. by Jean Buridan (c.1300-1358) who studied Aristotle, and sowed the seeds in Europe of the Copernican revolution. He came close to the modern theory. His notebooks passed to the Padua, to the great university in Northern Italy, and in this way are linked with the Italian Renaissance of the 15th c. Neither methods of modern science nor its philosophy developed in the medieval period. Nevertheless, and undeniably, it generated a wealth of information which could be used and tested. This was a necessary sharpening of the mind without which there can be no advance in learning. One can think of the Twelfth-Century Renaissance as a curious plant with Greek, Indian, Persian, Latin and Arabic roots, with a sturdy and strong trunk of Latin Christendom, bearing the most surprising fruit, some of which matured fairly quickly, and some rather slowly. This was also a period of spiritual and political speculation in the philosophy of history, as with Joachim of Flora (1130-1202). His Expositio in Apocalypsim, a mystical interpretation of history, had great influence on the 13th and 14th cc. His ‘Theory of the Three Ages’ saw The Age of the Father, corresponding to the Old Testament, characterized by the obedience of mankind to the Rules of God; The Age of the Son, between the advent of Christ and 1260, represented by the New Testament, when Man became the sons of God; The Age of the Holy Spirit was impending, a contemplative utopia. Marsiglio di Padua (1275-1343) saw things from a rational, secular perspective and claimed the temporal powers of the Church should be subject to the state. This questioned the unified powerful Church, inaugurating dissent. The Church’s response
The Twelfth-Century Renaissance
153
came in 1302 with the Bull Unam Sanctam, where the supremacy of the Church in both secular and spiritual realms was claimed by Pope Boniface VIII: unitary power and faith were based in the Church.
Figure 54. Emperor Frederick II.
Figure 55. Thomas Aquinas.
Chapter 20
THE MAGNA CARTA For students of English history, Magna Carta is of particular significance because at every constitutional crisis between 1215 and 1688 Magna Carta became a sort of symbol to thousands who had never read it. It was a useful tool for lawyers and reformers. Although Magna Carta was confirmed and re-used 55 times, it is importance in English history is undeniable because it gave a working basis for freedom and liberties which began as privileges for a few and became the rights of everyone over a long passage of time. Magna Carta is really the best known example of a more general trend in European history as a whole. We can consider it as an example of a frame of mind or attitude to be found in most countries in the 13th c., one which helps to explain what one must not forget, namely that by the early 14th c. in Europe, almost every single country had a kind of parliament. In Spain, in Castile and Aragon, it was called the Cortes; in France the Estates; in Germany the Landstage; in Sweden the Riksdag; in Poland the Diet. The prime factor in the English parliament was that King John (b. 1167 reg. 1199-1216), though an unpleasant character, was a rather able and grasping ruler, intent on pushing the rights of the Crown. He had something of his father’s instinct for clear, firm government. But lacking judgement,
156
Robert Ignatius Letellier
he made blunder after blunder. He alienated the Church in England and the Papacy by refusing to accept Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and by seizing all the lands of vacant bishoprics, and using them for his own ends. He only gave way after the country was placed under interdict by Innocent III and threatened with invasion by Philip Augustus. The price of forgiveness was high: England became a fief of the Papacy. Until the second half of the 14th c. England was technically a vassal state and paid feudal tribute to the Pope. John impoverished the realm in general and the barons in particular by losing the provinces of Normandy, Anjou, Maine and Poitou in France in 1204, and in 1214 half ruined the country in a futile attempt to get them back at the Battle of Bouvines. To raise money for the great campaign, he twisted every feudal right and broke every feudal convention. Moreover, since the loss of Rouen in 1205 English merchants from London were feeling the squeeze. This behaviour and these failings were asking for an explosion, particularly in the feudality where the Church, peasants and merchants were unarmed. But great feudatories had their own armies of knights, and if they agreed to topple the Crown, could do so. The result was civil war, even though it was surprising that John had an army at all. Defeated and cornered at Runnymead, the particular fusion of interests ran into the Magna Carta. The price of peace was not merely a treaty but a charter of liberties. Several things combined to make it an unusual kind of document. One was the leadership of Stephen Langton (1150-1228) who was one of the foremost scholars of his day. He discovered at Winchester the old coronation charter of Henry I (1100-1135). This was a short document in which in essence the King promised to protect the Church and keep the good laws and customs of the realm. Langton was aware of the attitude of the Church: that kings were there to function for the Church and the decent principles for which it stood. The Great Charter of 1215 opens with the King’s promise to protect the Church and maintain “for all free men the liberties set out in the other clauses of this Charter.”
The Magna Carta
157
The fighting powers of the opposition to John, the great feudatories, looked after their own interests. The majority of clauses in the Charter do not waffle about the rights of man, but specify the customary right of the feudatory. There were clauses dealing with wardship and marriage. Some features of Royal Government were accepted by the feudatories. They stipulated that the Court of Common Pleas should always sit at Westminster. They also stipulated that the Assizes should be regularly held in every county court in the country. If their own interests were threatened, they could also be reactionary, and objected strongly to the Writ Praecipe (the King’s judges invented a new writ by which on some excuse a case could be taken from the feudal court to the King’s court). The most famous and quoted Clause 39 stated that the King could not seize people, and would not punish them except by the law of the land and the judgment of peers. This clause was often misinterpreted to mean trial by jury, but it did not actually, and was about securing a trial. One finds in the Charter that the City of London was becoming quite powerful: there was a clause to guarantee the rights of London and other cities. Clause 41 secured that merchants should be free to come and go from country to country in their trade. It was not a very systematic analysis, but a careful piece of work. Moreover, there was a mass of evidence that the bishops and barons who set their seals beside that of the King meant what they said. The sanctions Clause 61 remind one that the government was still primitive.
It provided that 25 barons should always be with John, and if he broke the Charter, he should be reported and war be made on the King. There was to be a copy of the Charter in every cathedral and county. Clauses of the Charter were quoted in legal cases of the 13th c. In the Great Confirmation of 1297 granted by Edward I to his Parliament, solemn curses were provided for those who should break it.
158
Robert Ignatius Letellier
WHY IS THE MARGNA CARTA IMPORTANT? Why did the Charter and lesser known examples make Marc Bloch (Feudal Society, 1940) say that feudalism gave to Europe something whereby we all would like to live? The whole structure of feudal society turned on mutual rights and duties. At this time custom counted almost as law. The bond between the King and the feudatories came to be seen as a contract binding on both. The idea of power and government turning on contract resurrects itself in different contests, e.g., in the Reformation in France, and in the treatises written by Thomas Hobbes (1651) and JeanJacques Rousseau (1762). It followed that the contract and law were binding on king and subject alike. This of course was a view very strongly supported by the Church who regarded kings as functioning for the Church and the maintenance of law and custom. The central idea of the supremacy of law was one of the great ideas of Western European history. If the position of medieval kings is examined, one is amazed at their capacity for survival. In every country they were expected to ‘live of their own’. They had a royal demesne, and if they wanted government, they had to pay for it themselves. This meant that unless they could raise revenues, they could not get the two strong arms of organized power: they could not pay for a professional civil service and a standing army. The inconvenient Church was always likely to interfere, not only on behalf of the clerics, but in the name of good law and custom. In the original copies of Magna Carta there were several clauses that were later dropped: 12 & 14.They categorically said that if the King wanted more than basic feudal rights, he could get it only by common consent of the realm. The dropping of the clauses in 1216 really did not matter. The costs of royal government were going up. The legal income that the King could raise from taxes was limited in clause after clause. Hence, if he needed money (and he did), the King had to invent some way of persuading people to give more than custom allowed. In England and in different ways in other countries, there were experiments in winning Royal consent to gain more money until Edward I
The Magna Carta
159
(1272-1307) in 1295 developed the standard pattern of the Model Parliament (Ad Parliamentum). He summoned the bishops, abbots, barons of the realm to council (an assembly that became the House of Lords); and also two citizens from every town with a cathedral, and also two knights from every shire of the country (which became the House of Commons).
Figure 56. King John.
160
Figure 57. The Magna Carta.
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Chapter 21
THE MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITIES If we look at medieval society along simple lines, there were two great hierarchies: The Church and the feudalities. By the 12th c, this was a gross over-simplification. Great religious orders flowed across Europe, who did not precisely fit into the monastic traditions of the Benedictines, Cluniacs and Cistercians. In the early 13th c. These older foundations were outclassed by the new orders of mendicant friars: Franciscans, Dominican, and Carmelites. As economic life developed, there was a drift from the manorial basis of life. Migrants founded new groups, communes or guilds. There were a great many kinds: craft-guilds, gold merchants, teaching masters and students. It became the fashion in official letter in guild countries, to begin with universitas vestra. Only by accident was the term narrowed down in practice, but not applied to universities as we know them. During the 12th c., there emerged two broad types of university structure: those that began from a guild of students, and those originating from a guild of masters. Most medieval universities followed one of these two patterns. Earlier in history there had been institutions set aside for learning, like the academies of Greece, state universities on authorized lines in Byzantium. Pope Gregory VII was critical in promoting and regulating the concept of modern university in his 1079 Papal Decree
162
Robert Ignatius Letellier
which ordered the regulated establishment of cathedral schools. These transformed themselves into the first European universities. The pattern followed by most universities to the South of the Alps was based on Bologna where the teaching of lawyers (by Irnenius) attracted students from all over Europe. Understandably, the town was crowded, there was exploitation, teachers lost enthusiasm, and student secession followed. The Pope intervened to save the status of Bologna, and gave a charter to the students, constituting them as the governing body of a university (1088). They laid down penalties on professors, length of lectures, the duration of vocations. The result was that academic teachers moved off elsewhere. The situation was saved when the city began to endow chairs with security of tenure. Southern universities followed the pattern, where the university was considered based on guilds of students. There were 15 by the end of the 15th c., with Bologna and Padua preeminent among them. North of the Alps the pattern was provided by the University of Paris (1150) on which most of the Northern universities were modelled. They were often founded by secession of students, as in the sequence from Paris to Oxford (1200) to Cambridge (1231). There were two remarkable features about Paris: it was made up of cathedral schools staffed by men taught by Peter Abelard. The man who had the right to entitle them to teach in public was the Chancellor of the Cathedral who sold the licence (ius docendi). It was the first medieval university founded in a capital city, at the heart of politics, wealth, and scholarship. There was a move to get some form of education taken by the masters who protested at the scale of fees by the Chancellor and their inability to collect fees from the students. From 1160 onwards they began to secure privileges, sometimes from the King of France, sometimes from the Pope. The masters pulled most of the students into association with them. By dint of these two powers, they built up formidable privileges, especially the precious right to protest by refusing to lecture. It was also especially at Paris, because of the concentration of on theological studies, that various religious orders (especially the Franciscan and Dominican friars) began to found branch houses where the best
The Medieval Universities
163
scholars of the order lived as a community in pursuit of learning. All other students lived in communal lodgings and begged. Gradually it was realized by a further series of masters and students that some kind of institutionalization was necessary. Measures were taken to provide a residential structure, and to give the universities a governing body with some discipline over their followers. They had strong ideas of university autonomy, provided their own affairs did not violently conflict with society; also how to control who and what should be taught, and what the university claimed to be. Universities were completely self-financing. They depended for their survival on fees and endowments by devoted scholars. Living and working in nonindustrial society, the kind of things studied were not closely related to social demands or business pressures. It was easier to move from one university to another because there was no language difficulty. Students were expected to spend 7 years studying the arts (the Quadrivium). If they aspired to law and theology, they had 5 more years ahead of them. There was a tremendous fall-out. Lectures were probably more important than now, and all instruction was oral. Only the wealthy could buy manuscripts which were chained in libraries or hired. Examinations were always oral, in the form of public disputations on an announced thesis and maintained verbally with lecturers. They sat on the floor for lectures of an hour’s duration, taking no notes. Moreover, after the lecture there was a further hour of discussion. Residences began as lodging houses kept by the masters. Gradually, especially in England, colleges were founded with their own endowment and academic staff. They survived at very few universities—like Oxford and Cambridge. Medieval universities, with all their handicaps, were nonetheless fortunate. In some ways they were ivory towers. Those who stayed the course, really did think and speculate. We can never measure the contributions of the graduates (who moved out to become lawyers and other professionals) to the history of the shaping of their respective countries. They would never have understood the structure of the nationstate, not formed by barbarians, but by civilized people.
164
Robert Ignatius Letellier
The new learning of the 12th c. was assimilated and built upon. At the end of the 14th c. there was a change of tone. University dons were not only thinking about problems, but speaking out and immediately feeling the backlash of the state, as with John Wycliffe (1320-1384) and the Lollards. John Hus (1369-1415) of the University of Prague was burned at the stake by order of the Emperor Sigismund at the Council of Constance. By the 14th c. there was perhaps a new attitude marked by the teaching of Wycliffe at Oxford, and Lollards at the University of Prague where the reform movement was introduced by John Hus. His burning was more about politics than religion. It is very difficult to comment on the work of Wycliffe or Hus without details of the tangle of political, economic and social issues, caught up in a disinterested movement. It is a fact that because of the impetus felt by people over whom they had no control outside of the university, they were a spent force in the tragedy. There was a different approach in the 14th and 15th cc. by the Nominalist theologian Jean Charlier de Gerson (1363-1429) at the University of Paris. He was a student and don at the time of the Hundred Years’ War with England and civil war in France. It was not easy to persist with ideas and theories but he did. And with quiet propaganda he was one of the main instigators of the Conciliar Movement which between 1409 and 1447 tried to reform the Church “in head and members” by a series of great European councils.
Figure 58. The University of Bologna.
The Medieval Universities
Figure 59. Jean Gerson.
165
Chapter 22
THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION The life and death of civilizations is a central theme of history. The medieval civilization was at risk of being submerged, standing as it did between the Classical and Modern worlds. Western civilization has a great number of institutions and ideas which, if they have survived, help the world forward. Medieval civilization did not die, it survived in parliaments, universities, concerns for the individual irrespective of status, with desire to find the truth of things, and the habit of learning, “to balance the reasons on both sides and to turn back the first offers and conceits of the mind, and to accept nothing but what is tested and tried” (Francis Bacon). It can be said that Western civilization has often fallen short of ideals, lapses very easily into barbarism, but always retained the habit of thinking, which perhaps boils down to two criteria:
A habit of investigation to find out the truth A moral question much despised by some modern disciplines: “What was right, the best that could have been done?”
168
Robert Ignatius Letellier
One of the problems of the 20th c. has clearly been a yearning to establish a kind of world organization which could bring about world peace and understanding: the League of Nations (1919), the United Nations Organization (1945). Neither of these two experiments can claim success because of the clash of ideologies, economic rivalries and power struggles among the nations. All the gadgetry of modern technology does not seem to have moved far in turning the idea into actualization in our times. Let us look at the Papacy not in terms of ideas but structure, which achieved what we are seeking: Una Concordia ex Diversitate. One cannot avoid stating honestly that the position of the medieval Church was as authoritarian in basic beliefs as the USSR was in its fundamental ideology. The Church had dogma, had a system of ethics, but did allow beneath the great panoply of dogma a surprising amount of local initiative and diversity. In the quest towards the fulfilment of ideals built up by the time of the death of Innocent III (1216), we find a fascinating structure running right across Europe from Iceland to Hungary, including many different layers of society, many different peoples, and new patterns of social and political organization. This spectacle led some to argue that if one looks at the structure of the Church, we find the structure of a supranational state.
SOVEREIGNTY The Pope exercised authority of an unusual kind. He had unique authority not only as the Vicar of Christ, but also in fact, in terms that that claim, possessed plenitudino potestatis (plenitude of power), the Roman idea of majestas (or sovereignty). This differed and was dangerous because it claimed authority over the man and actions of men. The power was not a matter of talking, but one of organization and acting.
The Medieval Church
169
EXECUTORS Because things change, the policy has to be made and re-made. There must be some centre of government called an executive where the Pope and cardinals and curia could decide what to do at any particular moment.
ADMINISTRATORS An organized state must have administrators, those whose business is to carry out and implement policy. By the end of the 12th c., the Pope relied on legates or clerical ambassadors.
COURTS OF JUSTICE In any state there must be a court of justice to hear and determine whether this or that is right. Papal Courts at the end of the 12th c. were the most efficient in the whole of Christendom so that to the anger of kings, subjects often preferred to take a case for trial in Rome. At this time the Church made extensive claims to jurisdiction. It claimed sole right to trial members of its own hierarchy. Bishops might be summoned to Rome itself or be tried before a bishops’ court, by delegated jurisdiction. This embraced a whole realm of public morality. The Church also claimed jurisdiction in two controversial fields. It claimed the right to determine whether a ruler was exercising functions in a decent Christian way, protecting the Church’s subjects, by maintaining good law and custom. In theory the Church never budged from the view that the test of humans is a moral test. It further exercised more earthly/temporal planes of jurisdiction over all matters everywhere where a promise was in involved, like probate of wills and in issues of contract. Today this is part of civil jurisdiction.
170
Robert Ignatius Letellier
SANCTIONS For any system of law, some form of punishment is necessary. Initially this depended on the sacramental system: excommunication and interdict, effective methods of punishment (see Emperor Henry IV, King Philip Augustus, King John). On occasion the Pope could and did organize that one king should chastise another (like Philip Augustus’s near invasion of England). We probably see something of this grip and clear thinking when in the 13th c. the idea of Crusade or Holy War was turned against Frederick II. The debasement of the concept of Crusade was perhaps a clear sign of loss of control.
LEGISLATION The making of rules or laws took place at many levels. There were synods in every diocese and sometimes something like a national council called by an archbishop met to take decisions. This was the origins of the Ecclesia Anglicana (Whitby) and Ecclesia Gallicana (Neustria and Austrasia). Here was local diversity in smaller matters, subject in the long run to a veto by the Papacy. Better known is the initiative taken in Rome itself. Here the Pope could issue or publish a Bull, like an imperial edict. There could also be a great council in Rome itself, attended by bishops of every church in Christendom. Undoubtedly the greatest was the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, summoned by Innocent III, to discuss the Catholic-wide problems of Christendom. This Council abolished trial by ordeal throughout Christendom. It was also at this Council that the new Order of St. Francis (Order of Friars Minor) was recognized, sending mendicant friars to go into towns preaching and teaching, helping the poor, a revolutionary idea, not limited to particular convents but serving as ‘urban missionaries’.
The Medieval Church
Figure 60. Pope Innocent III.
Figure 61. The Fourth Lateran Council 1215.
171
172
Robert Ignatius Letellier
FINANCE Great supra-national institutions cannot exist without finance. Here too was an instance of ‘local government finance’. Every country church owned great areas of land which were either let or farmed. From every parish the priest collected a ‘tithe’. This and other small fees met local church expenses. The problem was financing the Papacy in Rome. Various revenues were gathered from the Papal States. The there were the profits of justice, the legal fees. There was tribute from vassal states which had made themselves or been made fiefs of the Papacy (the Normans in 1059, England in 1208).The Pope could also appeal to the churches in various countries for the clerical tenth. By the 14th c. the annates had become a regular source of income. It is easy to talk of Papal rapacity, and in practice the Papacy did handle large revenues, but the scale of taxation, if compared to modern state finances, appear modest indeed. If one anatomizes the structure of the Medieval Papacy, one can see it for what it was—a most remarkable piece of organization in support of the doctrines it upheld. That apparatus had grown up with the changing textures of Europe from the 4th c. onwards. It enabled the Church to do much that was good. It fostered the new learning of the 12th c., had been the patron of universities and towns, and had been a very important check on the barbarity of feudalism. It had taught firmly that war is a means and not a goal in itself. By the early 13th c., it was beginning to feel its way outwards, to make new kinds of contacts, with new communications with communities growing up in small congested towns. It was among the chief architects of medieval civilization from the moment it deployed the first missionary monks as unarmed emissaries of a more civilized form of life.
Chapter 23
THE DECLINE AND FAILURES OF THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH Under Innocent III (1198-1216) the Church reached the high peak of its grandeur, both as institution and as attracting to its service men of original mind, like Saints Francis and Dominic, and great intellectual minds of the universities. But if we look closely even at Innocent III’s pontificate, we see kinds of dangers becoming apparent.
There was the failure to censure the Fourth Crusade which temporarily took over Byzantium. The tangle the Pope had contemplated at the Battle of Bouvines where King John his vassal, was in conflict with Emperor Frederick II, his protétgé. Probably among the worst blunders of the Papacy was the habit of accepting states as great fiefs of the Papacy. This very definitely meant much pre-occupation with the politics of the states concerned, just when these new states were growing up. The Papacy should have known how to compromise. The Pope should have faced the new situation and given Latin Christendom a pattern of change and development.
174
Robert Ignatius Letellier
The first half of the 13th c. (from 1216 onwards) saw the Papacy locked in deadly confrontation in Italy with Frederick II. The Papacy was first subjected to a real bombardment of criticism from the supporters of Frederick II. It was charged with being worldly, unscrupulous, tyrannical, though one may note that Frederick II, given power unchallenged, would have claimed all and more than the Church did. The real crisis point came later when Boniface VIII (1294-1303) became Pope. A brilliant canon lawyer, he would have been safer in a university. He had high ideals but a rigid mindset. His two chief concerns were: to work for peace, especially between England and France; to protect the clergy at every stage from the pressures of royal government for “Caesar was also rapacious.” He came up against the ambitions of the new monarchs in England and France. Each was taxing the clergy to make war on the other. He forbade the clergy to pay taxes to the state in the great Bull Clericos Laicos. He immediately met with highly skilled resistance. In England, Edward I summoned one of the first parliaments, and outlawed the clergy. France followed other tactics. At the great fairs of Champagne a kind of medieval Wall Street took place. Monies due to the Pope were handed over, and the king paid the creditors. Philip IV imposed sanctions. He forbade any gold or silver to be taken out of France. The Pope gave way by compromise: in effect, kings could tax the clergy with the permission of the Papacy. Another crisis blew up in France over the Bishop of Pamiers in one of the King’s tender spots of royal power in Toulouse. He was accused of treason and heresy. The Pope denied the right of the King to try the bishop. Boniface now challenged the whole position of kings in the great Bull Unam Sanctam. This remains the most impressive statement of the Medieval Church with regard to rulers. It was both logical and wellorganized. In its own context it raised the question of whether there are limits to the moral exercise of power. The answer was a tragic caricature of Canossa by the King and his advisors the Colonna family in Rome. The Pope was assaulted and kidnapped at Agnani in 1303. He was almost immediately released but died from the shock. Violence failed in its object, and there grew up a sort of conspiracy among the cardinals, some
The Decline and Failures of the Medieval Church
175
favouring a French Pope, others who were anti-French. They elected the Frenchman Bertand de Gouth as Clement V (1305-1314). Because Rome was in such as state of turbulence, the Pope could not live there, and took up residence in the only other Papal state, Avignon, a little island of territory in the South of France ceded to the Pope in 1274, where he remained from 1305 to 1377.
THE PAPACY AT AVIGNON, THE “BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY” (1305-1377) The papacy began to lose its statue. Many charges against the Avignon Papacy were exaggerated. In the case of England, who depended on the cardinals, the fact was that from 1337 England was at war with France. They believed that the King of France controlled the Papacy as an asset. Modern studies have thrown more light on this. The Papacy was in great difficulty. It no longer had the aura of Roman association (the Pope incidentally being the Bishop of Rome). It was also in considerable financial difficulties. The fair-charges levying annates were unscrupulously applied. The extent of Papal provisions has been exaggerated. The most startling blunders were the complicity in the brutal dissolution of the Knights Templar (1308) and the persecution of the Spiritual Franciscans who were among the most formidable critics, and were sometimes quite radical. It was at this time that a great deal of antiPapal criticism, centred on the wealth of the Church, emerged from those who were greedy. In 1306 Philip IV arrested, robbed and expelled the Jews from France; Edward I also expelled some 100, 000 Jews from England. Here, apart from the legislation of Parliament, there emerged under John Wycliffe for a time at the University of Oxford, basic criticism of the dogma of the Church (1376).
176
Robert Ignatius Letellier
THE GREAT SCHISM (1378-1414) In 1377, the position in Rome having improved, Pope Gregory IX moved back to the Eternal City. This was the prelude to an even worse situation. The cardinals at Avignon elected their own pope. This situation caused great rifts in Europe, deep anxiety in fact, complicated by the spread of ideas not unlike those of Wycliffe to Bohemia and the University of Prague. The thinker John Hus began a missionary impulse with Jerome of Prague. Their position was complicated because the Bohemians favoured reform. The Czech language, race and anti-German sentiments increased. There were in fact two main impulses towards ending this schism somehow. The first attempt at a council failed. The gathering at Pisa nonetheless elected a new pope in 1409 (John XXIII). The first positive move came from Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Bohemia (1368-1437) who could not enter his kingdom. He acted from complex motives. He saw himself as a kind of Otto the Great, leading the Church to its own redemption. He also saw that unless he solved the Bohemian problems, he would be an exiled king. He needed to meet a political sponsor. At the University of Paris, the great thinker Jean Gerson, a constitutionalist, argued that the only thing to do was to summon a council of the whole Church to deal with questions about three interrelated factors:
The question of the schism The question of heresy and a re-definition of true faith The reform of the Church as institution.
Gerson became the intellectual sponsor of a movement resulting in the Council of Constance (1414-1418). Prelates from every country in Christendom attended. The Council started with a revolutionary idea: “This holy council of Constance has its authority immediately from Christ.” The Council dealt with two matters rapidly. It deposed all three popes and elected a new one, Martin V (1417-1431). All agreed that heresy must be ended, and decided on the brutal and dishonourable expedient of
The Decline and Failures of the Medieval Church
177
burning John Hus (1415) and Jerome of Prague (1416) (who had been given safe-conduct). It tried to go into the question of reforming teaching and the structure of the Church. The Council broke down here, and left the livid legacy of the Hussite Wars in Bohemia where until 1432 Czech patriotism and indignation at the fate of John Hus were linked to a cry for religious and doctrinal reform. This tragic war was ended primarily by the negotiations between the Papacy and the Czechs. Concessions were made, but not very fundamental ones. Meanwhile the passion for councils revived, and new one met at Basle in 1432, claiming this time authority from “the kings and peoples of Europe.” It was very much more radical. The ideal of a Council continued, and Pope Eugenius IV reluctantly summoned it. On paper it lasted from 1432 to 1442 but in practice ended in 1438 when the Pope and moderate reformers withdrew. The Council had a sit-in lasting nearly decade until finally driven out by Emperor Frederick III. Basle was much more radical, with the bishops reforming the laity who were reforming the clergy, with everyone having the idea of abolishing many things, Although it started as a friendly family committee, holy ‘hot hate’ alienated more moderate and constructive thinkers. Many great opportunities were lost, e.g., laws were passed abolishing Papal revenues, without suggesting what the Church should live on. This was an enormous proposition they had undertaken. There was the metaphysical difficulty of trying to reconcile the Vicar of Christ with a parliamentary institution. Institutionally the Church dovetailed with the life of different countries in that bishops and abbots were usually members of every king’s council: in England they were members of the House of Lords. After 1437 the Pope and the moderates withdrew, and summoned a separate Council at Florence. For the first time since 1054 it reached complete doctrinal agreement with the Eastern Orthodox Church (1439). Soon, since both the kings and the Pope were alarmed at the demolition policy at Basle, the Pope gave up reform in favour of diplomacy He negotiated with various kings, drew up a series of treaties known as Concordats. This was not a bad idea: it meant taking diversity logically. Unfortunately, the basis of the Concordat was how to divide the spoils of
178
Robert Ignatius Letellier
the Church rather than to reform it. Tactically it was very clever: while the remnant of Basle raged ever more feebly, the Papacy recovered the initiative, and began to take a stand as the patron of learning and the arts. By 1460, the period which began with Unam Sanctam (1302) ended with the Bull of Pius II Execrabilis condemning the whole theory of government by council (the Conciliar Theory). 1302 Unam Sanctam (Boniface VIII) 1305 Avignon (Clement V) 1356 the Golden Bull
1460 Execrabilis (Pius 11) Concordats 1438 Council of Florence 1432 The Hussite Wars 1378 the Great Schism 1414 Council of Constance (Gregory IX) (Martin V) 1409 The Council of Pisa (3 Popes)
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY THE DECLINE OF THE CHURCH? DID IT DECLINE? In the whole span from Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam (1302) we could say that the Papacy declined to reach a nadir at the Council of Pisa (1409). By 1460 it had recovered on paper its autocracy. To look at this more closely, one must make the artificial division between the Papacy at Rome as a central governing institution and the position of the Church as a whole. During the 14th c., it is undeniable that the power and influence of the Holy See declined.
The bitter Hundred Years’ War between England and France (1337-1453) began during the time the Papacy was at Avignon. The English king and Parliament passed laws to limit the control of the ultramontane Church.
The Decline and Failures of the Medieval Church
179
In Germany the Golden Bull of 1356 ruled out papal intervention in the affairs of the Empire. There was formidable criticism of the Papacy by the political theorist Marsiglio of Padua (Defensor Pacis, 1324). Edward III of England (1327-1377) by the Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire checked the appointment of foreigners to English benefices. When we add to the spectrum the fact that the Babylonish Captivity at Avignon was followed by the devastating Great Schism, the decline is self-evident. The growth of intellectual heresies helped to promote a pattern of conciliar thinking that opened in the 15th c., with its grave challenges to the Church.
The results, despite the such triumphs as the Compact of Prague which made peace with Bohemia, and the Council of Florence as well as the Concordat with the kings, one must admit that though power was restored on paper in 1460, the influence of the Church, the medium through which the Papacy should act, was clearly in decline. When we turn from the Church to all the small and complex societies and institutions of Europe, the problem is not easy. A multiplicity of propaganda is not to be taken as evidence. The established authorities on the whole were on the side of the established churches, as with Oxford which produced Wycliffe and the English Parliament which produced one of the most horrible statutes in history, De Haeretico Comburendo (1401), a law passed by Parliament under King Henry IV of England (1399-1413), punishing heretics with burning at the stake. This law was one of the strictest religious censorship statutes ever enacted in England. In March 1401 William Sawtrey became the first Lollard to be burned. If we look at the Church, we see that the internal structure was weak. There was a tremendous gap between the power and wealth of the bishop in splendour and the priest in his humble parish. And yet the Church depended on the parish for communication. There is evidence of the decline of monasticism. There were scandalous quarrels between the
180
Robert Ignatius Letellier
monks and the friars who were resented by the former. In the Great Plague of 1347-50 it is generally agreed that the best men in the Church perished in trying to help and give the last rites to the dying. The Black Death was blamed on the Jews, and terrible persecutions took place in Chillon, Basle, Freiburg and Strasbourg. Even though Pope Clement VI (1342-1352) twice declared the Jews innocent, the persecution continued and thousands of Jews emigrated to Poland and Russia where they met with greater tolerance, especially from King Casimir III of Poland (1333-1370) The philosophical ventures of the Middle Ages resulted in great complication in theological teaching. When ideas become subtle, it may mean much to intellectuals, but simplified explanation for the common man can distort the truth horribly. Demands grew in several areas: at the universities and among ordinary people for the Bible in the vernacular; for a return to the good old days; for more preaching and less ritual. There was much sense in these ideas and they suggested and served as a wake-up call to ordinary men.
Figure 62. Pope Boniface VIII.
The Decline and Failures of the Medieval Church
Figure 63. King Phillip IV (the Fair) of France.
Figure 64. Avignon: the Palace of the Popes.
181
182
Robert Ignatius Letellier
New approaches began to publicize themselves at a period when the whole social structure of Europe was beginning to change. The 14th c. revealed numerous social explosions, peasant revolts and urban unrest. There is evidence of mounting tension in the exaggerated fashions in clothing, the prevalence of gross superstition and credibility. Old concepts were either distorted into neurotic forms or ceased to mean anything. And yet what was lacking was vital for change, i.e., leadership at the centres of power in both Church and State. The real tragedy was that the Church drifted with the tides whose new currents it did not understand.
Chapter 24
THE MEDIEVAL EMPIRE THE BACKGROUND TO THE GOLDEN BULL If we take the Emperor and the Papacy as the two typical institutions of Latin Christendom, we can venture three generalizations: 1. In theory they were complementary; in practice, especially from the 11th c. onwards, they were often antagonistic. 2. By the 12th and 13th cc., the Emperors were claiming to be viceregents of God, just as the Popes had claimed for centuries to be the Vicar of Christ on earth. 3. By the 12th century, the Church had considerable success in turning ideas into workable actuality on the whole for the advancement of Europe. By contrast, though the Emperor was regarded with considerable awe and respect, the plain truth was that he exercised no true authority or leadership outside Germany, only occasionally in Italy. In both these areas the position deteriorated sharply after the death of Frederick II in 1250. In Italy, Naples and Sicily passed into other hands: the French and other princes. North of the Papal States, the Imperial power
184
Robert Ignatius Letellier
was almost rubbed out, except that Milan (Lombardy) was still on paper as a fief of the Emperor. In practice, the Emperor still had to confirm the title of the ruler. In Germany (alias the Holy Roman Empire), in order to free themselves for the duel in Italy, Frederick II had given away valuable privileges to the Church in the Golden Bull of Eger in 1220. More important to the German Princes was the Privilegium in Favorem Principum (1231) which made them each almost into a petty king. The Emperor gave up Imperial rights and privileges in the territories of the Princes. For two generations after the death of Frederick II, not even a king was elected in Germany. And the kind of normalcy restored after 1272 with the election of Rudolf I of Habsburg (1273-1291) was different from the old days of the Empire. Now it was the practice to seek a weak prince in case he should try to lord it as king. Germany was like a patchwork quilt made up of numerous lay and ecclesiastical princes, free cities which in theory were held of the Emperor. But in practice they did what they wished. This was epitomized in the curious class of free knights (‘tin-pot potentates’) who claimed that their forebears held their state chieftaincy from the Emperor.
CHARLES IV AND THE EMPIRE In 1346 Charles IV of the House of Luxembourg marked the emergence of a new personality as King of the Germans and Holy Roman Emperor. During his reign from 1346-1378, he turned his back on ideas of medieval chivalry. Part Czech by birth, Bohemia was the land he loved. He dreamed of making Prague his capital, to be as splendid in Eastern Europe as Paris was in the West. He did a great deal for his own kingdom, which was well placed for trade. He encouraged commerce, the manufacture of glass, and gave his own university to the city of Prague (1348), which he imagined would be bilingual, with Czech and German side-by-side.
The Medieval Empire
185
Charles decided rationally, that there was not much to be done for Germany anyway, as the Holy Roman Empire had so organized Germany that at least civil war and foreign interference could be avoided. Following to some extent the decisions reached in the Diet, he published in 1356 the Golden Bull. This long and elaborate document was taken up by 90% with details of protocol. The gist of it was a proposal for something like law and order in Germany: 1. Immediately on the Emperor dying, the Archbishop of Mainz, as senior ecclesiastic, was to summon six other princes to Frankfurt. They were to be the seven to elect the new Emperor. 2. The other Elector Princes were: three archbishops (Mainz, Cologne, Trier), and four lay princes (Bohemia, Count-Palatinate of the Rhine, Saxony and Brandenburg). After High Mass, each of the seven Princes would record a vote, and the majority vote would decide who was to be Emperor. There were two advantages: since the lands of the Prince Electors were never to be divided provided they observed the Bull, there could be no civil war in Germany over the election of the Emperor. Secondly, there could be no excuse for outside interference in German affairs—the Pope was completely excluded. In these two ways the Golden Bull was a great step forward. Germans were in control of German destiny. It also rendered German interference in Italy invalid unless for Lombardy. The Bull also provided that the young princes should be taught three languages—German, Italian and Slavic—a reminder that German was not in fact universal. The Golden Bull laid down regulations merely for the election of the Emperor in the Empire where there were no Imperial institutions or power. This was the tragedy of German history, since Germany was well to the fore in a number of directions. The great Hanseatic League (c.1140-1669) around the Baltic and the Rhine was wealthy in commerce and in power,
186
Robert Ignatius Letellier
but not harnessed to any political state. The League, formally allied in 1241, was recognized by Charles IV in 1375.
THE EMPIRE IN THE 15TH CENTURY With the move into the 15th c., there was a curious reversion to a more Romantic type in the Emperor Sigismund. He gave lead to Europe by sponsoring the Council of Constance (1414-1418). In different times and ways, he acted as Otto the Great might have done—leading the Church on the path of reform. However, when the situation is analyzed more closely, one realizes that, apart from the cruel punishment of John Hus and Jerome of Prague, the hope of Christendom was churned up for the sole purpose of his being able to recover Bohemia. Sigismund’s legacy was one of disillusionment and frustration for Germany and Christendom, and the bloody Hussite Wars in Bohemia. In 1452 another significant change occurred when Frederick III of the House of Habsburg was elected Emperor. Like prosperous limpets, the Habsburgs, generation after generation, were to hold the Imperial throne. Frederick, by his dynastic entitlement to Hungary as well as by the Burgundian inheritance through marriage, laid the foundations for the later Habsburg Empire If one looks at Germany in the 15th century, there was division and disorder in the midst of prosperity, inventiveness and craftsmanship. There is much talk of the Italian Renaissance in the 15th century whereas the great invention of the printing press was made in Germany in 1436 by Johann Gutenberg (1397-1468). Undoubtedly one finds increasing disillusionment with the Church; reaction against Sigismund’s council marked a sense of pressure and insecurity. There were grounds for this if one looks at the Eastern frontier of the Empire and the German lands, territories outside the Empire, conquered by the Teutonic Knights in Prussia, and by the Knights of the Sword in Livonia. This age of expansion was now over. The turning point was the conversion of Lithuania in the late 14th c., and the beginning of the
The Medieval Empire
187
great Slavonic resistance to the Teutonic pressure. The first historic defeat of the Germans on the Slavonic front was at the Battle of Tannenberg in 1410 when a Polish and Lithuanian army under King Ladislaw II Jagiellon defeated the Teutonic Knights. On the Western front, the danger had been somewhat minimized by the long Hundred Years’ War which ended in 1453. Now the Western provinces of the Empire were in danger of being whittled away by France or Burgundy. The Germans were a people with great ability and resources, with splendid traditions behind them, but a complete lack of political cohesion. Countries like France, England and Spain were finding in the 15th c. unification around a dynasty, and a fairly strong constitutional organization. But in Germany, the particularisms of the Princes, marked since 1231, prevented growth of a central rallying point.
WHY WAS GERMANY NOT UNITED BY THE END OF THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD? The larger a country in more primitive times, the more difficult it was to work central institutions. Germany was always pulled along two opposing lines of geographical expansion. The Investiture Conflict (1075-1122) put the clock back and undid the work of Henry III. Frederick Barbarossa shows a classic example of the pull of Italy against the pull of the Baltic. In 1231 the Emperor virtually gave up any attempt at ruling the Empire as a political unit. In 1356 the Golden Bull put the dead-hand of seven electors on any chance of peaceful unification. Only in 1440 with Frederick III (crowned in Rome in 1452) was a sufficiently long-lived dynasty elected—but their interests, even when they became powerful, were tucked away in South-Eastern Germany. The Habsburg front faced the Turks on the Danube after 1453; whereas in the great days the Medieval Empire, the German front had faced the Rhineland and beyond the Oder.
188
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 65. Emperor Charles IV.
Figure 66. The Golden Bull.
The Medieval Empire
Figure 67. The Golden Seal.
Figure 68. Johann Gutenberg.
189
CONCLUSION “The calamitous fourteenth century,” to use Barbara Tuchman’s famous phrase, had started with the almost absolute statement of papal supremacy Unam Sanctam (1302), and it would end in the moral catastrophe of the Great Schism (1378–1415) in which it seemed that the Church, the Bride of Christ, had been separated from her Bridegroom. And yet the Catholic faith was the very medium of civilization, omniscient and inescapable. It insisted on the life of the spirit and maintained an afterworld to be more important than material life on earth. But the rupture of this principle was already in process as the worth of the individual and the value of an active life in this world, not necessarily centred on God, was slowly emerging, ending the Middle Ages and moving into the modern ways of thinking. Chivalry was the dominant political idea of the ruling classes, yet the defenders of the Faith and the upholders of justice had by the late 14th c. become the oppressors, so that the violence and lawlessness of the knightly classes had become a fundamental factor of social disorder. Medieval society, while professing a belief in renunciation, did not keep to this in practice, the age being one devoted to money and possessions. The century increasingly focused on a fundamental problem at the heart of society—the gap between the real and the ideal widened too much and the system began to break down. All this was frighteningly underlined by other factors such as disastrous weather conditions (like the worsening winters
192
Robert Ignatius Letellier
and flooding at the beginning of the century) and the catastrophic outbreak of disease in the Black Death (1347–50 across Europe) which saw the demise of about one third of the population (nearly 20 million people), and fierce social unrest, finding its symbolic expression in uprisings like the Jacquerie in France (1358) and the Peasants’ Revolt in England (1381). Men and women caught up in the grim reality of upheaval and contagion felt the end of the world to be close at hand. Death was everpresent, and the structures of certainty seemed to be falling apart, while thinkers and mystics were filled with the images and ideas of the end of things, of the imminent return of the Lord. It is small surprise that at the close of the Middle Ages a melancholia seemed to weigh on men’s souls. An impression of immense sadness pervades the chronicles, poetry, preaching and even legal documents. It is as though the period had known only unhappiness, violence, covetousness and moral hatred, as though only pride, indifference and cruelty had prevailed. No other age had laid such an emphasis on mortality, questioning the passing of splendour and the decay of beauty, as death dragged all people of every condition and age to perdition. It was a time of violent contrasts and impressive forces, which lent a tone of excitement and passion to everyday life and produced an oscillation between despair and joy, cruelty and tenderness, passionate piety and mocking indifference, resulting in a sense of contradiction and sudden change. Only the Church had offered an organizing principle to the disjointed and clashing elements of society, but when the Vicar of Christ, Pope Boniface VIII, was humiliated by the agents of the King of France in the Outrage of Agnani (7 September 1303), and the See of Peter was removed to Avignon, it looked like the beginning of the end of an ideal of Christian unity. In a period of enormous questioning at the end of the 14th c. and the beginning of the 15th, the very composition of the world and the universe was being explored and re-defined. Questions about the nature of man, his religious dimension and affiliations, the nature of the soul and the mysteries of eternal destiny, perdition and salvation, were shaking the very foundations of belief, social and political certainties and stabilities. No single figure better represents the interrogation of human liberty and the
Conclusion
193
freedom to choose than the legendary figure of Faust. In many ways he looks back to the certainties of an unbroken orthodoxy, while becoming the voice of the new Renaissance man. It is uncanny that this figure is associated with the invention of printing, and also with the dangerous questioning of theological truths—both of which were foundational to the whole new intellectual world order that was being proposed.
PART 2: EUROPE 1500-1700
INTRODUCTION The study of history involves the whole of man and his ideas and actions. Change is a gradual process. Even in the violent age of the Renaissance change was gradual. But were the changes between the 14th and 18th cc. always progress? If some were positive, what was the progress? If negative, why was there no progress?
THE CHANGES The Church The Medieval Church was all important, the Papacy all powerful. It reached its apogee under Pope Innocent III: “Midway between God and man, less than God, more than man; the Judge of all men, judged by none.” But because of the Avignon or Babylonish Captivity, the Great Schism which occurred after the Pope’s return to Rome in 1377 weakened the Papacy greatly, a situation exacerbated by the Conciliar Movement (14091438). The emergence of Pope Pius II in 1458 marked a change. He reflected his medieval predecessors, jealous of their achievements and filled with thoughts of the Crusades. But the Church was still united.
198
Robert Ignatius Letellier
In the 16th c, all changed completely. The appearance of Martin Luther in 1517 heralded the period of Reformation and the bloody wars of religion that followed until 1648. This should be compared to the golden memory of the Pax Romana, and Peace of the Church in Western Europe for nearly 1000 years (the Pax Catholica). On the other hand, the Age of Exploration (beginning with Christopher Columbus in 1492) furthered Christianity. The Latin Church became engrained in South America, although later with Africa and Asia there was cross-purpose in the effects of the missionary drive.
RUSSIA AND AMERICA The end of the Pax Catholica heralded other huge changes. Sophia Palaeologus fled to Rome after the Fall of Constantinople, and was then married to Tsar Ivan III (the Great) in1472. Byzantine influences, already established since the 10th c. in Kiev, were now strengthened in the Kremlin Palace in Moscow. In 1492, Columbus’s voyages to America marked a decisive moment in world history. These crucial events exercised longterm consequences. Perhaps one could say that the origins of American Capitalism and Russian Communism could in fact be differentiated from the 17th century?
TRADE A host of maritime adventures changed the nature of Europe. Trade from a European to a global zone was emphasized by Sir Francis Drake’s circumnavigation of the globe (1577-80). The ensuing competition led to global national rivalries and intensified the issue of divisive nationalism.
Introduction
199
NATIONALISM The social reality of the landed nobility was universal and the accepted form of rule. National boundaries were not rigid, but were increasing emphasized. In the medieval period barriers were social not geographical. National monarchies began to emerge. One has only to think of the multinational realm of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and compare it with the specifically national identification of his son Philip II as King of Spain. There was now a new kind of link between the King and the ordinary people.
SCIENCE In the sphere of science definitive change took place at the Renaissance. These changes were impelled forwards by the explorations of Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan (1519-1522), proving the roundness of the Earth. They found their equivalents in the world of astronomy in the discoveries by Nicholas Copernicus of the heliocentricity of the solar system, and in anatomy by William Harvey’s discovery of the vital role of the heart in the circulation of the blood. These developments began in the 15th c., but exploded in the 16th and 17th cc. There was a new assured sense of the individuality of the ordinary man in the Renaissance (developing St. Thomas Aquinas’s philosophical examination of the individual persona). The guilds which had begun association in the 12th c. became far stronger in emphasizing the group identity in society (as in the growth of civic identity in 16th- c. Nuremberg, for example).
ART In the endeavour to reflect God, realism began to manifest itself in art, again beginning in the 15th c. There was a move away for the hieratic
200
Robert Ignatius Letellier
detachment of the more Byzantine-influenced art of the Middle Ages. Artists like Masaccio (1400-1428) were of crucial importance in the history of Renaissance painting, introducing more tonal and linear perspectives. He heralded the advent of the geniuses Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo Buonarotti and Raphael di Sanzio. The movement at the same time reflected a decline in the faith of the Church. One must ask two questions: 1. Why was violence essential to the fruition of the Renaissance? 2. Why was there a divorce between religion and science? Most famous men were religious, churchmen: Galileo, Kepler, Newton all had religious affiliations. Anxiety over affiliation was settled politically by state authorities who came to make decisive choices for their subjects. The scientific approach of the Renaissance was accepted. There was a tacit intellectual divide, associating the spiritual with the Bible, and the scientific with the philosophy of Aristotle. Galileo was the only one to openly challenge the authoritarianism of Church and State. In the midst of change there was also continuity. For a long time the medieval and modern worlds co-existed. This was exemplified by Sir John Locke’s philosophy of government, that people should serve the state.
POINTS OF SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE MEDIEVAL AND RENAISSANCE WORLDS But some aspects of life had completely changed. A new intelligentsia emerged, rooted in the rise of small towns. These belonged to coastal areas associated with trade in Holland, France, England, and Italy. Principles of commerce and banking developed, and while not monopolizing the intellectual world, they dominated it.
Introduction
201
BY THE LATE 13TH AND 14TH CC., THE CHURCH STILL CONTRIBUTED THINKERS Europe was still predominantly rural. The continental landed nobility moved into the Renaissance as aristocrats (with seigniorial rights). If anything, serfdom was extended (especially in Russia) not reduced. The vast numerical numbers of the population were illiterate, and standards of living primitive. Protest was repressed, laws were harsh and cruel. In France the lower ranks provided the power behind the Revolution. And even in Calvinistic Scotland superstition was rife. After the Jacobite rebellions in 1715 and 1745 there was no revolution. In the field of government and administration only Britain and the Netherlands showed growth in constitutional government. On the Continent monarchy grew more efficient, but also more autocratic. The centralized state was never quite realized.
Chapter 25
THE BEGINNINGS AND GROWTH OF NATIONALISM IN FRANCE THE HUNDRED YEARS’ WAR (1337-1453) This major conflict entailed 66 years of truce and 50 years of campaigning. The underlying causes were both economical and political. It was medieval in pretext, costume and symbolism. Feudal legal terminology was used for the declaration of Philip VI’s (1328-1350) accession to the throne. He was the first Valois, and his claim to the throne, based on Salic Law, was disputed by Edward III of England. The Duke of Gascony was equal to the King of England by Proxy, Edward’s claim being through his mother Isabella, the daughter of the King of France. The prime trade of England was in wool which was sold to Flanders. Philip endeavoured to secure the Flanders monopoly. The English twice gained the upper and at the Battle of Crécy (1346), which saw the end of feudal chivalry, and the Battle of Poitiers (1356) where King Jean II (13501364) was captured. The first phase of the War ended with the Treaty of Brétegny (1360), which ceded French territory, from Normandy to Gascony, to England. The English were again victorious under Henry V at the Battle of Agincourt (1415) which led to the Treaty of Troyes (1420)
204
Robert Ignatius Letellier
with Charles the Bold of Burgundy, disinheriting the Dauphin, and putting France and England under a single crown. Henry married Catherine de Valois and became heir to the thrones of England and France. The early death of Henry V in 1422 meant that he was succeeded by his nine-monthold son Henry VI. Within two years the fruits of peace were shattered. But France rallied, and Jeanne d’Arc (Joan of Arc) (1412-1431), the symbol of French nationhood, re-captured Orleans and had the Dauphin crowned king at Rheims (1429). Charles VII (1422-1461), Catherine’s brother, was a capable diplomat and administrator. The English alliance with Burgundy collapsed and peace with France was signed at Arras (1435), with Charles’s legitimacy affirmed.
THE DUCHY OF BURGUNDY The Duchy was created by King Jean for his youngest son in 1363. It comprised rich lands around Dijon. From the first it was subject to great expansion, with dreams of recreating the old Lotharingia.
WHAT DOES ONE UNDERSTAND BY NATIONAL PATRIOTISM? This involves emotional attitudes to love of the soil, a prescribed area of land. It also means an approved way of doing things, and includes language and art. There is loyalty to a centre of government and the person of the king. There is a willingness to sacrifice personal comfort and advance for the sake of these loyalties. During times of peace and prosperity nationalism is weak and often negligible. Some have considered national sentiment underestimated in the Middle Ages. There is much to support this view, but in the case of France there was a sharp rise of national consciousness in the 15th c. With the development of national consciousness, there arises a concern for the entire
The Beginnings and Growth of Nationalism in France
205
population of the country. Knights and barons not only found affinity with others of the same class, but also with lesser folk owing them allegiance. All people became responsible for the national welfare. All this emerged in15th-c. France. The alien English made France aware of itself. Feudal divisions closed in order to drive the English out of France. The Peace of Arras saw the reconciliation of the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy. The consequences were momentous.
Territorial links from 1066 and Angevin times were broken except for the port of Calais. As a result of the split, each country was more conscious of individuality. Henceforth each developed literature and culture which, while European, nevertheless was distinctively English on the one hand, and French on the other (e.g., Shakespeare and Molière). The Hundred Years’ War had a considerable impact on France and England, affecting future history.
In England: Parliament bargained ruthlessly with the King, seeking concessions. The House of Commons gained complete control of taxation. Although war was expensive, it rescued the Flanders wool trade. A new pattern of commercial life developed, with England weaving its own cloth. (Flanders weavers fled to England and introduced the technique of their trade.) New aristocratic houses were founded by merchant princes. In France: By 1453 the English had been expelled from Bordeaux. The French were the final victors. But the situation during the War had been so desperate, that only desperate measures could save it. New taxes were imposed by the Estates General which could not meet during the War. These included the taille (one tenth of income) and the gabelle (salt tax). These were hatred levies imposed during war as wartime measures but remained permanent features until 1789. Regular income was augmented by customs taxes. The King could dispense with the Estates General. In the Hundred Years’ War were born the seeds of later royal absolutism. On the basis of a permanent income, a standing army was viable, so dispensing with the convention of feudal obligation. Although the devastation was
206
Robert Ignatius Letellier
vast, the fertile soil and multiplicity of crops ensured rapid recovery. The recuperative powers of rural France had never been more clearly in evidence. But this was only a step in the direction of national unity. Brittany was independent of the Crown; Maine and Provence were held by the Angevin descendants of Charles of Anjou, the brother of Louis IX. The Burgundies and Netherlands were held by the Dukes of Burgundy who were building up a state that threatened to cut off France from the Rhine. Already the Rhine and the Pyrenees provided the idea of national boundaries. And there was another problem facing Charles VII: the rebellious Dauphin of Dauphiné was working against his father’s policy of centralizing France. This can be explained by his singular character. By the end of the 15th c. France would be the most powerful country in Europe.
LOUIS XI (1461-1483) The King was already a legend in his lifetime: “The subtlest man alive.” He was a shrewd politician in the Machiavellian sense: What is expedient? not what is right or wrong. He provided a working example of the Renaissance politician. He was born in 1423 and reared in poverty. He despised pomp and ceremony and was frugal and stingy. There were no great Court and ministers to execute his policies. His chosen advisers and agents were from the middle class. He exacted from them a standard of efficiency unknown in the West. He often chose foreigners. In his coronation promise, he undertook to restore to France all the lands lost or alienated. In his first years he was too fast and zestful. He reduced the privileges of the nobles and the clergy and seigniorial jurisdiction. He persuaded Philip of Burgundy to sell him Picardy. He allied himself to Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan, a ruler in the new style but an enemy of Orleans and Anjou, thus alienating them from the Crown. He travelled through the realm, and issued more ordinances than any French king since Charlemagne. The nobles banded against him in 1465 in the League of the
The Beginnings and Growth of Nationalism in France
207
Common Weal, and civil war ensued. He claimed to want reform, but really wanted to win back privileges, and gain endowments. He succeeded at first, but then suffered diplomatic defeat in the Treaty of Péronne (1472). War was too wasteful and chancy. He regarded troops as part of his statecraft. He had a passion for manipulating affairs, becoming known as “the Universal Spider.” He realized that if he wished to establish royal power he had to break the power of Burgundy. In his youthful friendship as Dauphin, he had come to know the headstrong and extravagant character of Charles the Bold (1433-1477). While Charles was warring on the Rhine, the King was weaving a great diplomatic web. Agents were working in all the European Courts. He established peace with Edward IV of England and he extended alliance in Italy. Meanwhile, Charles had persuaded Emperor Frederick III to sanction occupation of Lorraine and recognize him as king. Louis responded by offering Frederick a large sum of money as countermove. Charles then moved southwards to attack Switzerland. Louis patched up the quarrel between the Swiss and the Holy Roman Emperor and subsidized the Swiss. The Swiss infantry defeated the Burgundians at Granson, Morat, and Nancy in 1477 and Charles was killed. His heiress, Mary of Burgundy (1457-1482), offered herself in marriage to Maximillian (1459-1519), son of the Emperor, so avoiding destruction. Louis secured what he wanted at the Treaty of Arras (1482). Maximillian ceded to Louis the County of Artois, the Duchy and Free County of Burgundy (Franche Compté); Louis further secured Picardy and Boulogne. All Burgundians lands except for Flanders escheated to France. The death of his brother Charles restored possession of Maine to the King. Further lands were added by bequest. René of Anjou bequeathed his county, Provence, and the Angevin claim to the Kingdom of Naples. The heir Charles the Dauphin was married to Anne of Brittany.
208
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 69. King Louis XI of France.
THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF LOUIS XI After a false start, Louis broke the power of the princes of blood, and smashed the power of Burgundy. By conquest, he added Artois and Burgundy to France. By chance he added Maine, Anjou and Provence, and by marriage Brittany. In France the old organ of functioning royal government, the Royal Council, was staffed by him. The Parlement de Paris was the juridical body that registered the decrees of the King. Met with prejudice, Louis created provincial parlements.
The Beginnings and Growth of Nationalism in France
209
Under this régime, taxes doubled. In the 1480s there were bad harvests which brought misery. But fields were reclaimed, towns rebuilt, and villages began prospering. In the course of his reign, he won the support of the upper mercantile bourgeoisie. He founded the silk industry and tried to exploit France’s mineral resources and encourage trade. Throughout his reign, power and financial resources were built up. He bestowed titles on the lower classes and encouraged land-buying, but did nothing to propagate democratic institutions. He clung to the existing taxes and standing army. Approaching death, there were still three things Louis wished to do:
To do away with internal customs to enable merchants to trade freely; To speed up and reform justice in France. There were still Church, feudal and municipal courts which were outside the reach of Royal justice. There was necessity for a single legal system. To introduce one weight, measure and money.
Other things also needed to be fixed. The great princes and nobility were often defiant. In some parts of France the new taxes were not collected. There was need for a central counting centre. The provinces newly added (Gascony, Burgundy, Provence) had long traditions of separatism. Many retained their own provincial councils. Louis wished to reconcile them to Royal government. Though Louis bequeathed a great inheritance, he also left great problems. Success depended on the ability of his successors, and a long period of peace and reform was needed. He recommended peace and unity. The tragedy of France was that Charles VIII plunged the land into the reckless and prolonged Italian War in following up the inherited Angevin claims to Naples.
210
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 70. Charles the Bold of Burgundy.
Chapter 26
THE RISE OF THE HABSBURGS The marriage in 1477 of Mary of Burgundy to Maximilian of Habsburg was the turning point of the Habsburgs’ fortunes and the influence of the Holy Roman Empire. Burgundy was the point of focus: their money lubricated the Imperial coffers. It brought Austria into European politics, raised the Holy Roman Empire among the leading powers The Habsburgs now had a direct influence in European politics until Napoleon. The Habsburgs were now stronger than any other German family. They needed the Imperial title as only in this way could they unite their far-flung possessions. They could not afford another dynasty gaining the Imperial title. However weak any other dynasty might be, it could with France constitute a threat to Austrian influence. This was the second direct consequence of 1477. France could not be expected to give up the hope of acquiring the other Burgundian lands. Austria had inherited the traditional hostility between Burgundy and France. For the Habsburgs, the Empire was of secondary importance. They needed it for their own interests, as a connecting link and field for assembling forces to fight the French. From Charles V there was no Imperial policy that was not to be understood in terms of Habsburg policy. The problem of the Habsburgs was that they failed to identify their selfish interests with those of the Empire. With the emergence of nationalism in
212
Robert Ignatius Letellier
France, England and Russia, it was the opposite in the Empire. In Germany there was a feeling of nationalism, but in the sense of culture and language. There was no crowned head to focus the emotional sentiments of nationalism. This was the paradox of the German people: they were industrious, gifted in all the arts and sciences, but failed to conform to the general pattern of European development and found a nation state. In England and France there was a consolidation of kingdoms. In Germany there was schism. Towns, like those in the Hanseatic League, controlled trade. In the North-East the Teutonic Knights pushed German influence to the Baltic Sea. This was the tragedy of the expansionist movement. Frederick II of Hohenstaufen had recognized the rights of the knights to control tolls and fix their own relationships of towns to government. Only a handful of cities remained under the protection of the Emperor. From Frederick II the ambition of all German princes was to rule like kings. Even the Peace of Augsburg (1555) and the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) saw the extension of individual princely power at the expense of central government. From the angle of power, this was a victory of the Princes over the Emperor. The states steadily increased their own power. Against the background of dynamic micro-governments, they developed the universities; guarded agriculture; kept their own courts, administration, treasury, armies. In these areas there was growth in 15th-c. Germany, but it was all uncoordinated. The Germans remained disunited until the end of the 19th c. The basic core of the Golden Bull of 1356 was the provision of seven electors: the three Archbishops of Mainz, Trier, Cologne; and four lay electors, the Elector Princes of Brandenburg, Saxony, the Palatinate and the King of Bohemia. The procedure of election was entirely German without any foreign (papal) influence. The Interregnum of 1254-1273 would not be repeated. This sanctified the disunity of the central Empire and the individuality of the rulers. It provided for a Diet consisting of two colleges of princes. The Empire had no court of justice; no Imperial army; no common treasury; no central executive to carry out the decisions of the Diet. The accession of Maximilian (reg. 1493-1519) seemed to mark a new beginning. By a singular turn of fortune, Frederick III oversaw the great
The Rise of the Habsburgs
213
rise of the Habsburg family, largely through luck. Most of the power emanated from the union between Mary of Burgundy and Maximilian. That anything came of it was entirely because of Maximilian, who was gallant, shrewd and patriotic. The Germans liked him as blending the medieval intellectual with the Renaissance superman. In his credit he had wealth of Burgundy behind him; to his debit he went to war with France in the battleground of Italy. Maximilian had plans for the Empire and envisaged a degree of constitutional reform. The problem was that the other six electors also had ideas on the nature of reform. Four of them actually demanded reform. The mastermind was the Archbishop-Elector of Mainz, Berthold of Henneberg. He was supported by the Archbishop-Elector of Trier, and the PrinceElectors of Saxony and Brandenburg. What Berthold wanted was the abolition of civil war enforced by an Imperial Court of Justice and an Imperial tax, the “Common Penny” based on property and income. Out of this a permanent Imperial army would be established. For administrative purposes Germany would be divided into 10 administrative circles. The whole structure would rest on the Diet which would meet every year. The control or executive would be entrusted to a Council of Government, made up of 20 members, with only three to be nominated by the Emperor. The other 17 would be nominated by the Electors—nominees of the Church and Elector-Princes, the cities, and the 10 administrative circles. This council would be exempt from the control of the Emperor, and made dependent of the Diet. Berthold was giving serious attention to reform, but was also clearly trying to undermine the power of the Emperor. Maximilian raised opposition, and the two groups ended in stalemate. Maximilian’s answer to the reform proposal was simple—to increase the power and authority of the Emperor, as the French and Russians were doing. An army was needed to augment Imperial power. From 1492 until 1512 there were successive Diets. The Princes and the Emperor put forward counter proposals, but there was no trust. Some small reforms were realized: the 10 Administrative Circles, the composition and procedure of the Diet, with more city representation added. But no thorough reforms were undertaken.
214
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Maximilian’s reign begun with great intentions, but led to a period of bitter disappointment. Nothing could check the tendency of the Princes from emerging as real powers. While the cities and the leagues grew weaker, the Princes became more and more powerful, valuing their independence. It was tragic that16th-c. Germany was confronted with two concepts of sovereignty: that of the Emperor, and that of the Princes. Because of divided loyalties in the Empire, Germany fought battles without unity. Herein lay the kernel of strength for the Reformation. When the movement began, there was no power to curb it. Luther did not propose new ideas: John Hus and Savanarola had already come up with these. But the Princes chose religion to oppose the Emperor. There is no evidence that Maximilian realized the danger threatening the Empire. Certainly his death in 1519 marked the end of ‘civilized anarchy’. Although he had laid the foundations of Habsburg power, he could not curb the main factor in the division of Germany. His wars in Italy led to the destruction of Italian politics.
Figure 71. Emperor Frederick III.
The Rise of the Habsburgs
215
(a)
(b)
Figure 72. Emperor Maximilian I (a), with his family (b) (Maximilian, Philip the Fair, Mary of Burgundy, Ferdinand I, Charles V and Louis II of Hungary) (Bernhard Strigel, 1516).
Chapter 27
THE TURKS IN SOUTH EUROPE DURING THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES Early Ottoman history is obscure. Around 1300 the Ottomans defeated the Seljuk Turks. The chief Ottoman, Osman/Othman, was the first to take the titles of Sultan and Caliph and pass them on to his successors. They acquired a superficial degree of civilization by adopting Islam. They swung their forces against their rich neighbour the Byzantine Empire. The Ottoman attacks were far more serious than the earlier Seljuk attacks. The Empire, further, had never recovered from the Fourth Crusade (1202-04). Although there was indignation in the West at the Turkish attacks, there was no crusade attempted to save Constantinople. Europe was involved in its own problems. France and England were recovering from the Hundred Years’ War; the Holy Roman Empire under Charles IV was concerned with Bohemia. Byzantium used ancient tactics. There were many foes wishing to seize what they could of the Empire: 1. The Venetians who held every key port in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. They provided the Byzantine naval power.
218
Robert Ignatius Letellier 2. The Serbian Empire was pushing down the Morava River. They owed their language, religion and culture to Byzantium—it was all basically Greek. Now that they were maturing, they demanded more. They coveted independence and the Byzantine throne. Under Stephen Dushan (1331-1355) they nearly succeeded.
To save themselves from the Serbs, the Byzantine Emperors hired Ottoman soldiers to beat them back. These mercenaries then settled on the Balkan mainland. By 1380 the whole Macedonia was under the thumb of the Ottomans. In 1385 Ottoman forces under Sultan Murat captured Sofia. The great Battle of Kossovo (15 June 1389) broke the young Serbian state (a coalition of Serbs, Albanians, Wallachians and Bosnians) beyond recovery. It was a disaster for the West, and rallied South-Eastern Europe against the Turks. With this buffer out of the way, the Turks moved up the Danube and were about to burst onto the Hungarian plains. Constantinople would soon fall. What saved Constantinople for another 50 years of life was a freakish happening. As they advanced on Constantinople, they were caught in the rear by the great Tartar conqueror Tamerlane the Great (1336-1405). From the East, he turned against the Empire of the Mongols, conquering a vast empire. In 1402 at the Battle of Angora he defeated the Ottomans. He appeared to be going on to Europe when he suddenly turned East again. His heirs founded the Mogul Empire in India which lasted until 1707. Under Mohammad II (1451-1481) the Ottomans made their next great advance, and in 1453 they took Constantinople, the great bastion of Christianity. Now all the key cities of the Balkans were in Turkish hands. Hunyadi of Hungary warded off the Turks at Belgrade in 1456. But there was still no concentrated attack on the Turks. By the time of Mohammad’s death in 1481, the Turks controlled a vast area from the Danube to the Euphrates, one of the three most prominent routes to the East, crossing Syria and the Levantine ports. They had a stranglehold on the trade between India and Europe. Muslims are by their nature trading communities. The Turks increased the customs but never cut off the trade route. Genoa and Venice in the 15th c. and France in the 16th c. concluded
The Turks in South Europe during the 16th and 17th Centuries
219
commercial agreements with the Turks. The conquest of Constantinople did not directly compel seeking another trade route, but it is true that the Middle East was plunged into confusion in the 16th c. Ivan the Great threw off the Mongol yoke, consolidating his kingdom.The Mongols had been terrorizing the East, as did Tamerlane. The resulting confusion and rise in taxes did contribute towards seeking new routes to the East. Venice still made enough money out of the trade through the 15th c. to keep up a great navy, as exemplified at the Battle of Lepanto (1571). Trade still went on. Of greater immediate threat than the Ottomans were the Corsair pirates. They robbed Venetian ships and re-sold the goods in Levantine ports. Of significance are several factors. 1. The Byzantine Empire had been tottering for more than a century. The entire commerce was seized by Italians, especially the Venetians. 2. The European Renaissance was not caused by the Fall of Constantinople. This may have accelerated it, but Greek thought was always present in the West. Italians were always at Greek ports. When Sophia Palaeologus married Ivan III in 1472, a cultural transference took place. Russia became heir to the Byzantine tradition. 3. The breaking of the Mongol Golden Horde by Ivan and Tamerlane, and the heavy taxes imposed by the Ottomans, rendered trade erratic. Venice fought the Turks throughout the 15th17th cc., a wealthy power, but always dependent on the Levantine trade. The Fall of Constantinople was a great shock. It had stood through the centuries as an immutable bastion of Christianity. This represented a break with the past, and perhaps changed men’s thoughts, but little affected the course of events.
220
Robert Ignatius Letellier
THE STRUCTURE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE Some historians see the Ottoman Empire as a great structure of tolerance. But following on the usual Muslim method, it imposed great taxes on non-Muslims. Discontented murmuring or uprisings were put down with great massacres, although there was no direct persecution of Christians. The Turks were a minority, and could not replace the native population, as they were outnumbered 150:1. They turned themselves into the dominant caste in terms of race, religion, political and military power. Only by conversion could acceptance and promotion be secured. Though Christians lost rights, they were able to maintain their own identities under parish priests obedient to the Patriarch of Constantinople. They kept their land, and village communities lived on intact, to become the bases of the Slav states of the 19th c. For 300 years Western Europe was oblivious to them. Only in the 19th c., with the decay of the Ottoman Empire, could they reassert themselves. From the Battle of Kossovo (1389) until the Treaty of Constantinople (1832) Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Rumania were ‘put into cold storage’. The head of state was the Sultan and Caliph. He exercised absolute political and religious power over the whole Empire. At the centre of government were usually recruited slaves. They were careful to keep out all other families. Suleiman the Great (b. 1494, reg. 1520-1566) changed the pattern and moved the Seraglio to the palace. The centre of government and political intrigue was now the Seraglio. Suleiman towers in a race of ‘little men’. Selim I (1512-1521) had murdered all near-male relatives, so set a precedent (the Law of Fratricide). The main functionary of government was the Grand Vizier—who held almost complete reins of power. This crude military empire was based a military unit—government of local districts, Sanjaks. This was awarded to Turks, usually sons-in-law of the Sultan. The army was comprised of recruited slaves. The pattern of government and units of the Byzantine Empire were taken over by the Turks. People were kept in tight subjugation. Yet the Turks never really
The Turks in South Europe during the 16th and 17th Centuries
221
conquered the mountainous areas of Albania and Montenegro which remained outposts of independence. The body of the army was made up of the Janissaries, who were recruited like the Harem. With a shortage of slaves, there was a levy on Christian families. The cream were chosen and trained as soldiers, the backbone of the Ottoman Empire. When exclusiveness was broken in the 17th c., it gave rise to military dynasties. Decline set in, and with them the decline of the Empire.
THE INFLUENCE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPE IN THE 16TH CENTURY The Turkish Navy This was the blight of the Mediterranean. It plundered ships of trade during war, and often joined the Corsairs in peacetime. There were two attempts to check it:
1535 when Emperor Charles V made an unsuccessful attempt 1571 when King Philip II made a determined effort with his Armada under Don John of Austria who won a resounding victory at the Battle of Lepanto (7 October 1571). The problem was that the great victory was not followed up. The powers were divided among themselves over the peace terms. Further, Philip was jealous of his half-brother’s success.
In 1573 the Turks came back and took Cyprus. This was an important event. Venice, which bore the whole brunt, and had maintained Levantine commerce, now lost control of the Eastern trade.
222
Robert Ignatius Letellier
The Diplomatic Alliance between France and the Ottoman Empire (1529 and 1535) This was a permanent factor in French policy. It was the first time there was an alliance between a Christian and a Muslim monarch. It aimed at securing two things:
Whenever France went to war with the Holy Roman Empire, the Turks cooperated by threatening Vienna, while the French moved across the Rhine. As a result, the French secured valuable commercial privileges, “most favoured nation treatment.” A consulate was maintained in Constantinople, and the French were allowed to become the Protector of the Holy Places in Palestine.
Throughout the 16th and 17th cc. this was the keystone of French economic and political power, a sacrifice of principle to power.
The Effect of the Ottoman Empire on the Holy Roman Empire The Franco-Turkish Alliance was disastrous in establishing a double front. Threats were made at crucial times. In 1517 with the Lutheran crisis, religious disunity was added to the political disorder. The pressure of the Turks was one of the reasons why Charles V was unable to crush the Protestants. Ferdinand I acted in Germany at times, to deal with the Eastern frontier. But they were forced to make concessions to Protestant Princes. The period 1525-1529 saw the deepening of this crisis when the Turks under Suleiman took Belgrade, crossed the Danube, and in 1526 at the Battle of Mohacs, defeated the great Hungarian army. The last king of Hungary-Bohemia, the young Louis II, fell, marking the end of the Jagiello dynasty. By treaty and marriage Hungary-Bohemia now passed to the Habsburgs. However, most of Hungary stayed in Turkish hands until 1699. Suleiman moved across the plains of Hungary to Vienna. If Vienna should
The Turks in South Europe during the 16th and 17th Centuries
223
fall Europe would lie open to the Turks. Charles and Ferdinand had to meet the Protestant Princes halfway at the Diet of Speyer (1529). The Protestant Princes resolved “that they were free so to conduct themselves as they should answer to God and to the Emperor.” This was an unofficial recognition of Protestantism. When in 1547 Charles won a great victory over the Princes at Mühlberg, it was a barren victory: by now the Protestants were too powerful to be crushed. The Turks indirectly contributed to the survival of Lutheranism in Germany, and more broadly to the success of the Reformation as a whole.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TURKEY IN THE 17TH CENTURY The Franco-Turkish Alliance remained to hamper the Habsburgs. Habsburg attempts to secure Hungary can be divided into three parts: 1. Western Hungary was under Habsburg control. 2. Central Hungary, the great battle plain, had seen nine-tenths of the population die in the wars. 3. Eastern Hungary (Transylvania) was the home of the Magyars. It was Hungarian, but with a strong sense of provincial independence. The Magyar Protestants were proud of their own history, and had no desire to suffer persecution under the Catholic Habsburgs. Every time the Habsburgs reached Transylvania, there was a Magyar war of independence. This war of re-conquest lasted until 1683 when the Turks again besieged Vienna. This was relieved by John III Sobieski (1674-1696), the last great Polish king. On 11 September 1697 at the Battle of Zenta Prince Eugene of Savoy (1663-1736), the Habsburg general, defeated the Turks. His troops killed 20,000 Turks, while another 10,000 drowned in the river. His army captured the Ottoman artillery, thousands of camels and 10 of the Sultan’s wives. But only in 1699 at the Battle of Carlowitz were the Turks finally defeated. At the Treaty of Carlowitz on 26 January the Turks
224
Robert Ignatius Letellier
were forced to give up Hungary to Austria, which also acquired Croatia and Transylvania, while Poland regained the Turkish part of the Ukraine, and Venice received most of Dalmatia. This was very important for the Habsburgs regaining of Hungary, and symbolic of the beginning of Turkish decline. It is also synonymous with the rise of Russia. It solved the problem of Austrian security, but it also created new dilemmas for the Habsburgs:
How would they govern Hungary? Would they make themselves into a Danubian power down to the Aegean Sea, especially after they lost the Thirty Years’ War and Treaty of Westphalia? The Magyars were the heroes of a sustained resistance movement. They were different in religion, culture, social and economic outlook. They kept alive the tradition of their own monarchy, the Crown of St. Stephen (1001). They wanted independence and to maintain complete local control. They were willing to accept a nominal Habsburg rule, but wanted Austrian and Hungarian coronations kept separate to emphasize their duality. The Emperor Leopold I rejected the idea: he wanted complete Hungarian integration, and a Germanic orientation for the Habsburg lands.
A new resistance movement emerged in Transylvania, led by the Magyar patriot Francis Rokoczi. He was prepared to accept Turkish aid, while the Emperor was involved in European wars, the War of the Spanish Succession. The new Emperor Charles VI agreed to redress Hungarian grievances. The Magyar question was settled by compromise at the Peace of Tatzmar (1711). Rakoczi was forced to seek refuge in Turkey. Austria virtually succumbed to their demands: Hungary and Transylvania were to be governed from Budapest. There were several endeavours at complete incorporation. Serbs were even settled in pockets of land, but to no avail. The Treaty of Carlowitz was of vast importance to Austria, Turkey and Russia. It marked the end of Turkish aggression in Europe, the beginning of their slow decline. The first power to benefit was Austria. It secured Hungary, even though the Magyars clung to their ancient customs and
The Turks in South Europe during the 16th and 17th Centuries
225
privileges of their Golden Bull. They brought the 13th c. into the 18th c. with their Diet in which they demanded separate rule for Hungary. The immediate result was that the Habsburg monarchs were unable to give full attention to the War of the Spanish Succession, and had to come to terms with the Magyars at the Peace of Tatzmar, where the Hungarians were recognized as partners. One of Austria’s greatest weaknesses through the 18th and 19th cc. was their inability to cope with this duality. The decline of Turkey coincided with the rise of Russia. Turkish decline in the Black Sea gave Peter the Great an opportunity to seek power there in the Battle of Azov (1696). The Russian drive to Constantinople was only temporarily halted by 1917. The European powers henceforth built up Turkey as a bulwark against Russia.
Figure 73. Suleiman the Magnificent.
226
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 74. The Battle of Lepanto 1571.
Chapter 28
THE EXPANSION OF EUROPE: 16TH CENTURY COLONIALISM It is significant that so much was achieved in two centuries with restricted knowledge. And yet the route to India was found, America discovered, and the colonization of America completed. Why did the exploration start in the middle of the 15th c.? Why did it start in Portugal and Spain? That the world was perceived to be round was generally known in the Renaissance, derived from Arabic-Ptolemaic geography. The cartographer Idrisi (Muhammed al-Idrisi, 1100-1165) from Cueta worked at Roger II of Sicily’s Court. He drew a map based on Ptolemy’s Geography which was translated into Latin from Greek and found in Constantinople (1406). This was one of the most important events in the development of geographical knowledge. The bulk of Ptolemy is a gazette of places and regions, described in latitude and longitude in 360 degrees. From the estimate of size Idrisi derived the length of longitude. He gave the method of alternating length, and many technical details. The use of co-ordinates reappeared in the course of the 15th c. with great force. The discoveries of the 15th c. made little use of the knowledge of the universe and science. Copernicus made new observations of the universe. A great disciple, Hans Lippershym (d.1619), made indirect contributions
228
Robert Ignatius Letellier
to navigation, not from Copernicus, but his own field of optics: the invention of the telescope (1608). The task of navigators became easier and more precise. All these discoveries had little effect on ordinary seamen. Venice and Genoa were satisfied with the flow of the spice trade from the Red Sea, Egypt and the Persian Gulf. Land trade was never completely abandoned, as exemplified by John Evelyn’s (1629-1705) travel to Goa where he found a highly organized trading commerce. For centuries Calicut was the centre of the spice trade in pepper from the Malabar Coast and islands of the Pacific. It was visited regularly by the Chinese. Commerce was from the East to Goa and up the Red Sea to Egypt or the Euphrates, on to Tripoli. This was ancient and not disrupted by the Turkish invasion. It was highly organized and profitable. The Voyages of Discovery were not owing to desperate necessity or a sudden realization that the world was round, but rather developed from the own internal histories of Spain and Portugal. Owing to the long occupation by the Moors, the Iberian Peninsula experienced belated political and economic life. The region was favourably placed with Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. It was also beaten at trade by Venice and Genoa. In the 14th c. the Venetians even arrived at Southampton. Facing Portugal was the North African coast, called by Arab geographers the ‘Gold Coast’. By 1460 the theory was exploded. There were, however, slaves and potential mission ground. This lured Bartolomeu Dias (1466-1500) around the tip of Afirca in 1487, initiating a new trade route to the East, and a short circuit for the greedy. Long before in 1453 Prince Henry the Navigator had already initiated his series of geographical enterprises. The legends of Marco Polo and Prester John were exploded, and the Azores, Madeira and the Cape Verde Islands were discovered, claimed and colonized. The West African coast was explored, marking the beginning of the slave trade. Dias and Vasco da Gama (1460-1525) were part of a purely Portuguese enterprise. They aimed at destroying the Venetian and Arabic monopoly of the Spice Trade, so followed a commercial strategy. This commercial nature was imprinted on the whole policy of the Portuguese colonial Empire. Da Gama opened the sea route first to Portugal then to
The Expansion of Europe: 16th Century Colonialism
229
the world by breaking the Islamic monopoly. The arrival of Da Gama’s ships in the Indian Ocean and his reaching Calicut (23 May 1498) introduced a new factor in the area. The armaments of the Portuguese ships were not expected and gave decisive advantage over Indian and Arab people. In 1474 the marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile took place, uniting the Spanish kingdoms. Aragon looked to the Mediterranean, Castile to the Atlantic. The conquest of Granada (1492) opened new ideas and new worlds. Castile listened to Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) about sailing to the West. In the Queen’s Council no doubts were raised about the possibility of this, but rather the distance was of concern. It was to found the Castilian commercial and religious state that Columbus set out on his voyage. His instruments were hardly more than those used to sail across the Bay of Biscay. In about 36 days land was sighted. The Castilians were the first to sail into those seas, the first contact between the Old and New Worlds after the Vikings. The feat stimulated other exploration. In 1495 Henry VII of England commissioned John Cabot (1451-1498) to find the North Western Passage around North America. His reaching Newfounland (1497) was the first link with overseas exploration and colonization. The Treaty of Tordesillas was made in 1494 by Pope Alexander VI between the two Catholic countries of Spain and Portugal, dividing their respective fields of interest in the New World. But the monopoly of both nations was soon broken. The heroic age of discovery really ended with the voyage around the world undertaken by Ferdinand Magellan (1519). The initial Age of Exploration was followed by an age of calculated conquest. Portugal on a purely commercial basis conquered trading posts from the Arabs and Indians. They planned to conquer the Red Sea. The first Portuguese governor-general, Alfonso d’Alberquerque, conquered Goa and the Malaccas (1511), and made for the Spice Islands. By monopoly he established a trade route with Portugal, with regular convoys to and from Lisbon. His success was not only owing to the military
230
Robert Ignatius Letellier
superiority of the Portuguese, but because of divisions in the Eastern lands, especially between the Hindus and the Muslims. In America Spain found a power-motive for empire-building: vast quantities of silver and gold. In 1518 Hernando Cortes began the conquest of Aztec Mexico; and in 1530 Francisco Pizarro conquered Inca Peru. First by plunder, then by systematic mining, gold and silver treasures flowed through Spain into Europe. In the 1520s French pirates made the first attacks on treasure ships.
REASONS FOR EXPLORATION There was a projection of the Crusading impulse. The religious motive was very strong. There was determination to break the Italian monopoly of the spice trade, and finally a quest for gold. For Spain and Portugal, the Voyages of Discovery were the gesture of a proud Iberian community. Having defeated Islam at home, they set out to conquer new lands for the faith. The results were incalculable. Theory needed to be put into practice. As a result of missionary activity, there was a spread of Western culture. Merchants saw the new countries as an opportunity to sell goods. No king in Europe hesitated to break the Portuguese and Spanish monopoly. France and England established connections with North America. The French Monarchy claimed the whole of North America. They also engaged in piracy. France realized that Spanish monies would help to finance the Habsburg army. Before religion entered as a problem the new trade and new empire-building intensified national rivalries. In the 16th c. Spain was a great international power. In the 16th c. in Europe, there was a general rise in prices. The colonies were only a contributory factor. The increase was down to three factors.
New silver mines had been found in Bohemia, which meant new bullion for the Habsburgs.
The Expansion of Europe: 16th Century Colonialism
231
There was tremendous development in the banking system with the Fuggers in Austria, the Medici in Florence (the papal bankers). Then there was bullion coming in from the New World. Rising price made for unrest so the landowners with fixed incomes oppressed the peasants. The minor nobility gambled on revolt.
New geography, new trade, new wealth sharpened the intellectual, political and economic unrest of the Renaissance world, and increased the distortion of prices. After 1517 when the old faith was being questioned, Spain began to organize its great overseas empire. With all its black patches, this was one of the chief glories of 16th c. The impress remains on the South American way of life and outlook to this day. From the beginning, it had all the vision of great social ideals. What Spain planned for South America, was to civilize and develop it economically. The pattern on which it was based was that of the old Castilian State which stood behind the Spanish Empire. Spain, despite the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand, was a unity of Crowns, one person wearing both crowns. In the 13th c. the idea arose that all men could claim justice. It was these concepts of justice that Castilians tried to carry across to South America. It was to protect the natives that Negro slaves were imported from Africa. This was undertaken on the advice of a Dominican friar working among the Indians. Bartolomé Las Casas (1474-1566), backed by Pope Paul III, strove to protect and civilize the native inhabitants. He relentless argued that the Indians were rational beings not to be deprived of their liberty or property, even though they were outside the Christian faith. They should be employed, not enslaved. Between 1551 and 1561 4000 Indians slaves were freed. In each settlement, an official called abogado was appointed to see to the interests of the Indians. Schools were founded, the Dominicans being the first to carry out extensive education programmes. In the second half of the century, Jesuits were the principal teachers. (In 1608 Paraguay was founded as a Jesuit state.) In towns hospitals and seminaries were built. Both settlers and Indians were encouraged to grow their own crops, ‘cash crops’, like sugar and indigo.
232
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Expansion was cautious when town units were founded. Application to the king was needed to form municipalities (cabildo), and a licence from the government. Sites were surveyed and laid out. Due attention was given to water and shade. At the centre was provision for a church, plaza, shopping area, recreational space, corners for chief citizens. It was an organized community, with some type of local government. In the cabildo colonists found a form of political expression. But the central colonial government was controlled in Spain from where chief officials were sent out. Despite later decay, the cabildo was the basis of South American government. This was a great, and on the whole, humane design. A span of 300 years shows great assets in the theory. Spain forged new states with a handful of settlers—80,000 in the 16th c.
THE DEFECTS OF THE SPANISH COLONIAL SYSTEM The chief defect was an intense centralization on the Council of the Indies, a specialist subsidiary to the Royal Council and the King. As a special privilege, the Pope in 1513 allowed the King to appoint Bishops in the New World. All the treasure and colonial opportunities were regulated by the Council of the Indies in Madrid, where any problems were debated. It tended to be more theoretical than practical. Great distances and cumbersome transport were aggravations. Ethically it was usually right, but helpless to implement decisions. In the colonies themselves, the point of view was more practical. They looked to the immediate situation. Overcentralization with insufficient manpower was the main weaknesses. Another weakening factor was the wars in Europe. The Habsburg monarchs used American wealth to pay for expensive, time-consuming wars of aggression. They wanted quick profits and quick transport of gold and silver to their coffers. Under King Philip II, the colonial system declined rapidly. The power of the cabildos was undermined by the autocratic king. More and more officials were nominated by the king. Instead of extending local self-rule, he tried to transport autocracy. A great number of rules and ordinances were sent over, but there was no royal army
The Expansion of Europe: 16th Century Colonialism
233
to see to their implementation. A great many instructions were ignored, never put into practice. Great farming estates or haciendas were granted individuals for life only. In time they became inter-hereditary estates. Even though the first haciendas were imbued by a spirit of humanism, as the hereditary nature increased the Indians found themselves enslaved.
WAS THE SPANISH EMPIRE MEDIEVAL? The medieval idea emphasized a personal link in feudal government. The conquest was a genuine Crusade, appealing to missionary zeal and the soldier’s desire for glory and plunder. If this was the case, surely it was like the Latin Kingdoms of the Holy Land? Did Cortes and Pizarro construct kingdoms? They were intensely loyal to the King but entirely independent of any control. Philip II tried to build an autocratic monument. It was really based on new foundations but in theory these were medieval ideas. The Spanish government had to implement its theory. This could be seen as a liberal view (from the idealists’ stance); a moderate view (from the official standpoint); or one based on racial superiority (from the colonists’ point of view). A great debate was held before the Emperor Charles V (King Carlos 1 of Spain) in 1550-51. The Dominicans were the principal champions throughout Europe, in the forefront of missionary enterprise. In the New World they were zealous and disciplined teachers. They were supported in Spain by power theorists (led by Las Casas, who had lived and worked in the Caribbean). They stood for liberty and free conversion. The Indians were rational beings before and after conquest. Their paganism was no excuse for war. Lopez felt that the Indians should not be attacked or intimidated. Missionaries should be sent among them to preach the Gospel, and convince them that they had nothing to fear. Fortresses should be built both to protect the missionaries and for peaceful trade. Only if the Indians attacked should expeditions be sent against them. With these view in mind, the government issued many ordinances (especially the ‘New Laws’ of
234
Robert Ignatius Letellier
1542-43). Spanish rule was exercised on behalf of the Indians, not merely out of Spanish interests. Juan de Sepúlveda espoused a theory of racial superiority. Natural Law gave the Spanish a well-defined chain of claims based on conquest and colonization. This was founded on three fundamental causes: the natural superiority of the Spanish as a nation; the right of the first discoverer of areas that had no legitimate ruler; the decree of the Pope, a spiritual commission to convert the heathen; and the temporal grant of unoccupied land. They should divide the Indians into rural and urban communities. These should be put under the control of “honourable, just and prudent Spaniards” to teach then the Christian religion by example rather than arms. In return for civilization the Indians would repay with their labour. Once estates became hereditary, the Indians in fact became slaves. They slowly fell into a gigantic system of exploitation and expropriation. Even through the colonies were ultimately exploited for Spain, they were a source of weakness to the Spanish Kingdom. They contributed vast sums to the national coffers but deflected attention away from European affairs, and encouraged competition from the other nations. The French, Dutch and English all looked forward to their own colonial empires, and this necessitated the destruction of the Iberian monopoly.
THE BREAK-UP OF THE IBERIAN MONOPOLY A fatal mistake came in 1580 when Philip II trumped up a claim to the Portuguese throne. The King of Spain remained King of Portugal until 1640. Now two great colonial empires were under Habsburg control. The Habsburg lands were now too large to handle. They included:
Spain and its colonies Portugal and its Oriental concerns The Aragonese claim to Southern Italy The Burgundian claim to the Franche-Compté
The Expansion of Europe: 16th Century Colonialism
235
The Netherlands Austria, Bohemia and Hungary The supervision of the Holy Roman Empire.
Spanish influence extended further and was beyond control. In France Spain was at one with the Catholic League (the Guise faction). In Scotland Spain was in league with the supporters of Mary Queen of Scots. To establish Mary on the English Throne on the grounds of Elizabeth’s illegitimacy, the Armada was launched in 1588. But the Habsburgs exercised only a tenuous hold. In England and the Netherlands there was the religious question. In this situation religion and politics were fatally combined. France in 1588 saw the accession of Henry of Navarre. The Armada was the beginning of a great punitive expedition, not only to punish England but also to convert Protestants back to Catholicism. In England three Spanish plots were defeated. The English helped the Dutch, and virtually closed the Channel by 1580. There was the unofficial support for the pirate policy of Francis Drake and John Hawkins. But unless Spain could completely control the seas, it could not ensure its maritime supremacy and safety. The Armada was planned on simple lines. The fleet would sale up the Channel, pick up the Duke of Parma and Spanish troops in the Netherlands, and place the army on English soil. Initially the Armada was fairly successful. But storms blew up and they had to anchor at Gravelines. This with Drake’s ‘fire ships’ caused the destruction and disintegration of the Armada and spelt the doom of Spanish power. The Armada was a landmark in English history. If successful, Parma would have worked against the French, and so it was also a landmark in French history. Allied with the Guises, it would have prevented Henry IV’s accession and policy of reconciliation.. The Netherlands under Maurice of Nassau took this opportunity of re-organizing troops for a greater stand against Spain. There were wider consequences. There was a systematic Anglo-Dutch invasion of Spanish interests in the East. A great colonial power must have naval supremacy. After the Armada, Spanish sea-power declined. England
236
Robert Ignatius Letellier
and the Netherlands invaded Spanish interests in the Americas and the East. Both of them organized East India Companies, grouping together piratical activities into mercantile associations. By the beginning of the 17th c. they were bringing back vast profits though trade. This was only a step away from Empire. In England there were other trading companies: the Muscovy Company trading with Russia; the Levantine Company trading with the Eastern Mediterranean. Attempts were made to settle Newfoundland. Sir Walter Raleigh and others were dreaming of colonies in North America. In Virginia the tobacco trade was flourishing. This set the pattern for new colonies. These economic patterns or mercantilism meant that each nation should be as entirely economically free as possible. The most valued colonies were those that supplemented the motherland. England and the Netherlands were temperate countries: what was needed to develop the economy from a mercantile point of view were tropical colonies, producing cotton, rice, sugar, tobacco. Colonies were also founded by religious dissidents, with extremes on both sides. The first colonies in North America were not complementary to England, and sustained a tradition of antagonism that would eventually result in the American War of Independence (1775-83). The 17th c. saw England and the Netherlands vying with each other in the West, a situation then carried over into the East. In 1623 Dutch merchants murdered Englishmen in Amboyna. The English found it safer to work on the Indian mainland, in Bombay and Madras. The Dutch were superior shipbuilders, the country being low-lying and always fighting the sea. Conifers were brought from Scandinavia. The Dutch were fast becoming the middle-men. In 1651 Cromwell issued the first of a series of Navigation Acts (with a second in 1660) to protect English shipping from the Dutch, to exclude all other nations from trading in English possessions. No other nation was to trade in English ports unless the ships were owned, commanded, or manned by Englishmen. The carrying-trade of the Dutch began to suffer, and in 1653-1654 and 1665-1667 England and the Netherlands were at war. In the final treaty of 1667 little was yielded. England obtained a new colony, the New Netherlands (with New
The Expansion of Europe: 16th Century Colonialism
237
Amsterdam becoming New York). Dutch interests were protected, with restrictions on Dutch trade modified. In America there was a curious development: France entered colonialism. They went to the West Indies and North America, colonizing the banks of the St. Lawrence and Mississippi Rivers. The Spanish claimed Florida and the Gulf Coast, England the East Coast and Hudson Bay. During the 17th c. Cardinal Richelieu, Louis XIV and Colbert fostered New France, so setting the scene for a future Anglo-French struggle.
THE NATURE OF COLONIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE COLONIES In New England the pattern was modelled on old England. The Governor represented the Crown supported by a bi-cameral parliament: Upper House (nominated for life), and Lower House (where the colonists were represented). The very roots of democratic government were transplanted to the colonies. In New France there were attempts to take over the forms of old France. Feudal nobles were established, with seigniorial jurisdiction. The colony was well-organized under a governor representing the King. The governor held autocratic power, subject only to the King. The Catholic Church was well-endowed, and several Jesuit mission were founded. The French colonies were likewise strong. Moreover, they did not stop at colonizing the St. Lawrence and Mississippi, and established rival a rival fishery at Placentia on Newfoundland. French pirates preyed on English fishing. On the mainland exploration was conducted by fur-traders and missionaries. Native Indians were enrolled by ‘gin and guns’ as French allies. In the Allegheny-Appalachian Mountains there was a fierce frontier war. Indians wiped out whole families, and were in turn hunted down. England as a metropolitan power seemed to ignore the settlers. English power was directed to Europe in the War of the English Succession (1688-1697) and the War of the Spanish Succession (1702-
238
Robert Ignatius Letellier
1714). England realized the importance of maritime supremacy. Efforts were made on the part of the English government to combine the colonies, but religious differences rendered unity almost impossible. The colonies further resented action from London, even if legal and in their interests. England regarded the colonies as plantations to be exploited. The colonies were loud to complain and demand concession which London was unwilling to concede. Both Succession Wars concerned vital conflict areas in Europe. By the end of the 17th c., England and the Netherlands were combined. France appeared to be about to swallow up Spanish trade. So a colonial war was fought on the Danube. In the Treaty of Utrecht (1714) English gains were almost entirely commercial and colonial. It marked the end of the first great colonial struggle between France and England. English Asiento trade developed, providing African slaves to the American colonies. The second acquisition was Nova Scotia, the only sovereign power on Newfoundland, subject to the French retaining fishing rights on the Dogger Bank. France recognized the right of the Hudson Bay Company. It is true that England made some colonial gains, but little compensation for the vast cost. After the Treaty France still occupied all the best parts of North America. The final dispossession of France in 1763 resulted from political blunders in Europe not in North America. The collapse of old France and its American colonies were inextricably linked. France lost out badly: it had possessed the Great Lakes and explored the Mississippi and Ohio.
WHAT WERE THE ULTIMATE RESULTS OF THE VOYAGES OF DISCOVERY? The Iberian monopoly was challenged by the intrusion of England, France, and the Netherlands. All founded colonies on a national basis. In every case, colonization was preceded by vast conquests, accompanied by
The Expansion of Europe: 16th Century Colonialism
239
exploitation recompensed by the imposition of European culture. In the 16th c. the wealth of the Indies created economic inflation. The defeat of the Armada in 1588 was a turning point for England, France and the Netherlands. It gave them command of the seas and the opportunity for creating their own empires. In the 17th c., Habsburg Spain was broken by France. Spain ceased to challenge the English and French colonies. Such was the rivalry on the 17th c. that England and the Netherlands indulged in open war. Only in 1674 were the commercial interests of the English and Dutch combined to preserve Continental power and prevent the rise of France. The two big wars of the English and Spanish Successions were fought partially to protect commerce and the colonies. England and the Netherlands were concerned to put a check on Louis XIV. France had a more strategic position in North America. England controlled the sea, a vital factor. Thus the Voyages of Discovery intensified national conflict at a difficult time in European relationships. Rivalry in the colonial field intensified European conflicts.
Figure 75. Christopher Columbus.
240
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 76. Vasco da Gama.
Figure 77. Ferdinand Magellan.
Chapter 29
THE RENAISSANCE The Renaissance did not begin with the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, which brought a rich Greek heritage to Europe. The impact of the new learning on Europe is believed to have been so powerful and startling that historians have felt compelled to describe this as the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of a new era. Andreas Cellarius (1595-1665), the German cartographer, in 1650 described the period 476-1453 as ‘the Middle Age’, marked by deterioration, barbarism, ignorance, and bigotry. It was succeeded by one of progress, civilization and enlightenment. For many years this attitude persisted. Many said the Renaissance indicated a revival of letters, the end of an old order. The break with the past was not made with dramatic suddenness. Yet the novelty of the period is undeniable. It was a period of change in emphasis, in standards, and involved a degree of violence. The pattern of change started in the city-states of Northern Italy. Here feudal and ecclesiastical elements which had been so powerful in forming the Middle Ages were superseded by urban and secular forces as they developed. Nowhere else was political authority so accessible to the ambitious. The environment in which the Italian Renaissance developed gives a clue to the nature of the age.
242
Robert Ignatius Letellier
The self-made men of the Renaissance appreciated the nature of the age, its ruthlessness. They wanted quick returns in business and politics. In many cases they were well aware of the uncertainty of their position. Sudden turns of fortune led to instant financial ruin and political defeat. Scholars, artists, sculptors formerly in feudal and ecclesial service were called to towns to embellish the civic areas and homes of new patrons. This helps to explain the movement of art from purely religious perspectives to a more plastic, coloured and secular dynamism. Artists had opportunity to experiment more freely. This, renewed interest in Classical styles, and the Humanism of the age explain the development in art and architecture from the 6th c. to the 16th c. The new ruling classes were not only excellent patrons, but the manner of their rise to power had a profound effect on the Italian way of life. Successors seemed to indicate that the individual, whatever his rank and status, could do anything if sufficiently skilful and ruthless. There was nothing in Italy to stop a servant from becoming king. The results of many success stories destroyed the barriers of ambition. The Voyages of Discovery confirmed the new spirit of the Renaissance. The Spanish conquistadores expressed this new spirit. The universal man was the hero of the new age. Because there were no longer limits to man’s abilities, he sort to achieve perfection in all forms of life. They aimed at excellence in writing, improving art, government (the object of scientific arrangement) and business. Pre-occupation with perfection was acquired by Copernicus after study in Italy. He saw the inherited mathematical mess of the universe, and observed the precision of the new ideas. He could not explain the system, but did perceive the orderliness of the theory. Whatever characteristics may be traced back to the Middle Ages, a degree of continuity must confirm that the Renaissance could not have emerged in all its complexity until a new environment was achieved. This appeared only in the 15th c. They did not only look back in re-appraisal of the Classical world, nor only to the new patronage, but to a fundamental change in man’s attitude to himself and the universe. This new confidence
The Renaissance
243
in man stimulated him to believe that he could do all things—and do it well.
CHANGES The collapse of the concept of a united Christendom under the basic supervision of the Pope was the beginning of a whole group of states determined by national characteristics. In earlier times the feudal nobility had close ties and boundaries were not rigid. By the end of the 15th c. national characteristics had developed and were emerging. The Hundred Years’ War saw such development in France and England. The emergence of nationalism continued into the Renaissance with the manifestation of absolutism in many states. Renaissance literature is full of allusions to this. The essential quality of Renaissance political theory shows that the medieval balance of right and duties has disappeared. This was paralleled by the idea of a national state. Patriotism was fanned and enforced by incessant wars (as between the Valois and the Habsburgs) and religious differences. Both Catholic and Protestant rulers claimed to be absolute in their realms. The classic example is Louis XIV who thought of himself as the deputy of God and the very embodiment of the nation: L’État c’est moi, “I am the State.” A new brand of royal servant emerged: the diplomat, representing kings and rulers in the Courts of other leaders. Through them there was often a way round religious difficulties. France and Spain sometimes defied the Pope. Catholic rulers did not hesitate to align themselves with Protestant ones. Religion ceased from c. 1648 to play a vital factor in international affairs. Diplomacy hinged on the equilibrium of the balance of power. Several weaker powers made pacts or alliances to circumvent more powerful nations. The nation state and international Renaissance brought on a new way of life. Absolute kings provided a new philosophy of power: “Might is right.” This was the base used by Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469-1527) in his little book The Prince (1532). The Renaissance is even
244
Robert Ignatius Letellier
called the ‘Age of Machiavelli’. His book contains nothing that people did not know already. He wrote other big works. From 1496 he was a civil servant, secretary to the Group of Ten in Florence. During this period the city was under republican government. With the return of the Medici family, Machiavelli was exiled from political life. The Prince was the work of a frustrated man. His experience was extraordinarily wide. He was sent as an observer on various government missions (to France, Switzerland, the Holy Roman Empire, Rome). This wide background formed his thought which culminated in his book which became the blueprint of Renaissance politics. The book marks the climax of a series of endeavours to secularize the state completely. Machiavelli pleaded with the Medici to help free Italy from barbarians. It was a handbook of political practice rather than a philosophy, and based on current events. It is not about what ought to be done but what was actually done. He was a shrewd commentator on current affairs. The popularity of the book relates to its terse style and its opening, stating what many men believed: “The object of a ruler is to maintain power.” His pose is virtuous, but in practice he breaks treaties and promises, deceives and lies to his supreme end, killing all enemies if necessary. In the last instance fortuna is important in human affairs. But where possible, nothing should be left to chance. Success by any means whatsoever is the only criterion by which political action can be judged. Machiavelli set the tone of European politics. The next book of political theory to exercise influence was Sir Thomas More’s (1478-1545) Utopia (1515). He was an Englishman of middle class, his father a lawyer, he entering the legal profession as well, rising to be privy councillor and then Lord Chancellor of England. He contemplated a religious life and never rejected Catholicism. He died a martyr’s death for refusing to acknowledge Henry VIII as the head of the church. He was associated with Erasmus and Colet in seeking to reform the surrounding world. He is best-known for his little book Utopia which has been much debated. Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree (1942) saw it as a support for the utilitarian school of philosophy, the progenitor of socialism. But one can read much more in it than this. It is more modern in outlook, using satire,
The Renaissance
245
written with tongue-in-cheek, and was probably penned to make people think. It poses rather than answers questions. Should a Prince be assassinated if deserving? He conjures up an imaginary island in the New World, a society highly intelligent and cultured, almost perfect in ideal conditions, free from want or fear and natural disadvantages. The controversial points touch on the economy of Utopia; the philosophy of the people; belief in a religion acknowledging a supreme being, with faith circumscribed by scriptures, and allowing toleration; with a recognition of divorce and euthanasia. Seebohm claimed that the framework bears witness to More’s conviction of what should be aimed for is a single community: no extremes of a rich or educated aristocracy with a poor ignorant peasantry. People are reasonably well-off and educated. The object of the economy is not to increase luxury, nor to accumulate riches in the hands of a few. More depicts a society in which riches lighten the labour of the poor, while communities share in the work, with no idle classes. Labour of six hours a day is ideal. There can be no hope of curbing or destroying love of property until it is abolished altogether. Gold and jewellery are dismissed as childish things. Christopher Hollis (Thomas More, 1934) stated that we are not entitled to presume more than acertain plausibility on a Utopian statement of communism. By reference to other works he sees a condemnation of communism: “Men cannot live conveniently when all things are common.” In a Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation More observed that “when a state’s money is pooled and divided, the rich are reduced to beggars, and beggars to nothing.” As a religious man he accepted that “the poor will always be with you.” He saw that it was necessary for individual to have initiative. In Utopia, money itself is not condemned but rather the love of money. More supported the idea proposed in Aesop’s fable. He was clearly of the opinion that the rich have an obligation to help the poor and employers to pay fair wages. Seebohm saw the moral philosophy of Utopia as utilitarian and Christian. It is difficult to accept the latter opinion, only if it is qualified in being open to logic and good faith.
246
Robert Ignatius Letellier
More placed pleasure as a chief object in life, the pleasure being intellectual, “the very emotion or state of body or mind in which nature leads us to take delight.” This pleasure is not momentarily, but for the longrun and the afterlife. Basic happiness and delight is found in virtue, happiness, consideration of others. In this, More reveals himself as fundamentally democratic. The moderation of Utopians led them to accept the “sweet reasonableness” of Christianity. No force should be used in conversion to Christianity. The attitude to religion in Utopia is broad and tolerant. Because of great freedom, we differ widely in thinking about religion. We agree on one thing: One Supreme Being. Being Christian would exist sideby-side with other older religions. More saw the need for only a few priests of either sex, elected by ballot. The point of dispute is whether we could elect our own priest. Even Utopians then qualify to fulfil Christian offices. He says little of Apostolic Succession or control by the Pope. In a sense More foreshadowed the Reformers Luther and Calvin. In Utopia, priests are the conductors of public worship, inspectors of public morals, ministers of education, rather than part of a hieratic office administering sacraments. Toleration gave More the opportunity to drive home the lesson he was fond of teaching: Christians should not despise and jeer at all pagans simply because they are pagan. He claimed that Christians had a duty to approach paganism with sympathy and understanding. God’s purpose is to withhold revelation until the appointed time. Those who approach pagans wrongly themselves are to blame for failing to take the trouble, and have no right to call themselves martyrs. Hollis sees it characteristic of More’s genius that he did not resist the opportunity to show that Christian missionaries had fallen from the level Christians ought to attain: lower than the level where the common sense of pagans is more superior. In Utopian society there is no place for either free love or indissoluble marriages. While More attempted to preserve monogamy as the normal rule, on occasions there were likely to be cases of difficulty. Family, far from being suppressed, is held in high regard in Utopia. Yet divorce is admitted. This does not mean he thought the Christian theology of marriage is nonsensical. Divorce is the rational solution to difficult human
The Renaissance
247
relations not knowing Christianity. No society ever found arguments for monogamy and no divorce. Divorce is espoused on logical grounds. But on purely Christian grounds, no divorce must be accepted. He also concluded in the same way that if someone is incurably ill, no one should prevent them from seeking euthanasia. But if ruled by supernatural reasons of religion, it is forbidden. Utopia contains statements of very modern notions and sentiments for a modern society, many points still being highly controversial. The Kremlin thus hailed him as a precursor of Communism. Because More would not accept the Act of Supremacy he was executed, and canonized as a martyr in 1935. His book is practical but also held to ideals. Since Utopia requires beings who are both intelligent and rational, it is impossible to fulfil in this world. The book provides one of the best criticisms of the Renaissance Period. The conflict of contending nations made European history chaotic. Obviously a theory of international relationships had to be found. The Dutch jurist Hugo de Groot (Grotius) (1583-1645) tried to fill the gap. During the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) his book De jure belli et pacis (1625) was the first in a series governing international law. The basis was that each state was sovereign, and consisted of a society of men, and was therefore subject to Lex Natura (the Law of Nature). Although not enforceable in any court, it was “as axiomatic as a mathematical law.” It was a gallant attempt at finding some kind of unity for the collapsed power of a united Christendom and the ascendancy of the Pope. He drew on a Classical heritage. No work on Classical lines had been written before and it became the basis of all modern studies of international relationships. Grotius looks to the English philosopher and Thomas Hobbes (15881679) who in The Leviathan (1651), written in the wake the English Civil War between King Charles I and Parliament led by Oliver Cromwell (in1642-1646, and1648), and of the Thirty Years’ War, produced the greatest work of political philosophy in the English language. Permanently challenging, it has found new applications and new refutations in every generation. Hobbes argues that human beings are first and foremost concerned with their own individual desires and fears. He shows that a
248
Robert Ignatius Letellier
conflict of each against every man can only be avoided by the adoption of a compact to enforce peace. The compact involves giving up some of our natural freedom to a sovereign power which will enforce the laws of peace on all citizens. Hobbes also analyses the subversive forces—religion, ambition, private conscience—that threaten to destroy the body politic, Leviathan itself, and return us to the state of war. His ideas reflect the selfish motivations of these terrible upheavals behind religious idealism.
ECONOMIC THEORY The political change during the Renaissance was accompanied by economic theory. In the medieval period property was considered subordinate to the rule of law, usury was wicked and condemned by Christians in all transactions where one came off worse than the other. Products of the earth were good and exchangeable for money. In the Renaissance a new economic theory was born: supply and demand. It was not long before kings and popes were caught up in the new economics. Kings needed cash. It was necessary to borrow, with interest charged. Kings and popes depended on the bourgeoisie. The Church continued to denounce usury in theory, but in practice supported it. By the 13th and 14th cc., they were exploring the idea of taking capital. People began experimenting with new banking ideas. Two great banking houses emerged: the Fuggers and the Medici. Lip-service to the idea that business is merely a human relationship subject to moral control was discarded. And among some Protestant groups, to work and save were regarded as highly desirable and virtuous characteristics. The economist, philosopher and social scientist Max Weber (18641920) taught that modern capitalism had its roots in Calvinism (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1905). Calvinism is essentially individualistic, an essentially Renaissance characteristic. Salvation was a matter between the Creator and the created. Calvin himself lay down two points in the economic sphere: It was a duty to work hard at one’s calling, and one should refrain from the pleasurable consumption of
The Renaissance
249
wealth. This resulted almost automatically in the accumulation of wealth. Owning to considerable sums saved was a sign of divine favour. The equation was that all rich men are good and all poor men bad. The thesis is questionable, but Protestant ascetics tended to look like this, with many great capitalists among the Protestants. In Renaissance economics, ethical restraint ceased both theoretically and pragmatically. Economic individualism was justified and made respectable. Given the rise of new nation states, the economy began to develop along new lines of economic theory. Renaissance business men were practical, faced with problems and concerned with making the state as rich as possible. Mercantilism was used to explain economic theories, the commercial side of state-making. It was never more than a means, with a political object in mind. In various phases it revealed different ideas. None of the mercantile theoreticians approved of the basic theories and embraced many different attitudes of thought, from which broad generalizations can be drawn. The whole object was to make the country rich and strong. It was necessary to possess bullion. It was best own a mine or possess colonies with them. By trade it was preferable to export more than to import. It was necessary to have a favourable balance of trade. Here colonies were again important since one should have a supplementary economy to augment that of the mother country. It stressed the importance of trade and industry. During Louis XIV’s reign Colbert reduced tariffs to encourage trade. Trade and industry were more important than agriculture. The importation of foreign workers should be encouraged and the emigration of skilled workers avoided. This involved a definite policy towards demography: a bigger population would produce more labourers, artisans, soldiers and sailors. The Huguenots were typical of skilled labour and yet driven out by the religiously motivated Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), and a terrible loss to the French economy. Encouragement and protection should be given to shipping. The struggle between the Dutch and the English for carrying trade resulted in
250
Robert Ignatius Letellier
the Navigation Acts whereby seamen were trained and so useful for defence. Privileged trading companies should be created, like the English East India Company (1600) the Dutch East India Company (1602). They held monopolies but reduced completion. Various statesmen emphasized one or more of these points at various times. Mercantilism regarded the State as appropriate for the well-being of the country, perceived as a unit. National interests were to be promoted regardless of the concerns of individuals. The requirements of the State might to be in conflict with those of the individual. In that case the interest of the whole took precedence. The theory tended to take a comprehensive view of society, and looked at the State as the appropriate administrative machine to assure its needs.
Figure 78. Niccolò Machievelli.
The Renaissance
Figure 79. Sir Thomas More.
251
Chapter 30
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC THINKING If history had been written from a scientific point of view there would have been many different perspectives. The closure of the Alexandrian School (where the literature, science and thought of Alexandria under the Greeks and Romans were developed, 300-146 BC), is of exemplary pertinence here. Herbert Butterfield (The Origins of Modern Science, 1300-1800, 1949) placed the break between Medieval and Modern Science in 1277, when the Pope condemned Aristotle as limiting the omniscience of God. Before this date Aristotle’s theories of motion were a big question in Paris and Oxford where they were concerned with finding new ways of explaining things. According to Nicholas of Oresme, God set off the universe like a clock on its own momentum. Jean Buridan worked out the theory of impetus which influenced Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo. The new epoch opens round about the 14th c., which had re-absorbed much of Classical science. Europe was groping towards new explanations until 1687when Isaac Newton (1642-1727) in De Principia established the nature of the Universe. This was a landmark in the history of modern science. It was quickly followed by attempts to apply scientific knowledge to practical problems. People were starting to see how man has established
254
Robert Ignatius Letellier
himself over nature, a revolution from muscle power to the mechanical age, with Newton a generating force. Science mastered most natural resources, and built up a new unity, bringing man into the pattern of scientific thinking. The permanent influence of the Renaissance shows up as clearly in the history of science as in scholarship. Manuscripts of the 12th c. were eagerly printed and important in the development of science, like the Compendium of Avicenna (1087), printed in the 16th c. and still on the book lists of French universities until the 17th c. Books were increasingly available to scholars, like the Roman philosopher Seneca’s (d. 65 AD) Quaestiones Naturales. They show the process whereby science developed. In the 15th c. ideas sourced in 12th and 13th cc. were derived from Ptolemy in the 4th c. They show a cumulative process, with old ideas dying slowly as new hypotheses were developed but could not be proven (as with Copernicus and the Universe). None of this was an entirely new experience. Factual discoveries did not make science as important as the development of scientific method. The Middle Ages used deductive methods, whereas during the Renaissance inductive methods characterized many experiments. The year 1543 is important. Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564) published De Fabrica; Archimedes was translated by Niccolò Fontana Tartaglia (1499-1557); and Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) published De Revolutionibus Orbium. Vesalius was the founder of the science of anatomy. Forerunners and contemporaries in Renaissance Italy were Leonardo and Michelangelo in the portrayal of physical realism. Working at the University of Padua, Vesalius retains primacy for the vividness of his study, the accuracy of his drawings, and critical analysis of the evidence. The anatomist was linked to the artist. The problem was that instruments did not exist. However, religious conviction forbade the dissection of corpses, and Vesalius was condemned by the Church, and died on the way back from a penitential pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Progress was steady, and bone and muscle structure was well mastered. William Harvey (1578-1657) published De Mortu Cordis (1628) which established the facts of circulation. He had to prove that arteries contained
The Development of Scientific Thinking
255
blood not air. Only in the 19th c. did good lenses and thermometers become available. But these men set patterns for developments in modern science. Tartaglia translated Archimedes and Euclid into Latin. He was selftaught. His translations opened new fields to mathematics and physics. He developed the solutions to quadratic equations. In 1614 John Napier (1550-1617) published the first log table; in 1637 René Descartes (15961650) first applied the principles of algebra to geometry; in 1704 the binomial theorem was published by Newton. Progress was very slow. By the end of the 17th c. the tools of mathematics had been devised. By the first decade of the 18th c. arithmetical and mathematical symbols had evolved. The connection of mathematics, physics and astonomy led to the scientific theory of the universe that involves all three. Copernicus had a wealthy patron, the Bishop of Ermland in West Prussia. He studied Canon Law in Cracow, Bologna and Padua, learned Greek and Latin, and came into contact with scientific schools. He took a post at Frauenburg Cathedral and spent the rest of his life there. He had room in the turret and made the instruments that he used. It was a valuable site to carry out his experiments. He died in 1543, not caught up in any religious crisis because of his isolation. He was no revolutionary: the methods were primitive, but he based his finding on a mathematic foundation. If the earth and planets revolve around the Sun, a neater mathematical pattern emerges. The Sun is at the centre of the Universe, the earth rotates on its axis. He drew up the first simple astronomical tables, used by Pope Gregory XIII to reform the calendar (1582). The Copernican Hypothesis was interesting to the scholars of his day, despite no proof being possible. Later it was shown to be true, but there was more work to be done. Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) with a much greater observatory tried to prove the Copernican theory. Johann Kepler (1571-1630) affirmed that the Sun is at the centre of the Universe, and is a dynamic force. God is both a mathematician and an artist, and the scientist the interpreter of God’s plan. The Church sat in judgment. In his earlier years Copernicus worked among Protestants not Catholics, the first to voice disapproval of the new ideas. Only later, his more vital disciple Galileo Galilei used a lens (1590)
256
Robert Ignatius Letellier
to make much more accurate observations than Copernicus. In 1610, using the newly invented telescope, Galileo observed the moons of Jupiter, and proved Kepler’s theories about the elliptical shape of planetary orbits correct. Galileo was very much a teacher, and there were a number of converts to the new nature of the Universe. But he was critical of the establishment. He wanted to prove the truth of Copernicus whose De Revolutionibus Orbium was now on the Index. Galileo was condemned to silence. The Papal decision was logical. If the Universe was as described by Copernicus and Galileo, there could be other worlds, and mankind no longer unique but part of a wider natural phenomenon. It suggested that God had no place in the Universe. Right thorough the 17th c. scientific schools jostled for recognition with a great many hypotheses: the Buridanian, the Copernican and the Galilean Theory was of infinite space. What stops the Universe from slipping? What keeps all moving? This was only answered when Sir Isaac Newton demonstrated the heliocentric theory. The Sun is the centre of gravity, and determines the motion of the planets. By 1725 the modern notion of the Universe was established without the 20th c. ideas of Albert Einstein of an infinite number of universes. In science there was a cautious but adequate approach to scientific problems. Parallel with the growth of science was that of nation states and empires. It is said that Tartaglia, though much work had been done on projectiles, declined to publish it on the grounds that it would be prostituted to the harm of Christianity. Only when the Turks menaced was he prepared to make his work public. The more practical aspects of the sciences in the 17th c. was that they provided the necessary theory behind the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th cc. Renaissance scientists not only added to knowledge but also posed very relevant moral problems. The Renaissance was a period of violence. This is something innate to the human condition, something that must be undergone to generate and provide for a new age of development (Jakob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, 1860).
The Development of Scientific Thinking
Figure 80. Nikolaus Copernicus.
Figure 81. Andreas Vesalius.
257
Chapter 31
THE REFORMATION Scholars of the new learning applied their interpretation to the Scriptures. Erasmus and Thomas More were particularly critical of the spiritual standing of the Church. From the new age developed the religious movement known as the Reformation. It is applicable to both Catholics and Protestants. Neither was guided by entirely religious motives. Neither was opposed to social revolt. One could describe Lutheran/Calvinist changes as a revolution. It was really a re-forming, or re-shaping, of Western Christendom, with many changes for the better. At many point in the past the Latin Church had shown itself capable of change—as with the Cluniac reforms of the 10th c. It was in fact beginning to undertake reform at the beginning of the 16th c. Erasmus and More continually urged it. Spiritual values were at their lowest. The Popes behaved like petty Italian princes. Only 20 years before Luther emerged, the radical Dominican Girolamo Savanarola (1452-1497) had attempted to establish a puritanical theocracy in Florence. The founding of the Jesuit Order in1534 also showed the Church capable of reform. In the changing environment and flamboyant individualism of the 16th c., change was inevitable. The Council of Trent (1545-64) sought to reunite the Christian Church and restate Catholic teaching. The Protestant
260
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Reformation broke the religious unity of Europe, and these divisions were carried by Christian missionaries to the colonies. There are three discernible areas of importance: 1. Protestantism in Spain, Italy and Eastern Europe was crushed (note the prevalence here of agrarianism). 2. Protestantism triumphed in England, Scotland, the Netherlands and Scandanavia. 3. In the 16th c. there were two debatable areas: France, where there were nine religious wars that ended in an ultimate victory for Catholicism; Germany, where the first compromise of 1555 was broken down in the Thirty Years’ War. In the end, Northern Germany became Protestant (centred on the House of Hohenzollern); Southern Germany remained Catholic (the Houses of Habsburg and Wittelsbach). The German Reformation started in 1517, with Martin Luther’s 95 Theses at Wittenberg Cathedral. But in Germany there was tremendous disillusionment, a great quest for leadership and intellectualism. There was a lack of unifying power, and both Church and Empire failed. Emperor Maximilian tried reforms, but because of the Princes and the Italian Wars, nothing was achieved. Additionally, there were signs of social restlessness. Increases in prices occurred, owing to many factors. 1519 was a decisive year in the development of Western civilization: Magellan’s voyage circumnavigated the globe; Leonardo da Vinci died; Charles V won the Holy Roman Empire; there were disputations in Leipzig between Luther and Dr. Johann van Eck. Van Eck forced Luther to clarify his theology. Luther declared himself a heretic and was automatically excommunicated in 1530, the routine action of the Church.
The Reformation
261
WHY WAS THERE A LUTHERAN PROTESTANT REFORMATION? Part of the answer lies in the character of Luther himself. He was not a great intellectual. The real brain of the Reformation was Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560), who was intelligent and sensitive. Luther suffered agonies of spiritual uncertainty. He resolved these by reference to St. Augustine and St. Paul—where he found answers and justification of his questions. Salvation was through faith in God. The whole institutional nature of the Church, the hierarchy and sacraments were not essential. This was a ‘personal emancipation’, sudden, inspired, a spiritual voyage of discovery. In 1520 he decided that his discovery was an answer to the dilemmas of the German people. His actions acquired national, German characteristics. He burned the Bull of Excommunication in public, a decisive action, and appealed to a people ripe for revolt. The Lutheran revolution pointed to change, and an opportunity for social reform. Perhaps the Princes saw an opportunity for political reform, with Luther as a national figure. In government and organization, the Princes supplied Lutheran church organization. Luther described himself as a mystic, not an administrator. The Church was not organized as an earthly society. It needed a mundane mind to fetch the Church from mysticism to earthly matters. There was no essential Lutheran doctrine on the organization of the Church. The state provided this. The Lutheran Church is even today in parts Episcopal, and in others non-Episcopal. In 1519 Charles V became Emperor, and he had to choose rapidly. Theoretically he could have supported Luther, and the whole course of history might have been different. But Charles was a devout son of the Church in the old medieval manner. Luther was summoned to the Diet of Worms, where the two sides were presented. Luther refused to recant. The position crystallized: “Here I stand: so help me God, Amen” (Luther). Charles was equally adamant in his refusal to abandon the faith of centuries upheld by his family. Given the Imperial power, the course of Lutheranism seemed doomed. That it
262
Robert Ignatius Letellier
survived can be explained only by the political situation. Luther was outlawed, but the Elector of Saxony gave him protection in the Castle of the Wartburg. The decade 1521-1531 (with the formation of the Schmalkaldic League) was the period crucial for the establishment of Lutheranism in Germany.
The Positive Explanation for the Survival of Lutheranism Luther, in the peace of the Wartburg, did much work. He translated the Bible into German, bringing it closer to the German people. This took account of the new scholasticism. He developed a new liturgy. He composed many chorales, easy popular hymn melodies. While Luther was busy with his works, Melanchthon rendered for him a Lutheranism respectable in philosophical terms and organization. Groups in Germany sought in the movement social and political changes. This was part of the Renaissance criticism of the Church as an archaic and corrupt institution.
There was a failure to bring ecclesiastical scholarship up to secular developments. The old monasteries were over-endowed. Parish life and activities were under-endowed, with an understaffing of local ecclesial communities. There was laxity in the Church.
John Colet, More and Erasmus had all criticized this. They were scholars and humanists well versed in the new learning and old Classical scholarship. They hoped to use the newly developed printing and scholarly method to revitalize the Church. In 1516 Erasmus had published a critical Greek edition of the New Testament, newly translated into Latin. It could be read and enjoyed by the laity. Not content to let it speak for itself, he wrote his own commentary on each of the epistles, with notes and paraphrases indicating the laxity of the Church. If the Oxford Reformers
The Reformation
263
had succeeded, there would have been a gradual, humanistic change in the Church. There was no question of dogma, only bringing the practice of the Church up to standard. There was discontentment with the old faith, in a mixture of social, economic and political ideas. 1. In 1523-1524 the German knights rebelled. They suffered particularly from the rising prices. 2. This was followed in 1525 by commencement of the Peasant Revolt. 3. In 1530 the Anabaptists began a social reform born of theological ideas. For Luther and the community there was no question of social reform. Luther supported the Princes and had an unwritten alliance with them. Organization of Lutheran churches developed in the course of the 1520s. This was partly because the Princes were greedy for land, and saw the secularization of Church property as desirable. The House of Hohenzollern gained much at the expense of the Catholic Church. The support Luther gave the conservative orders won the support of the German Princes. This reflected national frustration. Added to this were the aggressive personality of Luther and the genius of Melanchthon.
Negative Explanations for the Survival of Lutheranism Lutheranism enjoyed a decade of security. Emperor Charles V had too many responsibilities in his huge realm. He was in Germany only in 15291531 and 1546-1555, and not able to devote time to the Reformation. The Holy Roman Empire was concerned with the Italian Wars. The Pope and the Emperor often disagreed, so that the mainstays of the Church were divided. Furthermore, the French made alliance with the Turks. In 1526 at the Battle of Mohacs the Turks defeated Hungary, and in 1529 tried to
264
Robert Ignatius Letellier
seize Vienna. They were a constant threat to the peace and stability of the Empire. Charles condemned the movement, and the Princes were divided. But conditions for any princely support were greater than individual authority in religious matters. Many Baltic cities became Protestant, as did Ulm, Nuremberg, Strasbourg, Magdeburg. The Elector of Saxony protected Luther. The decisions of the Diet of Worms were ignored. In 1526 at the Diet of Speyer, several princes resolved that each should live as he thought best, a statement of independence. Decisions seemed to admit the independent action of the Princes in civil and religious matters. The translation of the Bible; use of the vernacular in sermons; practical steps, like the marriage of the clergy; were all concessions that meant violent change. The confiscation of Church lands was taken up with zest. In 1529 at the Second Diet of Speyer, Charles V tried to arrest further innovations, and tried to cancel the resolution of 1526. There was protest by five Princes and 14 cities. This was religious in content, but with constitutional aspects. The unanimous resolution of 1526 could not be set aside by the Emperor. In 1526 the international situation, with the Turks and the French, paralysed the Emperor. In 1529 Charles V went to Germany. He was victorious at Cambrai, which saw Francis I of France beaten. In 1530 he was in a stronger position, and had the collaboration of the Pope. At the Peace of Cambrai there was agreement to take joint action against reform. The notion was one of compromise, but Charles really wanted a Catholic restoration. After protest, the Lutherans produced the Augsburg Confession, the official statement of Lutheranism. It is a moderate document. Compromise could have been worked out, as with Anglicanism. But the Catholics were in no mood for this. The Papal legate Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggio urged strong action. Charles did not have the resources, and not even the Catholic Princes would have supported this move, which would have lowered their status. The Franco-Turkish situation was really responsible for Charles’s concessions. Germany was now in the hands of a princely oligarchy. To strike at Lutheranism, Charles would also have to strike at the Princes whose championship of Lutheranism brought material gain. Lutheranism gained the support also
The Reformation
265
of the cities and universities, and became the justification for secularization. Charles, both Burgundian and Spanish, and sometimes himself anti-papal, found the situation in Germany beyond his control. It could be solved only by force. The Princes then founded the Schmalkaldic League. Between 1531 and 1545 the position of the Emperor declined. The cause of Protestantism was closely linked with politics. The Catholic Church by 1545 was much more alive to the need of reform. Papal conception of the situation clarified. It was now rigidly conservative, purifying Catholic faith and practice. It was not interested in understanding Lutheranism nor in considering conciliar control of the Church.
Figure 82. Martin Luther.
THE REFORMATION AFTER 1531 A split in Protestantism between the Lutheran churches and Zwingli in Switzerland took place at the Marburg Conference. The Anabaptists were
266
Robert Ignatius Letellier
in the avant gard of an apocalyptic vision on earth. After the death of Zwingli, Calvinism developed. Protestantism in Germany was doctrinally divided and politically divided. The Protestant Princes formed the Schmalkaldic League, a special grouping within the Holy Roman Empire, intended to be defensive. They exposed themselves to the influence of foreign powers (like France). Anything which impeded Charles from restoring the Imperial standing delayed Imperial retribution. He was prepared to force reform on Rome, in mindset, discipline and administration, but not dogma. He seemed to refuse to face facts: since 1519 Protestantism had become more radical, concerned with dogma and change in the interpretation of Scripture. Catholicism became more conservative with regard to any change of dogma.
THE POLICY OF THE SCHMALKALDIC LEAGUE The foundation of the League was one of the most decisive events of the 16th c., a religious and political defence of the Protestant religion aimed at safeguarding the Protestant people who desired to hear the Word of God. It existed for the sake of its own defence and deliverance by human and divine right permitted to all. All the Princes undertook to help one another when any other was attacked. If the League had kept to these precepts, it would have remained more dignified. There was conciliation with the Decrees of Nuremberg (1532). The Turkish attack was threatening Hungarian frontier. Because of this, the difficulties between the Princes and the Emperor were suspended, so that the Emperor could deal with the Turks. Not content with this achievement, the League began to take the political initiative.
With the support of French troops, the Habsburgs were driven out of Württemberg, ecclesiastical property was confiscated. Southern Germany converted to Protestantism.
The Reformation
267
In 1540, the Margrave of Brandenburg, “purged of his former impurity,” converted all his subjects to Protestantism. Ducal Saxony also converted under Maurice of Saxony.
The League lacked religious and political unity. Philip of Hesse in 1541 suffered defeats at Geldern and Zutplen because Henry VIII of England and Francis I of France failed him. There was internal division and foreign intrigue felt before 1545. From 1520s onwards there were isolated efforts to restore moral vitality to the Church. In 1530 a group of Cardinals put forward reform proposals so radical that the project was burned. Impetus for reform came from the Jesuit Order founded by St. Ignatius Loyola in 1534/1540. The Order made high scholarship and integrity requisite. There was rigid discipline and complete obedience to the Papacy. Every Jesuit was a missionary, a diplomat and a teacher. The effects of the new vitality in the Catholic Church were soon felt. The Papal Inquisition was remodelled and given strength and vitality in 1542. The Jesuits were sent to work in Southern Germany. Vital though it was, it made divergence from Protestantism sharper. Compromise was now only a useful political catch phrase. The Inquisition was used in Spain for monarchical enforcement and later in the Netherlands.
POPE PAUL III (1534-1549) In 1535 the Pope was toying with the idea of a council. One was called in Mantua, and promptly adjourned. Only in March 1537 were the opening sessions of the Council of Trent held. It needed to appoint a reforming pope. He supported the Jesuits and the Inquisition, but he was not reforming in that he rejected the conciliar idea. Only by 1563 did the Council of Trent emerge with resolve. Only then could the Pope be rid of a Jesuit-controlled council. It was impossible for the Emperor to conduct benevolent reconstruction after the formation of the Jesuit Order. Formulas were produced that neither Protestants nor the Emperor would accept. He
268
Robert Ignatius Letellier
did not have complete military control. Both sides were irreconcilable, and the period 1545-56 was a time of war and bitterness.
THE PERIOD 1546 TO 1556 Charles’s policy was prefaced by diplomatic preparation, and the acquisition of Italian and Spanish mercenaries. He made a treaty with the Pope, and promised him a vast sum of money and a large body of infantry and cavalry. He secured the support of the Duke of Bavaria. His greatest diplomatic success was with Maurice of Saxony, a Protestant Prince after an electoral title. With equipment, Charles gave a demonstration of Imperial might. Having found an effective commander in the Duke of Alva, he re-established Imperial control over the cities of the Rhineland, who were forced to pay heavy penalties. Two Princes moved to the Imperial cause: Ulrich of Württemberg and the Elector Palatinate. The Emperor secured victory, and the Archbishop of Cologne, flirting with Protestantism, was forced to resign and was replaced by a true Catholic. Alva was able to strike at the very heart of Protestantism in Saxony at the Battle of Mühlburg (1547) where the army of the Schmalkaldic League was annihilated. From September 1547 until the beginning of 1552 Germany was at the feet of Charles V. The tactical victory was complete, but he was powerless to use it. He was not disposed to murder, and constantly sought compromise and not complete extermination. For the past 30 years a generation had grown up, used to Protestantism. The old controversy between the Emperor and the Pope began again. The Pope felt that the Emperor and the Diets should leave ecclesiastical matters alone. All Charles’s hopes of a conciliatory, ambiguous solution to the religious controversies received no support from the Pope. From the early meetings of the Council of Trent emerged a purified and rigid interpretation of Catholic dogma. Charles moved to Innsbruck to keep an eye onTrent. The Pope had other grievances. The military might of Charles aggravated the Pope as an Italian prince. His military power was a menace,
The Reformation
269
and led to conflict between the Pope and the Emperor in Parma and Piacenza. France was alarmed at the return of Imperial power. In the spring of 1551 France began intriguing with Protestant Princes, resulting in January 1555 in the Treaty of Chambord. French help came in the form of money, armed intervention, and diplomatic help. Henry II was to receive the bishoprics of Metz, Toul and Verdun, strategic positions, as well as the city of Cambrai. Confronted by this alliance, the situation depended on the Emperor moving quickly. But he failed to do so, so that his position was hardly better than after Mühlburg. He attempted to stave off battle until the Council of Trent had finished its business, but failed. He tried desperately to keep the peace, and produced a document, the Augsburg Interim, an ad hoc settlement that satisfied neither Catholics nor Protestants. He was really at his worst, and some have asked if he were capable of constructive statesmanship. Maurice of Saxony turned to France and the Princes because of Charles’s lack of decisiveness. The war of 1552 was decisive in German history. France and Germany fought on the Rhine. The religious settlement was determined by the position of the prince concerned. The outcome of this was an attack on Innsbruck. But the successes of the French and Protestant forces did not destroy Imperial resources. It was not impossible for Charles to arrange the Truce of Passau, on the basis of the independence of the Princes in political and religious matters. He decided to make a settlement. Philip of Hesse was released; political settlement was referred to the Diet; religious settlement to the Council of Trent. Charles V now abdicated. His brother Ferdinand therefore signed the Peace of Augsburg. This agreement:
Provided for the supporters of the Augsburg Confession and of the old religion to live in absolute peace; Specifically excluded those not of the Augsburg Confession nor of the old religion, e.g., Calvinists, Zwinglians, the Anabaptists;
270
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Stipulated that any subject who wanted to move allegiances should not be hindered in sale or departure; Established ecclesiastical reservation.
In virtue of the powers of the Emperor, an archbishop or bishop who converted to Protestantism was obliged to abandon his estates. Chapters that were entitled to it by common law could elect a person espousing the old religion who could then enter into possession of all the rights and incomes of the place. This clause was limited to all changes made before 1552. The chronology unfolded as:
1547 Mühlburg, followed by Imperial recovery 1553 Maurice of Saxony’s attempt to redeem the situation.
He concluded a treaty with Henry II of France, an event of great significance. Henry II had been persecuting Protestants in France. Maurice agreed to hand over to Henry key towns holding the Western frontier of Germany (Metz, Toul and Verdun). This curious alliance between the German Prince Maurice and Catholic King Henry defeated Charles V and provides the background to the Peace of Augsburg (1555), the first recognition that the world had changed.
THE PEACE OF AUGSBURG, 1555 This recognized two forms of the Church: Catholic and Lutheran. Each Prince was allowed to determine the religion of his own state. The problem of the lands secularized by Protestant Princes produced an elaborate solution which retained the status quo of 1552; it stipulated that if a prince became Protestant, he would nor secularize the Catholic lands. This was a classic example of the interplay of religion and politics. It marked a further step in diminishing of role the Emperor in leading the Holy Roman Empire.
The Reformation
271
The Peace of Augsburg could not be final. It ignored the Calvinists and other minorities, and furthered conversion. It marks the abdication of the Emperor from any political power of interference with the Princes’ religion. Each prince could now choose his own as a state affair. This was not a victory for the principles of religious freedom. The nearest approach to the rights of the individual was in the clause where he could live in the state he desired to. The anti-secularization preventing a Protestant from moving into Catholic estates was impracticable. It went unchecked, and as the basis of real crisis in 1618. The Peace dealt in some measure with the problems of Germany, and provided an uneasy peace for 50 years. But it did not settle the HabsburgValois rivalry that dragged on to 1558. Spain won two victories in Italy: the Duke of Guise failed to defeat Spain, and there was a major Spanish victory at St. Quentin. Philip II might have succeeded where his father did not succeed. There was another Habsburg marriage, of Philip to Mary Tudor of England. The French offset this by the marriage of Mary Queen of Scots to the Dauphin, Mary Tudor brought England into the war, and Calais was lost. Mary’s death was welcomed, and led to Elizabeth’s succession. Both sides were now exhausted, leading to the Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis in 1559.The conditions of this treaty were:
France surrendered its claims in Italy. During the course of the wars, Savoy and Piedmont were taken by France, but were now returned to Emanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy, married to the French king’s sister. France’s gains were only piecemeal. It acquired Calais and retained Metz, Toul and Verdun, the strategic bishoprics. No one questioned France’s right.
In some ways the treaty was more important than the Peace of Augsburg.
272
Robert Ignatius Letellier
It ended French activity in Italy. The Habsburgs and Valois were at peace. They were resolved to implement the decisions of the Council of Trent. It marked the beginning of the Wars of Religion.
Religion provided the motive for war, as a cloak for material advantage. France was torn apart by internal wars, where apparent convictions had been betrayed for power.
Figure 83. Emperor Charles V.
Chapter 32
FRANCE IN THE 16TH CENTURY The beginning of the 16th c. saw the Monarchy seeking new bases of power and wealth. Gallic traditions were fostered, and there had always been a degree of autonomy for the Church. In the thick of the Hundred Years’ War it sponsored, France moved for conciliar control of the Church. But the French clergy fell back on concordats and pragmatic agreements with the Pope. French kings maintained sovereignty against foreigners, like Burgundy and Italy which were trying to extend their powers. Although wars were expensive, there were rewards. In Italy Habsburg power encircled France and France turned to diplomatic outposts (Turkey, Poland, Russia, Sweden) to fight them. French territory had been enlarged by wars to include the Duchy of Burgundy, Flanders (Artois), and the Rhine (the three strategic bishoprics). After the Treaty of CateauCambresis the French borders were more secure. Internal reform had been neglected for the shadow of power. There was desperate need for reform in France. What Louis XI had left undone needed attention. The medieval traditions had lent the king many advantages: large revenues meant a standing army; and from Joan of Arc (d. 1431) there was a centre of national sentiment. The difficulties were also great. There were divisions: Paris and the Ile de France were the centre
274
Robert Ignatius Letellier
of the monarchy. The king tried to impose Parisian ideas on the rest of the country. Paris stood for uniformity and centralism. Several focal points were pulling against this.
The towns, especially those outside the Royal Demesne (like Lyons) were jealous of their legal rights. The provinces (Brittany, Provence, Dauphiné, Burgundy, and Gascony) all had long and elaborate histories. Until 1789 Brittany and Gascony were treated like one provincial estate in the Parlement. In the 16th c. many others had their own parlements all of which were brought under control by Cardinal Richelieu. The ancient nobilities with long family histories and independence all had their own courts and were linked by marriage. They were also ambitious to build up their independent powers.
Attempts were made at reform. A strong king like Francis I (15251547) was able, with intervals of peace, to rule well. Because of foreign wars, these policies irritated without breaking patience. The kings were left in debts and serious financial situations. Like their predecessors, the kings sought to win renown on battle in Italy where the Valois-Habsburg rivalry was being fought put. The brilliant victory at Marignano was never repeated. An important sequel was the Concordat with the Medici Pope Leo X in 1516. In return for benefices, the King was granted Crown rights to appoint bishops. The power was checked by the Emperor Charles V. A period of peace followed from 1516 to 1520, while bribing electors for the imperial Crown. Charles won the Battle of Pavia, and Francis was captured and sent off to Madrid where he signed a treaty reversing his policy of nation-building. In January 1526 he surrendered the Duchy of Burgundy to the Emperor. He also renounced all claims to Milan and Artois. On his return to Paris Francis repudiated the agreements, and war resumed again. He looked for defence by alliances and a series of understandings in 1534: with the Turks, Henry VIII, Gustavus Vasa of Sweden, and Pope Clement VII. In 1533 the marriage had taken place
France in the 16th Century
275
between the Dauphin and the Pope’s niece, Catherine de’ Medici. This saved France from the Habsburgs. Francis almost dissipated the work of generations, leaving a land smaller than Charles’s but more compact, far more manageable. He died in 1547. Despite the wars, the position was much the same. Piecemeal gains were outweighed by huge war debts. Unrest in the realm from the nobles was disturbing. There was a new excuse to win back power at royal expense. A series of accidents gave opportunities. Henry II (1547-1559) was tragically killed in a tournament, and Francis II (1559-1560) died young. Power passed to the younger children of Catherine de’ Medici who was Regent of France for her three minor sons all of whom had rapid successions. The Regency meant weak government. All three points of opposition crystallized. Added to this was a new factor, the Huguenots. The first opposition was from the ancient nobility, the office holders. During Henry II’s reign these were ousted by his mistress Diane of Poitiers who favoured a great Court headed by the Guises. She snubbed the constables. Anne duc de Montmorency (14931567) was seeking legal and constitutional position in France, and was the leader of the separatist groups in the great and scattered lands of Bourbon and Condé. The focus was not on revolt but on co-ordinated opposition. Montmorency was supported by the provinces and towns. New dissent appeared in the religious but effectually political Huguenots. Scholars had long since argued for reform in the Church. The great prelates of the Church were politicians not leaders of Christianity. Parish priests were often poverty-stricken. Ideas from Luther and Zwingli penetrated France. The real impact of the Reformation was felt only when the gifted young scholar Jean Calvin (1509-1564), a lawyer, turned to Protestantism. In 1535 he published The Institutes of the Christian Religion. This was revolutionary not only in France bur also in the Netherlands and Scotland. Centred in Geneva he turned the city into a theocracy. His approach was much more logical and fundamentalist than that of Luther, marking a greater break with the past. In particular, his organization of the church was completely different from all established and Protestant churches. It depended on individual congregations, with elected elders. There was a democratic structure—with local, provincial,
276
Robert Ignatius Letellier
and national representation. Individual were taken into the heart of church government. There were cellular structures with local initiative; central control was frowned on by the authorities. Calvinists were intolerant of heresies. Councillors were forced to implement laws. The intolerant state was subordinated to the view of a godly life. Although Calvin taught passive resistance, his followers saw they would have to revolt if they were to survive. Politics became entangled in Calvinism as the cloak behind which all the dissatisfied in France could muster. The idea of the Huguenots was of simply hard-working and industrious people. But their leaders were in the French nobility in the Provinces where separatism was strongest. There were nine religious wars in France between 1562 and 1598 with the Edict of Toleration. This also applied to the nobles. They had the right to practise their own religion in their castles. Those aimed at social reform (like their leader Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, 1519-1572) focused on three points of resistance. Their stand centred on the strength of the Calvinist faith and organization of the Huguenot church; the armed might of a section of the French nobility; and the strength of civil and provincial separatism and resources. At the time when the Huguenot party was organizing, the Catholic action was too, under the Guise family who exercised great influence. Fortune linked them with the Counter-Reformation, also taking the opposite side of the traditional nobility in France, all in the interest of family aggrandizement. The Council of Trent had finished the reforms (1564), and the Church was militant and missionary. In 1559 King Henry II died, and Francis II was a minor, with the Regency of his mother, Catherine de’ Medici. The Guise family pledged themselves to back the Court and retrench Catholicism. With Henry’s death, the opportunity arose. Mary Queen of Scots, the niece of the Cardinal of Lorraine and the Duke of Guise, married Francis II. It seemed that there was a great Catholic mustering in the offing, with 1559 a turning point in the religious and political life of Europe. Catherine de’ Medici was capable and intelligent, Dowger Queen and Regent for her sons. Those jealous of the power of the Crown sought create a middle way.
France in the 16th Century
277
In England, Elizabeth I found compromise backed by Parliament. But Catherine de’ Medici, the niece of the Pope, could not deviate from her Catholicism. She followed the group Politiques with their own solutions. The duty of citizens was to obey the state and keep it laws. Persecution was wrong, an insult to humanity. Religious toleration was supported by the state. Catherine de’ Medici added her own issues. She disliked the Guise family intensely. She was an angry, frightened and jealous mother. She was Italian with her roots in Florence. If she had been French she might have had greater bases for power. But she had no following, no shady constitutional backing. The great Princes of the Blood claimed to be part of the Regency Council (especially Bourbon and Condé, both of whom were Huguenots).There was a three-cornered contest at Court: the Princes of the Blood; the Politiques backed by Catherine de’ Medici; the Catholic extremist s backed by the Guises. Each sought to have custody of the King. Catherine tried to resolve the situation by issuing Edicts of Toleration, but she had no real power to implement them, revealing the weakness of the Regency. Wars drained France of wealth. Factions prevailed outside Paris. The Estates General were summoned but simply revealed their religious proclivities. In January 1562 there was an explosion. Catherine called a council of statesmen, lawyers, and princes to Saint Germain to discuss how to treat the Huguenots. She issued the Edict of January. Huguenots were ordered to restore to Catholics “all the temples” occupied by force. Until ecclesiastical unity was possible, Huguenots were allowed to worship outside towns, and religious affairs were put under the supervision of royal officials. The Huguenots were given more freedom than religious groups in other countries. The Huguenot nobles were not satisfied and exploited the confusion. They set off another war, culminating in the Massacre of Vassy (1563). It was a small incident but applauded by the Parisian crowd who coerced the government. Catherine wanted to temporize but was forced into taking sides. The position crystallized: Paris was Catholic and Orleans Protestant.
278
Robert Ignatius Letellier
So began nine religious wars. Catherine was pushed from side to side. She tried to maintain tolerance, but this was repugnant to both parties. In 1572 it looked as if Charles IX (1560-1574) could assert himself. It seemed as if the Huguenots, the Politiques, and Admiral Coligny would be able to direct attention to the Valois-Habsburg rivalry, a re-focus of patriotism. All depended on whether Queen Elizabeth would cooperate. The King’s brother the Duke of Alençon was sent to England, and marriage was arranged for the King’s sister Marguerite de Valois to Henry of Navarre. Elizabeth’s refusal wrecked the scheme. Catherine was disturbed at entering the war without an ally and was frightened. Panic led her to urge the Duke of Guise to assassinate Coligny. The attempt failed, and the Huguenots were roused and sought vengeance. Panic again drove Catherine to sponsor and urge Charles IX to assign Henry of Guise to organize the Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day (24 August 1572). Huguenots were in Paris for the nuptials of Henry of Navarre. The massacre spread throughout the principal cities of France: 50,000 were killed. Underlined by politics, the wars resumed, punctuated by edicts. They continued throughout the reign of Henry III (1574-1589), known as the War of the Three Henries: Henry III, Henry of Guise, Henry of Bourbon (King of Navarre). By 1588 Catherine was on her deathbed, and Henry III was assassinated by Henry of Guise.
WHY DID THE WARS OF RELIGION LAST SO LONG? The first reason was the weakness of the French Crown, the Regency and insecure position of Catherine de’ Medici. The power of the monarchy was not sufficient to meet the unity of the provinces, cities and nobles sharpened by religious conflict. Then both religious groups sought outside interference: the Huguenots support in England and the Netherlands; the Catholics in Spain from Philip II. The death of Catherine in 1588 did not mark the end of the religious aggression, but it was a turning point.
France in the 16th Century
279
The heir to Henry III passed by Salic Law to Henry of Navarre. The Catholic League was very strong. The Guises urged the Paris Parlement to reject Henry. Philip II’s candidate was the alternative. This same year saw the victory of Duke of Parma in the Netherlands and the defeat of the Armada. The whole Catholic group was on the offensive and gave Henry of Navarre the ability to secure the throne. As Henry IV he captured the respect of his subjects and won affection of posterity.
Figure 84. Catherine de’ Medici.
THE QUALITIES OF HENRY IV (1589-1610) Henry IV was an ordinary man., his statesmanship simple, his qualities of leadership great, essentially humane. Tough and wiry, he won the
280
Robert Ignatius Letellier
throne, not by intrigue but by his tenacity. He led his army into battle, his men to victory. He was able to unite France behind him. He could be forceful, rigid and adamant, but seldom vindictive. There are no instances of wanton cruelty. He experienced hard years as a prisoner (from 1572). He forced the Parlement to ratify the Edict of Nantes (1598), he himself becoming a Catholic for the sake of unity: “Paris is worth a Mass,” he famously observed. Henry was concerned for the well-being of the country and the people. He symbolized what France stood for. The country was exhausted and bankrupt, throttled by Spain. Whole provinces had fallen into waste, trade was dislocated, money scarce, prices high. The plight of the nation was as bad as in the time of Jeanne d’Arc (1429). Ten years later the invaders were evicted, and peace restored. He re-created France for the people. The King was for France.
THE FRANCE HENRY IV INHERITED There was poverty and dislocation, with four bellicose groups in the country. The Huguenots were prepared to back Henry IV. But as soon as whispers of his conversion began circulating, they withheld their support. They had ambitions to master as much of France as possible. The Catholics led by the Guises had armies in four provinces. His protégé the Duke of Mayence was in command of Paris. Spanish auxiliaries of the Catholic League supported the Guises, but technically were to press the claims of the Spanish king’s daughter to the French throne. Spain hoped to snatch Savoy and Brittany. Paris was only partially garrisoned by Spanish troops which could be reinforced from the Spanish army in the Netherlands. Finally there were the Politiques led by Damulle, son of Montmorency. They were patriotic Frenchmen, not prepared to countenance foreign intervention. Until Henry IV converted, they withheld their support. Apart from a handful of mercenaries Henry had no resources on which to draw. Conditions in Paris were anarchic. In 1598 a revolutionary government was set up in Paris, the Seize. They met in a club (the model
France in the 16th Century
281
for the later revolutionary Jacobin Club). Mob government tends to be terroristic. Scenes of violence alternated with religious processions. The middle class began to yearn for a king to restore order and a balanced political life. A piece of satire broke the situation—the Satyre Menipée which tried to realize the humour in the situation of the past years. Henry has striven to pacify the Protestants. He realized that only following the Politiques’ lines could he do the best for France. So in 1593 he converted to Catholicism, thus rallying the moderate Catholics and the Politques to the throne. The Pope encouraged them to support Henry, and they deserted Philip for the new king. The Parlement and the Sorbonne looked on Henry as a deliverer. By 1594 he was crowned and master of Paris. One by one the nobles, the cities, the provinces were brought over or broken in. The Duke of Lorraine came over; the Duke of Guise was paid £400,000 and given control of Provence; Meaux was freed from taxes for nine years. Henry paid out a whole years’s revenue in a bankrupt state. It took a year for Mercoeur to hand over Brittany. Peace with Spain was achieved with the Treaty of Vervins (1598). It took five years for the Catholic Parlement to register the Edict of Nantes. Agreement was reached between the two opposing parties, along the lines of Catherine de’ Medici’s Edit of January.
THE EDICT OF NANTES The Edict offered the Huguenots freedom of worship wherever they were in existence. There was support for colleges and schools, with full civil rights and protection. There were special juridical privileges: judges and the Parlement were to be equitably chosen. The factions were allowed to hold religious synods, and these became the bases for political assemblies and the formulation of policy. The Huguenots were allowed to hold certain fortified towns: La Rochelle, Montauban and Montpellier. In 1598 it was necessary for Henry to make peace with his former coreligionists on these terms. The tragedy was that the fortified towns should have been handed back by 1606. Henry let the date pass, which postponed
282
Robert Ignatius Letellier
rather than solved the problem. For Cardinal Richelieu these cities constituted a state within a state. The Huguenots had their own church, their own assembly, their own fortified towns and judicial privileges that not even the Catholics enjoyed. This could be exploited by selfish nobles, and were objects of jealousy on the part of the Catholics. It was left to Richelieu to break Huguenot political power in 1629 at the Peace of Alais (the Edict of Alès or the Edict of Grace). He took away their forces and their political and juridical privileges, but left their religious freedom. Within 10 years of Henry’s accession France was back to the old order. His chief minister was Maximilien de Béthune, Duc de Sully (1560-1641). Sully was a frugal economist and encouraged industry. He worked from a conservative basis used for centuries. He let the opportunity for newness slip. The old problems returned. There were 13 different Courts of Justice (Parlements). The new provinces of Louis XI still their own provincial estates. The clergy and nobility were still immune to taxation. Theoretically there was still an Estates General which could have become one national body to oppose the monarchy. They met in 1644 during the minority of Louis XIII. Neither Henry nor Sully cleared away these problems from the past. The best was achieved internally. Sully organized the Paulette: officerships were sold for cash on a hereditary basis. Great lawyers, like the nobility, were a privileged class. In the 17th c. there were the Nobles of the Sword and the Nobles of the Robe. These were a substitute for the medieval feudatories. One can criticize these policies but they were done in good faith.
HENRY IV’S FOREIGN POLICY Henry’s policy first appeared brilliant. He wanted to undermine the Spanish grip with the Habsburg encirclement of France. He took three masterful moves. He defeated Savoy but neglected to annex it. Instead he took two important little towns Bresse and Bugey (1601). These provided a platform for attack on Franche-Compté. He concluded an agreement with the Duke of Savoy that French troops should be allowed to pass through
France in the 16th Century
283
his territory in wartime. In Italy he had friendly relations with Venice who undertook to be a market for the Grisons who lived in the Val Telline, and could close the Northern passage to the Spanish. He supported the Dutch and arranged a truce with Spain in 1609. Henry’s next move was to imagine a ‘grand design’. Habsburg power would be broken, and all European nations find peace by federation. There were two snags. Before any federation France needed to conquer and advance to its natural frontiers: the Rhine, the Alps and the Pyrenees. From this position he could dictate peace to Europe. To Europe this was as undesirable as Habsburg domination. Neither the French army nor finances were strong enough to carry thorough such a war. The war of 1610 could be explained by Henry’s youngest mistress fleeing to the Prince of Condé who then took off for the Spanish Netherlands. But perhaps the true reason for the crisis of 1610 was that ruler of Cleves, Ravensburg, Jülich and Berg died without an heir. There were two claimants: the Elector of Brandenburg (a Protestant) and the Duke of Neuberg. To gain the Emperor’s support he became a Catholic. The Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs and the Duke of Bavaria were riding back to power in Germany which was now dividing into two camps. These possessions were strategic, useful to attack France or the Netherlands, and so of Habsburg interest. Henry was thus prepared to back Brandenburg. Though a religious war in Germany was imminent, Henry united the country in war. If it had not been for the assassination of Henry in 1610, the Thirty Years’ War might have begun then. So who was saving France? Henry IV or François Ravaillac?
AN ASSESSMENT OF HENRY IV Henry was a complete foil to Louis XIV. He was tolerant whereas Louis was a religious bigot. Henry dragged France back up and set points for future development. The assassination prevented him from doing anything unpopular. Henry gave France new growth: the country was
284
Robert Ignatius Letellier
unified and powerful at his death. By the time of Louis XIV’s death the first country of Europe was bankrupted and exhausted.
Figure 85. King Henry IV of France.
Chapter 33
THE THIRTY YEARS’ WAR AND THE PEACE OF WESTPHALIA, 1648 GERMANY IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 16TH CENTURY The seeds of the Thirty Years’ War were being sown. Only the example of France prevented religious wars spreading on a European scale. But conditions deteriorated. The economic situation deteriorated. Emporia veered from Venice to the Netherlands. There were rises in prices as routes led over the Alps down the Rhine. The Hanseatic Towns began to decline with the rise of English and Swedish trade, the first in cloth, the second in pig-iron and wood. There was a migration of herrings from the Baltic to the North Sea (Dogger Bank). Further secularization of Church lands went on despite the Peace of Augsburg. Brandenburg took Havelburg and Magdeburg; Saxony took Merseburg, Naumberg and Meissen. This led to a crisis with the violation of Augsburg. Protestantism persisted in the old Diets, carrying off the voting rights. The Emperor endeavoured to pack the Reichskammergericht with Catholics. The Protestants fell back on extra-constitutional security. In May 1608 the Elector Palatinate of the Rhine established the Union of
286
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Evangelical Estates, resembling the Schmalkaldic League. Calvinism had been ignored in the Peace of Augsburg, and was daily becoming a more important factor. Now the Elector Palatinate converted to the Reformed church. The Palatinate, Hesse and Württemberg were all members of the Union, with an army and treasury and the Elector Palatinate as director. The Elector of Saxony was Lutheran and politically moderate. With resurgence of Catholic power came the Habsburgs.
THE COUNTER-REFORMATION At first it progressed with little important encouragement. Ferdinand I was succeeded by Maximilian II. He admitted the Jesuits who counteracted Protestantism. But Maximilian’s death prevented his conversion. The Jesuits in Bavaria and the Habsburg lands was supported by Pope Gregory IX. They had all the authority and organization behind them. Poland was saved from Protestantism. Emperor Rudolph II followed up restoration of Catholicism on the basis of gaining power. He had great success in the Habsburg lands. In other parts, like Bohemia, with its history of John Hus and nationalism, restoration was more difficult. They retained their separatism. In Hungary Protestantism and nationalistic interests were rallied by Stephen Bocshaii. He tried to secure Turkish support. Despite rumblings, the Habsburgs were well established in Germany. Strasbourg was recovered for the Catholics. The secularization of Church lands was slowed down. Protestant fears led to the formation of the Union of Evangelical Estates. Now the Catholics established their own league in 1609 under Maximilian Duke of Bavaria (who hoped to gain electoral power). In 1598 the Edit of Nantes was promulgated and in 1609 a truce was declared between Spain and the Netherlands, with King Philip III recognizing its independence. Both these events helped to hold back war. But danger was signalled with the assassination of King Henry IV in 1610.
The Thirty Years’ War and the Peace of Westphalia, 1648
287
THE COMMENCEMENT The Emperor recognized that religious war in the Empire would result in a European war. In the end, the removal of a power block in Henry IV resolved the problem momentarily. War was averted in 1610, but broke out in 1618 over a quarrel about the election of the King of Bohemia. Because of the policy of the Habsburgs supporting the CounterReformation, they tried to enforce conformity on the Hussite Bohemians. The war of nerves took on a new twist in 1617 when Archduke Charles of Styria, a bigot, tried to restore family prestige. He withdrew a letter of toleration in Prague, and was deposed. Bohemian Catholics destroyed a Protestant church. The Protestants were further incensed that seven out the ten new governors of Bohemia were Catholic. Two of them were thrown from a window in the Hradcany Palace (the Defenestration of Prague) on 23 May 1618. They decided to expel the Habsburgs and elected instead Frederick of Palatinate, now a Calvinist prince. After the confrontation in 1618, the problem seemed to have ended. But Bohemia was unable to repeat its earlier Hussite resistance, caught as it was between two armies. Bavaria and Austria won a victory at the Battle of the White Mountain (1620). The Czech nobility were annihilated at the Black Assize of Prague (21 June 1621), a deliberate act of political terrorism. Bohemia was Germanized, and Prague was turned into a Habsburg centre. This was a victory for dynasticism, centralization, Catholicism. The war should have ended, but did not. The dynastic problem was not sufficient in itself: the Defenestration of Prague was not the sole cause. The basic reason was religious disunity and the association of religion and politics founded on the Augsburg Diet (1555). Neither the Catholics nor the Protestants had observed the territorial provisions, and there was a conflict about land and ecclesiastical reservations. Germany had been hovering on the brink of war for years, divided as it was between Catholics and Protestants. The Lutheran Princes were further disunited. The Catholics were also at odds, with divisions in the Habsburg family. In 1608 Emperor Rudolf II was forced to cede Hungary,
288
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Austria and Moravia to his brother Matthias. There was also tension between the Habsburgs and Bavarians. All this simply postponed the war. Every political, economic and territorial question seemed to turn back to religion. There was guilt, ambition and fear on both sides. The spectacle of divided 16th-c. France, and the Netherlands ravaged and struggling, held back Germany. The divisions retarded things until the formation of armed camps: the Evangelical Union (1608), and the Catholic League (1609). Both looked outside the Holy Roman Empire for support. In 1621 the truce between the Dutch and the Spanish expired. The Spanish used the Palatinate as a stepping stone to stream through Germany to attack the Dutch. In 1625, owing to the work of Johann Tserklaes, Count of Tilly (1559-1632), the Protestant Princes and mercenaries were defeated. The war seemed over, with Bohemia and the Evangelical Union crushed. The Catholics thus experienced great initial success. If this had been only a civil war, they would probably have won, since a strong Catholic Germany meant a powerful Habsburg dynasty. In 1625 France was in no position to go to war during the Regency of Louis XIII’s youth. But old problems returned. The Queen Regent had great backing and advice from Cardinal Richelieu (Cardinal Armand Jean du Plessis, Duc de Richelieu, 1585-1642) who in 1624 was appointed First Minister of France. He saw the need for settling French problems. In 1629 he defeated the Huguenots at La Rochelle: they were forced to accept the Peace of Alais. Richelieu proved to be an able statesman. He granted political toleration, but removed political privileges. His masterstroke was to gain the support of the Huguenots fighting for their co-religionists in Germany. The Crown was strengthened. In 1629 Richelieu still did not wish to risk war, and decided to engage in the war a great genius, Gustavus Adolphus, the King of Sweden (1594-1632), to whom he promised financial support if he would fight the Habsburgs. The victorious Catholic forces now began to divide. 1629 marked the new stage in the war with the emergence of Bavaria. The Wittlesbach family had taken over the Palatinate and its privileges, becoming electors in 1623. The Catholic army under Tilly treated the war as a crusade, with their eventual political dominance in Germany. The
The Thirty Years’ War and the Peace of Westphalia, 1648
289
Emperor Ferdinand II (b. 1578 reg. 1619-1637) found a great mercenary leader, genius and patriot in Albrecht Wenzel Eusebius Wallenstein (15831634). He could have unified Germany, and made Bismarck’s later work unnecessary. He saw in Tilly a personal rival and enemy of the Habsburgs. He suggested two points: the securing of the North German coast, making himself heir to the Hanseatic League; brokering a moderate peace so as to win loyal Protestant support. His great plan failed. Ferdinand wavered. He was prevailed upon to issue an Edict of Rest, and dismissed Wallenstein. Gustavus Adolphus was persuaded to come into the war. He defeated the Vasa House in Poland, and seized the Baltic ports. With trade dues, he was ready to make the move already attempted by Denmark in 1625. Cardinal Richelieu dreaded the Netherlands falling to Spain, and the Rhine to the Habsburgs. Thus he provided Gustavus Adolphus with the cash subsidies he needed. Gustavus Adolphus participated for mixed motives. He was concerned for Protestanism. He feared that if the Catholics were victorious, they would come to the aid of the Catholic Vasas who would invade Sweden. He wanted to complete the Swedish grip on the Northern German ports, and add funds to the Swedish state. He had the personal ambition of a gifted soldier. The entry of Swedish forces brought new life to the Protestant cause. They won their greatest victory at the Battle of Breitenfeld (1631); Gustavus Adolphus was killed at Lutzen (1632). Many German nobles joined the Protestants after the Catholic capture and rape of Magdeburg. Swedish troops wished to avenge their king’s death, and after 1632 held North Germany. By 1635 Wallenstein and Gustavus Adolphus were both dead. France openly declared war on Germany. What was originally a civil war now became one of international politics to dismember and weaken Germany. There was wreckage of the land, cities, population, culture and trade. Vast areas were left desolated. The armies maintained themselves on the countryside: there was a lack of discipline, comforts, and civilian protection, and this resulted in widespread carnage, destruction and vast civilian mortality. There was loss of trade, produce, stock. Municipal debts were augmented, shipping decreased by nearly 200%. The cities of
290
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Germany never recovered their status and power. The Princes’ power increased, and whole cities were scattered. Only now did primogeniture establish itself, politically and economically. Negotiations for peace began as early as 1635. Peace treaties and battles went on, side by side, altering conditions. A treaty ending the war was a comment on the situation rather than a formulation of new ideas. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) was complicated. It was not a single treaty but several between parties and groups. Representatives of the Catholic powers met in Münster and of the Protestants at Osnabrück, both in Westphalia. There were several treaties, full of contradictions and errors. Spain was not present, and in 1648 made its own peace with the Netherlands. France and Spain continued fighting until the Treaty of the Pyrenees (1659). The Treaty of Oliva (1660) between Poland, Sweden and Brandenburg followed.
THE SIGNIFICANCE The Treaty Provided the Fundamental Basis of Modern Europe There were three years of bargaining by the delegates who provided the blueprint of Europe until Napoleon who tore it up. It also formulated the ideas of Grotius in practice. This became the first book in a great body of legal writing setting out the legal relationship between states.
The Effects on Europe It changed the society of Europe. In place of the control of the Pope and the Emperor, there was now a body of separate European nations, trading with each other. There was no outside interference. The Pope
The Thirty Years’ War and the Peace of Westphalia, 1648
291
influenced only those countries who welcomed his office. The Emperor was now only the first among the monarchs.
The Effects on Germany The Peace of Westphalia marked the practical failure of the Holy Roman Empire. This was no longer the great institution of the Middle Ages. In spite of the power of the Habsburgs, it failed to make Austria and the dynasty the political centre of gravity for German patriotism. This was partly due to religious conflicts, but others were political. These started with:
1231: Statutem in Favorem Principum 1356: The Golden Bull 1555: The Peace of Augsburg 1648: The Peace of Westphalia.
So loose was the statement that the Princes could conduct foreign affairs as long as it did not harm the Emperor. It was an invitation for them to go their own ways. The Princes had always aimed at independence and their own ambitions.
The Effects on the Habsburgs The Peace of Westphalia marked the practical failure of the Habsburgs to maintain themselves as a German power, but rather an essentially Austrian power. As Holy Roman Emperors they were of the German state, but constantly pulled in other directions—to Spain, the Netherlands and Hungary. At the least they could have emerged as the centre of German patriotism instead of diffusing their political influence. They were involved in the problems of Italy and the Danube where Slavs and Turks kept interest. Occasionally they had concerns for their German subjects in
292
Robert Ignatius Letellier
the Rhineland, but in the Spanish way. The Peace of Carlowitz in 1699 saw the decline of Turkey, and the entrance of Austria and Russia into Eastern Europe.
The Effects on Holland, Switzerland and Sweden The first fruits were seen in with the collapse of Habsburg power in 1648, and the emergence of Holland and Switzerland as independent states. The Swedish king with lands on the Baltic (tremendous territories: East Pomerania, the ports of Stettin, Tallin; further West, Wismar, the Bishoprics of Bremen and Verden, control of two river mouths—the Elbe and Weser) was now a subject of the Holy Roman Empire. The Swedish population swelled by a third. Revenues from tolls, port dues and customs added greatly to their finances. There were great conquests at the expense of Poland and Denmark.
Economic Decline The failure of the Habsburgs to consolidate Germany led to an increase in economic decline, underlined by customs barriers—on the Rhine especially. When the other countries of Europe were developing into great national states, Germany seemed to be going backwards.
The Balance of Power There was an important change in the balance of power in Europe. The Habsburgs had upset the politcal equilibrium. France made alliances with Turkey, Poland and Sweden. The Habsburgs were superseded. Bourbon France emerged as a great power, and there now needed to be a new political alliance against the French.
The Thirty Years’ War and the Peace of Westphalia, 1648
Figure 86. Emperor Ferdinand II.
. Figure 87. Albrecht von Wallenstein.
293
294
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 88. Johann Tserklaes, Count of Tilly.
Figure 89. Gustavus Adolphus Vasa of Sweden.
The Thirty Years’ War and the Peace of Westphalia, 1648
Figure 90. The Treaty of Westphalia.
295
Chapter 34
THE RISE OF DYNASTIC ABSOLUTISM IN FRANCE Louis XIII (b.1601 reg.1610-1643) was only 9 years old when he ascended the throne. The Regency meant weak government. The events of 1610 seem to be a repetition of the previous dark years of the 16 th c. The regent was another woman of the same family, this time Marie de’ Medici. Disaster was staved off by the appointment of Cardinal Richelieu as Chief Minister in 1624. He ruled France until his death in 1642. He set the pattern for French ascendancy, the nature of French government and policy. He created the system called the ancien régime. He was inspired by one ambition to make France great. He believed in France, the monarchy and the Church for support. In domestic policy there was need for strong government. All independent minorities were suppressed and made subject to the Crown. In foreign policy Richelieu aimed for the glory of France behind its natural borders of the Rhine, the Alps and the Pyrenees. He played off the powers against each other, and sought to undermine the superiority of the Habsburgs. When he became First Minister, the Huguenots were still living under the Edict of Nantes. Since the death of Henry IV, the arrangement was not proving satisfactory. They used the synods to organize opposition to the
298
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Crown. Richelieu could not tolerate a state within the State and set out to crush the Huguenots. Rebellion broke out at La Rochelle. The French army besieged the town for nearly a year. Despite the help of English ships, after the death of 15,000 people, the city capitulated. Richelieu destroyed the fortifications and ended Huguenot resistance. In 1629 he published the Peace of Alais, leaving them the liberty of religious freedom, but removing their political privileges. It was a great act of tolerance and diplomacy. For his immediate purposes this was successful. Later in Louis XIV’s infancy, there was a rebellion without Huguenot backing, the Fronde where the nobility tried to assert their political traditions. There was opposition to Richelieu by Gaston d’Orléans, the King’s brother. If a person was proved to be disloyal, no action or privilege could save the person from justice. Some 46 sentences were passed. Richelieu declared the destruction of all fortifications, a symbolic ruination of old feudal castles, and a stimulus to the building of beautiful chateaux. Duelling was forbidden. People were made aware of the power of the King throughout the land by regiments like the famous Musketeers. In provincial government Richelieu used officials called intendants. These were intended to supersede the old seigneurs. Police and finance were drawn from the middle class, who had no noble aspirations. Provincial councils were discouraged out of existence. The one great national body capable of curbing the Crown, the Estates General, was never called. Government business was dealt with by the King, the Minister and the Council, the Conseil du Roi. This met on different days to deal with difficult business. Ministers of State became something like departments. They had no power, and foreign diplomacy was in the hands of the First Minister. Richelieu built up the armed power of the Crown, increasing troop numbers from 10,000 in1610 to 164,000 in 1642. He also created the navy: by 1642 there were 80 ships in two fleets. Richelieu strengthened the French Crown immensely. But expenses quadrupled, and taxes were augmented. The taille increased five times. Methods of collection were archaic: only one-fifth was gained by the Crown. The real problem lay in the system of collection and accounting. Richelieu’s government was even more destructive in the unity of the state.
The Rise of Dynastic Absolutism in France
299
It crippled the Estates General, curbed religious toleration, controlled the nobility whose opposition and participation in politics put a break on absolutism. He increased central power through ministers, councils, taxes and formation of the armed forces. Richelieu died in 1642 and Louis XIII a year later. Cardinal Jules Mazarin (1602-1661) was appointed as successor to the First Minister. There was a problem with his being Italian, but he was extremely able and cunning in running the Regency (1642-60). He was an intimate of the Queen Mother, Anne of Austria, and highly regarded by Louis XIV who did not assume his own government until his mother’s death in 1660. Both Cardinals failed to deal with fundamental problems. They failed to re-organize the state revenues; failed to remove the privileges of the clergy; failed to curb the financial exemption of the nobility; and failed to deal with the provincial estates and law courts. The problems of the Middle Ages were ignored and pushed away until the explosion of 1789. When Louis XIV took over in 1660 the regime presented a façade of dignified government. But taxation was disorganized, judicature in chaos, and rigid social barriers in place. The nobility were confined to dignified tradition and lived on their lands. There was a divorce between the nobles and the bourgeoisie. Peasant misery was universal, even in peacetime. The wars of Louis XIV only accentuated the evils of the realm. There was great royal flamboyance, used as a subtle method of keeping the nobility in check. But there was great stimulus in the development of culture, the building of the magnificent palace of Versailles, and great royal patronage of literature (Racine and Molière) and music (Lully). Neither the problems nor the resources of France moved him personally. He was punctilious and a hard worker, but a great tyrant. He expelled the Huguenots and ravaged the Palatinate while the State was basically bankrupt. France was great in spite of Louis XIV not because of him. His ministers Louvois, Vauban, Turenne and Condé were all inherited from Richelieu and Mazarin. The ministers were great in the early part of his reign but succeeded by mediocrities. By the end of his reign France had begun to wither.
300
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Older historians see the greatest master-mind controlling Louis in his early reign as Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619-1683), the war minister who pulled France into conflict. He was a great mercantilist who took France to war to defend mercantile principles. He began in 1661 by arresting Nicolas Fouquet, the Minister of Finance (1653-1661) and friend of Mazarin, and by rigid economic policies, with prosecutions for embezzlement, supplied the Exchequer with a balance. The army was provided for, roads built, canals dug, customs duties dispensed with. He encouraged industries like cloth-weaving, and the setting up of trading companies for activity in the East, America and Northern Europe. There was a conscious plan of organized development. If given time, he would probably have reformed taxation inequalities. Mercantilism was correlated in 1673. Tariffs were used to encourage the entrance of French wines and silk into England and neighbouring countries. He was also in competition with other states. The West Indies and Pondicherry in India were very important. England evinced a similar interest, and this was a cause for war. Colbert’s work was undone by many expensive wars. He died in 1683 and his successors were not capable. François-Michel Le Tellier, Marquis de Louvois (1641-1691) succeeded Colbert in 1683 as Minister of Finance. From 1666-1691 he was Minister of War. He carried out military reforms which made the French army the most powerful in Europe. But he was a dilettante. He encouraged the war policy and the persecution of the Huguenots, the backbone of the French industry, in the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685). France declined into a morass of economic and financial problems. This was exemplified in the King’s religious policy. The Huguenots and all other groups were subjected to the monarch. He satisfied French pride in persecution. The Four Gallician Articles of Liberties of 1682 denied that the King was subject to Papal jurisdiction, and sought to place French ecclesiastical law on a par with common law. They denied that the Papal verdict was final in matters of faith. They were not prepared to accept any other authority in the state.
The Rise of Dynastic Absolutism in France
301
A puritanical Catholic sect arose, the Jansenists, based in the Couvent Royale in Paris. They disapproved of the Articles and sought Papal condemnation of them. This was given by Clement XI in the Bull Unigentus (1713). The Parlement of Paris declared the Bull a violation of the Articles. When Louis XIV died in 1715, after expelling the Huguenots and persecuting the Jansenists, he, as a devout Catholic, had found himself in a quandary (the Gallican Articles versus the Pope).
ASSESSMENT OF LOUIS XIV’S DOMESTIC POLICY The later years reaped the harvest of the earlier years: inefficient taxgathering, social injustices, an over-powerful and privileged Church. So much power was vested in the Crown that it could have been possible to rectify these problems. The administrative units of Richelieu could have set France right, but the basic problems were ignored. Every expression of individualism was crushed.
THE FOREIGN POLICY OF LOUIS XIV What did Europe look like in 1660? What problems presented themselves? In England the Restoration of Charles II took place. There was a careful balance of power in England, with compromise between the Monarch and Parliament. In 1688 the Glorious Revolution dissipated any doubts with the rejection of Catholic James II and the securing of the Protestant succession. On the Continent, the Treaty of Oliva (1660) marked the decline of Poland. The Elector of Brandenburg extricated East Prussia from Polish suzerainty, and marked the emergence of Hohenzollern power. In 1659 the Treaty of the Pyrenees saw the defeat of the Spanish Habsburgs.
302
Robert Ignatius Letellier
When Louis XIV assumed power, there seemed promise of a new era of peace and stability, with no more religious wars. There was no realization that the religious wars had cloaked economic and national aspirations. Louis’s policy threatened the peace and stability of the continent. He tried to make France the pivot of European power. His ambition lay in two fields. In 1601 Henry IV had acquired Bresse and Bugey; in 1648 Mazarin had gained Alsace. In 1678 Louis took France a step closer to securing its natural boundaries. The Dutch War ended with the Peace of Nijmigen (1678-1679) by which France acquired the FrancheCompté. The Peace of Ratisbon (1684) saw more gains in Alsace. The last great drive of the Turks was in 1683 at the Siege of Vienna. Economic policy played a great part in all of this. The French aimed for the mouth of the Rhine. This would mean crossing the Spanish Netherlands. The Dutch strained to keep this as a buffer state. To break the trade Louis XIV deliberately began a war with the Dutch (1672-78) who secured the help of Charles II. This war, directed by William of Orange (1650-1702), contained the seeds of Louis’s downfall. The Peace of Nijmigen (1678) appeared very successful. The Dutch were able to help their Swedish allies and German territories remained untouched. At this point the rest of Europe awoke to the dangers of Bourbon France. The English Parliament forced Charles II to help the Dutch. The Holy Roman Empire and the Elector of Brandenburg were drawn together to oppose France. Between 1675 and 1688 the power of France loomed over Europe. In 1688 France forced the Emperor to give up his rights in Alsace. Louis now felt secure enough to revoke the Edict of Nantes, and there were fears of more persecutions. William of Orange formed the Grand Alliance of 1672. A year later, Louis invaded the Palatinate. The Great Elector remained on the side of the allies. This enabled William and Mary to embark for England. For William, success on the Continent was vital for England, and drew England into European politics. At the Treaty of Ryswick (1697) they terminated the war. From 1688 to 1697 in the War of the English Succession Louis was checkmated and had to recognize William of Orange as King of England. The Netherlands were allowed to
The Rise of Dynastic Absolutism in France
303
have boundary fortresses in Spanish Netherlands to secure the frontier against French aggression. The peace was partly owing to exhaustion. Europe now came to realize that the King of Spain Charles II was dying.The nations now had now to gamble for bigger gains. King Charles was determined to pass on the Spanish Empire undivided. The first choice was the young Elector Prince of Bavaria who died while in adolescence. Two of the King’s aunts had married into the Austrian Habsburgs; two of his aunts had married into French families. Joseph Ferdinand died in 1699. So it devolved to the younger grandson of Louis XIV, Philip of Bourbon, provided there was no fusion of Crowns. War was imminent between France and Austria. Louis had not signed the Second Great Alliance. The solution was obvious: to partition the Spanish possessions, but Austria refused. Charles II now died (1700), and his will was published. He acknowledged Philip of Bourbon on condition that he had to renounce the French Crown, and keep the two crowns divided. Leopold I of Austria (1656-1705) again refused to recognize this. With Sweden and Turkey on his side, Leopold felt secure. England was willing to accept the terms of the will, but was interested in trade and empire. However, William, as Stadholder of Holland, was interested in the balance of European power. In 1701 Louis made his biggest blunder: he committed himself to war with the maritime powers of England and the Netherlands. France would have to fight Austria anyway, and France was exhausted by continual warfare. Louis treated the Spanish Netherlands like a part of France. This affected British trade and meant endangering Rotterdam and Amsterdam. The Netherlands should not fall under the control of any great European nation. England was axiomatically drawn into war. Spain was flooded with French troops which interfered with British interests in Cadiz. This secured French rights for trade with the Spanish Indies. William of Orange formed another great pact, the Grand Alliance of 1701. Although he died in 1702, England backed the war to the hilt throughout the reign of Queen Anne (1702-1714). The war of the Spanish Succession was occasioned by the death of Charles II. But the real cause was the aggression shown by Louis XIV. The need to defend the balance of power on the Continent was threatened by
304
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Bourbon France. There was need to defend the economic interests of England and France. When the Duke of Marlborough engaged at the Battles of Blenheim, Ramilles and Oudenarde, he was defending the balance of power and defeating the one state powerful enough to challenge English interests. This was the first major clash between France and England in the 18th c. The double nature (continental and colonial) was indicated by the Treaty of Utrecht (1714). Here imperial and European history drew together. Philip of Bourbon kept Spain separated from France. The Dutch recovered and enlarged their barrier against France. Austria gained concessions and compensations in the Spanish Netherlands, Milan, Naples and Sardinia. The greatest to benefit was England. The balance of power was maintained, trade protected and control of the mouth of the Mediterranean gained with Gibraltar, Minorca and Majorca. The path to the Levant was secured. It also won the Asiento Trade from Spain. From France it secured St. Kitts in the West Indies, the Hudson Bay Territory and Newfoundland. These acquisitions, plus those of the Atlantic seaboard, set the scene for the wars between France and England in the mid-18th c. It was the classic demonstration of how new colonies emphasized national rivalries set up in Europe. Louis XIV’s foreign policy was the continuation of that of Henry IV, Richelieu and Mazarin, with the Franche-Compé secured in 1678 and Alsace acquired in 1684. In the main, the policy of Louis’s predecessors was defensive, against the Habsburgs and to secure the balance of power by breaking Habsburg danger in Spain and Germany. Louis’s policy worked on four points. He needed to maintain a balance of power favourable to France. The tariff war with the Dutch and interference in Anglo-Dutch trade revealed the great part that economic considerations played. Colbert was more responsible for wars than Louvois. The wars committed France to hostilities on two fronts: continental and maritime war. But while Henry IV, Richelieu, and Mazarin left France strong, Louis XIV did nothing to rectify the great ills of his country. Corrupted by power, he left France in a state of weakness and bankruptcy. The positive aspects of Louis XIV’s reign can be seen only in its enduring cultural heritage.
The Rise of Dynastic Absolutism in France
Figure 91. King Louis XIII of France.
Figure 92. Cardinal Richelieu.
305
306
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Figure 93. King Louis XIV of France.
Figure 94. Jean-Baptiste Colbert.
Chapter 35
POLAND IN THE 17TH CENTURY So impressive was France and Louis XIV that a whole period was named after him. But a perfect foil to the absolutism in France could be found in Poland where power was in the hands of an irresolute and corrupt nobility. At the beginning of the 17th c. Poland was a very great state. It included:
Lithuania to the South the Ukraine (including Kiev) to the East White Russia (including Smolensk) to the North secular suzerainty over the Teutonic Knights in Courland and East Prussia.
THE WEAKNESSES OF POLAND The geographical position of Poland was not advantageous. It had indefensible frontiers, being very flat countryside and marshy. To the North were the Swedes; to the South the Ottoman Turks; to the West Germany; to the East Russia. While these powers had troubles of their own, Poland was reasonably safe. Once there was peace again in Europe,
308
Robert Ignatius Letellier
security was threatened. The first necessity was strong government, and Poland had the weakest in Europe. There were religious differences that divided the ruler from the ruled. The nobility were Catholics; the Russians and Lithuanians were Orthodox who tended to look to Moscow. The Teutonic Knights and Germans in the West were Lutherans. Before the Reformation this question did not arise. In 1555 King Sigismund II (1548-1572) accepted the decrees of the Council of Trent. He invited the Jesuits to re-establish the faith in the Kingdom. Success meant a new and more intolerant Catholicism. This strengthened the antagonism between the Poles and their subjects, now tinged with emotion. By the Union of Brest-Livtovsk in 1596 the Orthodox community was forced to repudiate allegiance to the Metropolitan of Moscow. They were obliged to recognize the Pope, but allowed to retain the old Byzantine Rite. This community aligned with Rome thus became a Uniate Church, and was largely a community of peasants. The root of the state went back to barbarian times when division was established between rulers and the ruled. The landlords were petty nobility or gentry formed from the Polish people. The peasants were Slavs and serfs. Up to the 14th c. Slavs were in much the same position as elsewhere. In 1374 the nobles obtained privileges, so reducing the role of the peasants to servitude. By the death of Sigismund, the last of the Jagiellon kings, in 1572, the serfs had been shorn of every civil and political right. All land with serfs on it was the property of the lords, with the power of life and death over slaves, and uncontrolled jurisdiction in vast areas of the estates. Wherever they succeeded in extending Polish influence, the land tenure and control went too. The nobles were extremely powerful in the governance of the county. The leading role of the nobility found clearest expression in the Diet or Sejm from the end of the 15th c. This was not an assembly of estates, but exclusively a parliament of nobles. The Lower House was the Szlachta, the Upper House the Izba Sentorska for civil dignitaries and churchman. There was negligible civil representation in the Szlachta, which had the right to impose taxes. Polish kings, in contrast to France, were bound by the strictures of the Diet. In England, there was a balanced working between
Poland in the 17th Century
309
the King and Parliament. The nobles were jealous of local independence, and national interests were sacrificed for personal power or gain. As in the Holy Roman Empire, the main claim to power in this elective monarchy was the nobility. Every election saw the demand for new concessions, wrested from the Crown by blackmail. This personalized right of rebellion and confederation saw Poland lapse into anarchy. Perhaps if the Jagiellon dynasty (1386-1572) had survived, the disaster could have been averted. The death of Sigismund II in 1572 caused a problem with the election. The candidates were Maximillian II and Henry of Valois. The French prince won the crown with lavish bribes. Five months later, on the death of his brother Charles IX, he fled back to France. Sigismund, because of all the concession he had been forced to make, deprived the Crown of all authority. He abolished the last vestiges of the hereditary monarchy. Poland had really turned into an aristocratic republic. From then each new king had to sign a compact, eventually depriving him of any power in the state. Not content with destroying the power of the Crown, the nobles resented the power of parliament. Diets were turbulent meetings of armed men with no parties. The sessions usually resulted in faction with sectional quarrels rather than parties. There were often disputes between the Szlachta and the Izba Senetorska. There was no principle of acceptance on which modern parliamentary patterns are based, but rather a simple majority wins all. Several local councils or Dietines had no opposition whatsoever. The principle of unanimous decision was also introduced into the Diet sometime in the 16th c. Constitutionally it was possible for any member of the Diet to wreck any proposal. Later this was extended to the right of deputies to dissolve the Diet, the Librum Veto. This was cherished by the Polish nobles as one of the most valuable of their liberties. Sigismund III (1587-1632) who tried to introduce the majority vote had a revolt on his hands. An amnesty in 1609 destroyed the hopes of conservative reform. Conditions deteriorated, legislation was hamstrung, and foreign ambassadors were intriguing in Polish affairs. They interfered in the Diet, in elections, and pushed through foreign policies by bribery.
310
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Against this anarchical political background, Poland was in a difficult position in the 17th c. The nobles did not hesitate to intrigue with foreign powers against the Crown. An act of rebellion led by Stanislaw Lumbomirski forced King John II Casimir (1648-1668) to conclude the Treaty of Andrussovo (1667) with the Russians. This established a thirteenand-a-half year truce between the Russia and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, which had been fighting the Russo-Polish War since 1654 over the territories of Ukraine and Belarus. Just when the Poles were in sight of victory, came the downfall of Poland and the rise of Russia. The last blaze of glory came in 1683 when King John III Sobieski (1674-1696) relieved the Siege of Vienna and saved Europe from the Turks. By the beginning of the 18th c. Poland was an amorphous mass between Russia and Prussia. Because of its historical and economic background, this failing state was attempting bait to growing nations, but anarchy in the surrounding countries enabled Poland to survive through the 17th c.
Figure 95. The Szlachta of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Poland in the 17th Century
311
(a)
(b) Figure 96. King John III Sobieski of Poland (a) and the Battle of Vienna, 1683 (b).
Chapter 36
THE RISE OF PRUSSIA In theory the Holy Roman Empire lasted until 1805 when the Habsburgs took the title of Emperor of Austria, and became presidents of the German Bund of 1815. The period 1618-1866 is seen differently by German historians, as the triumph of the Hohenzollerns over the Habsburgs. The Great Elector was the architect of modern Germany— which was Prussian, Protestant and patriotic. Northern Germany was the centre, the focal point of German power, prophetic of things to come after the First World War. This view is biased and political (A. J. P. Taylor). There was initially the ‘Prussianization’ of the Hohenzollern lands, and then of Germany as a whole by Bismarck. Finally came the barbarization of the whole of Germany under National Socialism. The Prussian story began in 1640. The young prince Frederick William (1620-1688) inherited a country torn apart, with Germany invaded and in ruins. For the next eight years he struggled to survive. He had considerable diplomatic ability, and won great success at the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). The Great Elector was not particularly dynamic, either in character or ability. He had great common sense and tenacity. He launched only one really adventurous action: the Prussian Navy and the settlement of emigrants on the West African coast. He was a realist forced to face facts. Berlin was almost a ghost town. The whole of Brandenburg
314
Robert Ignatius Letellier
was overrun; the army was depleted and resources were nil. At Westphalia he secured restoration and the survival of the state experienced by his adherence to Calvinism and his relationship with France, to support him as a candidate for the Imperial title and an ally against Sweden. He secured more lands and managed to preserve Jülich, Cleves and Berg from the crises of 1610. He secured the bishoprics of Minden, Cammin, Halberstadt and Magdeburg, as well as acquiring Pomerania and West Prussia as fiefs of the Prussian Crown. It is difficult to know whether these were assets or liabilities. In the West France coveted West Pomerania, and in the East Sweden East Pomerania. These were divided into pockets with different customs dues, and difficult to defend. It was as much geography as history that shaped Brandenburg into Prussia. Each little state had its own history and was jealous of its neighbours with no wish to provide money for others. But the Elector determined both an external and domestic policy. His aim w as to link these scattered possessions by conquest or diplomacy. He managed to extricate Prussia from the vassalage of Poland. He also built up the kingdom by developing the army and civil service, based on personal loyalty to himself, and by cracking down on localism in this way. By the Peace of Oliva (1660) the Great Elector ruled Prussia as a sovereign prince. In the Dutch War of 1672-79 he fought against France and Sweden, defeating the Swedes at Fehrbetten when he seized West Pomerania. But the extended diplomatic arm of Louis XIV impelled him to return to it. In the next 10 years he learned the lesson from France as a paid mercenary of Louis XIV. What he did in return for French money was to build up his army. But patterns were changing, and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685) made him re-consider, especially since his nephew was William of Orange. On his deathbed he committed his son Frederick I (1701-1713) as his successor to break with France. Prussia signed the Great Alliance in the fight for the balance of power. His son was loyal to England, Austria, and the United Provinces in the Wars of the English and Spanish Successions. He was, as a reward, raised to the status of kingship. Only in 1719 did his grandson Frederick William I (1713-1740) acquire West Pomerania with the port of Stettin. History and geography drew the
The Rise of Prussia
315
outlines of Prussian policy, with an object to unify the various states and build up the Prussian nation. That Prussia later dominated Germany is indicative of his success. In 1640 the Great Elector wanted to build up the state. He was a good mercantilist and encouraged immigration of skilled workmen. He welcomed the Huguenots expelled from France. He needed to clear and drain his lands, and resettle the population. The Great Elector’s Crown lands, private lands and confiscated church property, were extensive and developed. He used the old medieval idea that the king should live off his own states. The re-organization of the land set the pattern for land owners and formed a solid core for royal revenues. He was foiled in his attempt to reach the mouth of the Oder, but constructed canal routes from the Oder via the Spree to the Elbe. These routes were very popular and enabled the wisdom of low tariffs. The scattered territories and many frontiers made collection of customs duties difficult. He relied on taxes and copied the Dutch system. Each town had its own excise dues, and claimed a lump sum. Tax was assessed by royal officials and secured a steady income and government control, with further checks in towns. He still did not destroy the competitive spirit. The Landtage was instructive about imposing taxes, and kept alive the notion of representative institutions. He should have used this by gaining their support. The Great Elector did not destroy the Landtage, but as a result of fiscal policy he was able to cripple them. They were barred from the executive. Executive officials were responsible to him and excluded from any military policy. He needed more money for the army than he possessed. The Elector was hamstrung by the power of Louis XIV, but he matured in another way—through the society of Prussia. This was essentially feudal in Prussian Pomerania. The estates of the nobles were vast. They formed an aristocracy, the Junkers, who ruled their estates like petty sovereigns. There was a rigid social structure. In towns there were burghers who paid taxes on a differential basis. The peasants were hardly better than serfs. The strict divisions of society were reflected in the rigid classification of states: when the Landtage met there were so many social divisions that there could be no united front. The Elector had to divide and rule. He
316
Robert Ignatius Letellier
harnessed the medieval partition of society to the modern state. In France, absolutism prevailed. But the Elector used these social structures in the formation of the State. There was a strong tradition of military service among the Junkers. Younger sons were provided with posts in the new civil service. The Junkers were the backbone of the new State. The natural leaders of the rural state became the almost predestined rulers of the new polity. Old patterns were integrated into the new State with Renaissance absolutism. This would become a militarily aggressive polity into the 20th c. But the Great Elector cannot be accredited with the crimes of modern Germany. Given the new position of Brandenburg and the new structure of society, the Great Elector acted wisely. As a protagonist, he matched the circumstances of his time. His is the kind of greatness which really understands the age in which he lives. There are no grounds for regarding him as unenlightened: that period came after his time. He gave Prussian a new army and a workable political structure. When Swedish power disintegrated, the Great Elector soon reaped benefits in achieving the gateway to the Baltic at Stettin. His achievement may seem small. He neither made nor predestined the age, He gave some encouragement to art and culture but too little time and money. A Spartan streak ran through the whole of Prussia, When the Elector died, Prussia was a power, his great achievement. Equality and parliamentary government were eventually brought into life by England, France, and Italy. But these models were unheard of and impracticable in the 17th c. The economy of Prussia was primitive and hardly in the van of contemporary development. If he had thought of emancipating the serfs it would probably have been useless. He had no financial resources. Freedom was yet to be economically possessed. It is useless to condemn him for not being ahead of his age. But to create form and purpose out of chaos is an attribute of greatness.
The Rise of Prussia
Figure 97. The Great Elector of Prussia.
317
Chapter 37
SWEDEN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES SWEDEN UNDER GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS Gustavus II Adolphus (b.1598 reg. 1611-1632) was able to balance the various constitutional groups in his kingdom: the King, and the People with an excellent constitution. The geographical position of Sweden was extraordinary. It dominated the mouth of the Baltic, with close proximity to Denmark, Norway and Russia. He realized the importance of keeping the Russians down. In the 17th c Russia was experiencing its ‘Times of Troubles’; Germany was caught up in the Thirty Years War; Poland was in a constitutional mess.Gustavus stood between two worlds: the West and Russia. The realism of Swedish policy perceived that it might replace Flanders and Italy as the battleground of Europe. Gustavus I Adolphus Vasa (1521-1560) established the dynasty, and one of the founders of Sweden, the family remaining kings of Sweden until 1809. They built up a mighty empire in the area until 1718, an area greater than Bismarck’s Germany. The fate of Europe hinged on Vasa decisions, revealing genius with a streak of eccentricity. Between 1523 and 1718 history was closely associated with the Vasa, so that the history of Sweden was that of kings. This obscures other factors. It ignores the vigour of the peasantry with a hard-working national identity. The King objected to the
320
Robert Ignatius Letellier
dominance of Denmark. The nobles were generally patriotic, and fostered by the kings. The Rikstag was composed of elements of the nobles and the peasantry, leading to a healthy constitutional life. Until 1658 Sweden did not secure the vital province of Scania, which gave the country a sound footing, and considerable economic advantages: minerals, timber. This was also advantageous to shipping as Sweden used copper to strengthen the keels of ships. Iron ore provided Sweden with iron of a high quality. Though the confiscation of church lands was mainly political, and led Sweden to adopt Lutheranism, the country became genuinely committed. The conviction of Lutheranism came long before 1595 when it was made the state religion. Lutheran ministers and teachers were very active. A political accident provided Sweden with the opportunity of using its economic potential in the 15th c. The Baltic was dominated by the Hanseatic League (trading with Novgorod, especially in herrings). The decline of the League (1669) gave Sweden opportunities at the Treaty of Roskilde (1658) in the Russian and Polish crisis. Swedish kings toyed with the idea of seizing Russia. In 1617 at the Treaty of Stolbova Sweden took over Finland and added Karelia, Ingia and Estonia. This cut Russia off from the Baltic, and was a prime factor in assessing Sweden’s role in the Baltic. In 1611 Gustavus Adolphus acceded to the throne and ruled for 21 years. He was rational and learned, a commanding personality. He drew some of the finest contemporaries to Sweden. He was leader and soldier of great ability, and shrewd political tactician. He had great vision, and also the ability to implement this. Sweden was entangled in wars with Denmark and Russia which was ruinous to the Baltic trade and Swedish resources. This was a diversion from his main concern: attack from Poland. He accepted mediation from England, made peace with Denmark and a profitable one with Russia at the Treaty of Stolbova. This was the prelude to a move against Poland. Dynastic squabbles and civil war between seven branches of the Vasa family, lack of taxes and incompetence undermined the economic condition of the Swedish state. In parallel with peace negotiations were
Sweden the 17th and 18th Centuries
321
attempts to reorganize the domestic situation in Sweden. He recognized the importance of the Rikstag, and realized that a strong executive was necessary. Law courts were reformed. He began to develop a mercantile policy in Sweden, maintaining law and order as essential to the economy. The position of the Rikstag was carefully defined so that each estate played a part. Policy was left entirely to the King and his ministers. There was great clarity of definition. Subtle processes of explanation and co-operative leadership made Gustavus Adolphus the true founder of modern Sweden. He understood that one of the great problems of the age was the reconciliation of freedom with decisive action. From 1621 Gustavus was constantly involved in war until his death. While at war the government was left in the able hands of Count Axel Gustafsson Oxenstiera (1583-1654). He also maintained the regency during Queen Christina’s infancy. He was a man of genius with flair for work.
THE POLISH SITUATION A Catholic branch of the Vasa family was elected to the Polish throne, and there was now a danger that they (with Catholic reform) might aspire to the Swedish throne. Both Sweden and Poland claimed Livonia. This was an excellent battleground, a great corn-growing province, with ports providing an exit point for European trade. Revenues would double the income of the Swedish Crown. Dynastic and economic concerns, as well as ambition launched Gustavus’s claims. Gustavus played a decisive role in the Thirty Years’ War. The Swedish invasion in 1620 prevented Polish reinforcements from assisting the Catholics. Arduous campaigns in 1629 saw Swedish victory over Poland, leaving him free to enter the larger conflict. The Protestant cause was saved by the quarrel between Bavaria and Austria, the rivalry between the Generals Tilly and Wallenstein, and the action of Gustavus Adolphus. The Siege of Stralsund was a great victory, with Sweden subsidized by France. Stettin gave him a Baltic port, and opened the heart of Germany to the
322
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Protestant crusade. His greatest victory was at Breitenfeld which was checkmated by his death at Lutzen in 1632. He had planned to move the war into the heart of Germany. What survived his death was his superior army, now filled with the emotional motive of vengeance. Oxenstierna was also keen to pursue this and oversaw the Swedish-French Alliance in 1635. France wanted extend its territory on the Rhine, and Sweden in the Baltic. This was threatened by Denmark, and the challenge was accepted. This led to the Treaty of Brömsebro (1645) which secured the frontier with most of the Baltic Islands. At the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) Sweden received Stettin, Wismar, West Pomerania, Verden, Bremen, and the mouths of the Weser and the Elbe. Sweden became an important German power and the right to be recognized at the Diet. The Baltic was now pretty nigh a Swedish lake. The Treaty of Roskilde (1658) gained Scania, Halland, Blekinge and the island of Bornholm. Sweden was at the height of its power. The sacrifice of vitality was considerable. Sweden was extremely important to the balance of power, so when it suffered defeat by Prussia, the alliance with France meant that no land was lost. The empire Charles XII (1697-1718) inherited was at the height of its power. The Regency of Oxenstiena saw problems with the nobility. They seized lands and endowed themselves with large estates. Christina’s cousin Charles XI (1660-1697) stripped the nobles of land, and reduced them to territorial insignificance. Without the nobles, the peasants had no hearing in the parliament. He considerably increased royal power and lands at the expense of the Rikstag. Revenues and tolls, lands and power were independent of the Rikstag, so there was no need to call on it for taxes. The carefully regulated balance achieved by Gustavus Adolphus was undermined. Oxenstierna sacrificed Swedish tradition to new power. What could not be overcome were the structures of Europe in the 17th c. This saw the rise of strong powers who coveted Swedish lands: Russia, Prussia, and Hanover. The Electors of Hanover by 1701 were the heirs to the English throne (through the Electress Sophia). Backed by England there was an imperialistic interest in Germany and the Baltic (for wood and copper). Hanover coveted the Bishoprics of Bremen and Verden. Hanover with English backing may have attacked Sweden. Gustavus Adolphus would
Sweden the 17th and 18th Centuries
323
have played off his enemies against each other. Sweden, however, failed despite and because of its empire strung around the Baltic. Charles XII did not give up empire when he succeeded to the throne at the age of 16. He displaced the Regency in a Court intrigue. His youth invited attack, and Denmark, Poland and Russia all moved in aggressively. Charles should have been overwhelmed, but he never listened to or asked for reasons. He was rash and disregarded advice, but also frugal and energetic. He flung troops against Denmark and went off to help the Duke of Holstein. Then he heard that Livonia had been attacked by Poland and dealt with Riga. He realized that the Russian threat to Narva was greater. His thrust appeared stupid but he made up his mind. Narva was not fortified. The Tsar lost heart. Command was given to General de Croy, and the Russians were routed. Russians forces were captured, dispersed, destroyed. Charles’s reputation soared. He was sought by both sides in the War of the Spanish Succession. Louis XIV offered him bribes, the English sent John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough. He realized that Charles wanted to fight the Russians and encouraged this. Charles defeated Tsar Peter but did not humiliate him. In the autumn of 1707, burdened with spoils from Saxony, Charles set out for Russia with a great army of 43,000 men and reserves in the Baltic. The Russians resorted to a scorched earth policy, dragging the Swedes into Russia, separating them from their base. By the autumn of 1708 Charles reached the frontier of Poland and Russia. But the Swedish troops felt the hardships of disease and illness. Instead of retiring for the winter, he pushed into the Ukraine for food and help from the rebel Cossacks led by Mazeppa. It is possible the manoeuvre might have succeeded. Peter harassed the reinforcements under Lewenhaupt. Charles’s depleted forces in 1708-09 faced a severe Russian winter. He marched on until the spring of 1709 and at the Siege of Poltava felt the heat. The Swedish ranks were thinned, Charles himself was wounded. The army was handed to Rhensskjold. The Russians vastly outnumbered the Swedes in guns and men and the Swedes were crushed. Charles retired to the Turkish fortress of Bender in Moldavia where he was a source of embarrassment to the Ottomans (1709-13). Charles wanted to fight the Russians but found that
324
Robert Ignatius Letellier
the Turks and Russians had made peace. The Vizier was dismissed. The British and the Dutch urged his eviction, and the Turks paid him to leave. Danish troops invaded Bremen in 1712 and defeated the Swedes at Tönning. In 1713 the Prussians took Stettin, and the Russians invaded Finland. The Turks tried to eject him from Bender, but he stayed on obstinately until Kalibalik took him prisoner, and decided to remove him forcibly. Charles returned to Stralsund by horseback across Hungary. There were great hopes of recovery in 1713, but bankruptcy and invasion were in sight. Sweden had been without a ruler really for 14 years, and 30% of the male population was decimated. But as soon as Charles returned, he raised another army to continue the Great Northern War. The Elector of Hanover joined a league with Prussia, Russia and Denmark, and Charles was defeated. He escaped and invaded Norway, but was killed at the Siege of Fredriksten. This was also the death of the Swedish Empire. At the Treaty of Nystadt (1721) the Baltic passed to Russia.
Figure 98. King Charles XII of Sweden.
Chapter 38
THE RISE OF RUSSIA Russia is three times the size of the United States of America and occupies one-sixth of the land-space of the globe. Geographical factors are important, extending as it does from the Pacific to the Baltic, from the tundra to China, embracing Islamic countries and Eastern Europe. There are over 100 races: Arabs, Mongols, Slavs (Slavonic and Asiatic) and European. Russia was settled by Slavonic stock-farmers of the Slav peoples of Eastern Europe. Racial differences emphasize cultural aspects, Western civilization and Eastern influences. It is the meeting place of several cultures. In the 20th c. the opposite happened: Moscow became the broadcaster of a new ideology. The Russian State extends back to the 15th c. It started as a group of trading Vikings who settled mainly at Novgorod. They became civilized after conversion to Christianity and adoption of the culture of Byzantium. The Slavonic state of Kiev was broken up and fled to the Vistula, the marshes above Moscow. They were still under the domination of the Tartars. In the 15th c. there were two major developments. The Mongol Empire was broken up by Tamerlane. Muscovite princes took this opportunity to assert their independence. Ivan III the Great (1462-1505) emerged as the greatest ruler of the new state centred on the Moscow River with arms extending to Novgorod and Archangel. In the 16th c. England
326
Robert Ignatius Letellier
formed the Muscovite Company, and the state was drawn into the trading net of the West. The first links with the West were significantly economic. The second important development was the marriage of Ivan the Great to Sophia Palaeologus [Palaiologos] (1449-1503) in 1472. Sophia took a host of craftsmen to Moscow, where Byzantine culture was transplanted. This was supremely exemplified by the Kremlin Palace. Russia was thus‘re-baptized’ and enjoyed this Byzantine influence. Ivan regarded himself as the successor to the Caesars and assumed the title ‘Tsar’ (or Czar), as leader of the Third Rome. He was the protector of the culture, and the Church was brought to heel. From the 15th c. the idea of an ecumenical community was always present. In the 20th c. the Christian propagation of the Gospel changed to that of a Marxist Communism, with the same converting zeal and conviction. The Russian Tsar, with the Church as servant, was regarded as the ‘Father of the People’. Ivan the Terrible (1533-1584), finding in 1563 that the ancient nobility, the Boyars, were not behind him, set up his own civil service and police, the Oprichnina, a select group immune from ordinary law. It was a sort of secret service. The theory survives in practice through Communist times until today. Modern Russia is the product of Western technology and Byzantine absolutism. Patterns of the 15th c. echo into modern times. The survival of the Russian State after the death of Ivan IV in 1584 was tenuous. The last heir Dmitri died in 1598 (possibly murdered by Boris Godunov, 1598-1605), initiating the Time of Troubles (1598-1613). Russia was almost extinguished as three pretenders laid claim to the throne, with the Boyars in factions. Neighbours intervened, Poland taking Smolensk and Sweden extending its Baltic lands, including Novgorod and Archangel. Basil IV Shuisky was deposed by King Sigismund III and the throne offered to his son Ladislaw (1610). Three factors seemed to have saved Russia. The maritime powers were appalled at the dislocation of Baltic commerce in an age of expanding navies for which vital timber was requisite. The Russian Cossacks and selection of the Boyars realized that division would lead only to utter destruction, and that a strong Tsar was needed to hold the land together.
The Rise of Russia
327
They elected Mikhail Romanov as Tsar (1613-1645), an excellent statesman and soldier. Gustavus Adolphus regarded Poland as a more dangerous enemy. A profitable agreement was reached at the Treaty of Stolbova. The Swedish made many land gains, but Archangel was returned to Russia. Swedish-Polish rivalry gave Russia a breathing space. The Russian people saw autocracy as the only means of survival. A stable Tsar fostered strong government, the backbone of recovery in the 17th c. The power of the Tsar increased at the expense of the nobility and the Church. Boris Godunov established a Russian patriarchate in Moscow (1598), thus freeing the Russian Church from Greek domination. The Russian Diet of Zemsky Sobor tried to assert itself, but with Tsarist rule was hardly ever called in the 17th c. Alexis IV (1645-1676) ignored it. The first democratic body to be called in Russia would be the Duma of 1905. The control of the Tsar over the Church strengthened. Patriarch Nikon tried to reform the archaic practices of the Church. Eastern Orthodoxy relied heavily on tradition, ritual and ceremony, and many felt outraged. Schism developed, with the religious dissidents, the Old Believers, remaining as constant critics of Tsardom. Later the Tsar intervened and Nikon was deposed. In 1700 the Tsar refused to nominate a new Patriarch, and replaced him with a Holy Synod (1721) which he personally selected. The Patriarch was always appointed by the grace of the Tsar. Church lands were liable to confiscation as state property. Henceforth in Russia the Church’s duty was to see that Imperial policy was obeyed explicitly. Commercial ties strengthened Russian contribution to Baltic trade. Though Alexis IV failed in many ways, he made one excellent territorial gain. Poland defeated in 1660 led to the Treaty of Andrussovo (1697) with a belt of territory from Smolensk to the Dnieper restored, containing as it did important trading cities. This included the return of Kiev, the cradle of Russian civilization. It was the beginning of Russia’s westward drive. There was another 17th-c. aspect. When the Tartar yoke was thrown off in the 15th c., there was some possibility of a new ruler from a Western European country. From the 11th c. the Muscovites had been a bellicose people with undefined boundaries and no regular income, forced to rely on
328
Robert Ignatius Letellier
Russian princes and the landed gentry. Realizing their insecure position, they created their own civil service who were rewarded by grants of land for life. Estates (deriving from 9th-c. fiefs) in Russia (pomestya) were held by pomestchiks or pomestchiki. With the land went peasant villages. Peasants tended to become serfs. Pomyestchniks were not only the chief representatives of the people, but rulers of the people. By the 17th c. serfdom had increased tremendously. While new commercial emancipation of Europe was leading peasants to freedom, the opposite was true in Russia. Serfs were increasingly subjected to the lords. Almost every problem of the 19th c. can be found in the 17th c. The situation was given a final twist by Peter the Great. Despite the early success of Russia, it looked in the 17th c. as though the Times of Troubles were in danger of recurring. There was the choice of three sibling candidates for the throne: a child, an imbecile and a woman. There were a series of palace revolutions before the woman (Sophia) and the imbecile (Ivan) were removed. The child was Peter the Great.
PETER THE GREAT (1672-1725) Peter’s reign technically began in 1682, actually in 1689. According to Russian historians and novelists, Slovophiles saw Peter’s policies as unnatural. He forced the gifted Slavs into an imitation of the West. Others maintain that if Russia had not been forced, resources would have been colonized and exploited by the West. For non-Russian historians the situation seemed considerably different. Russia of the 17th c. appeared to the elegant Europe of the time as monstrous. Peter set out on a tour of Europe in early1697. He visited Germany, the Netherlands and England. He wanted principally to learn. He visited factories, shipyards, mills, museums, lectures, anything that he thought could be valuable for Russia. He was determined to draw hundreds of professional men in an effort to Westernize the land. With his sharp mind he grasped not the finesse, but the mechanics of Western civilization. He
The Rise of Russia
329
also brought back ideas of superficiality from the West in the etiquette of dress and fashion. He was one of the greatest exponents of secular politics, Machiavellian in thinking that might is right, life is cheap, and the end justifies the means. The tour ended in 1698 with the Revolt of the Streltsy (an old Muscovite musketeer regiment). He returned and put down the revolt with huge barbarity. When the Times of Troubles are considered, perhaps this was necessary? Peter returned to Russia with his mind inflexibly resolved to modernize and thus Westernize Russia. Only in clear-cut measures at home and in foreign affairs could he succeed. Many aspects were not new but started by his predecessors, like the search for a sea passage to the West. But new was the ruthless quality with which the policy was defined and carried through. In Peter’s reign Russia underwent a revolution comparable only to the October Revolution of 1917. Both altered the course of European history. In foreign policy Peter continued the westwards drive, beginning at the Treaty of Andrussovo. His ambition was to break through to the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea. The object of his policy was to “open a window to the West” vital as outlets linking Russia with the rest of Europe. He was able to spring a surprise on the Turks. When they were defeated at Carlowitz, Peter was able to make use of their defeat and seize Azov on the Don. He perceived his true enemy to be Charles XII of Sweden. From Stalbova (1677) Sweden had excluded Russia from the Baltic. Charles defeated Peter at Narva (1700), a defeat that had greater consequences for Russia than for Sweden: Russia modernized its army. In 1703 Peter laid the foundations of St. Petersburg. From all over Russia peasant labour was recruited and compulsorily settled. Meanwhile Russian troops were gradually occupying Baltic lands. After the Treaty with Marlborough, Charles XII was meant to deliver the coup de grâce. But Russia used a scorched earth policy and took advantage of the winter. Peter defeated Charles at the Battle of Poltava (1709) leading to the Treaty of Pruth (1711) when Peter was obliged to relinquish Azov. This required courage and vision. Russian settlements were still too far from the Black Sea to ensure prevention of Swedish-Turkish attacks from the South. Peter
330
Robert Ignatius Letellier
concentrated on the Baltic fearing a coalition of rivals. Denmark, Hanover, Prussia coveted Baltic lands. Peter bartered, bargained and fought. In 1721 at the Treaty of Nystad Peter received nearly all that Gustavus Adolphus had gained for his empire. Peter acquired Karelia, Ingria, Estonia and Livonia. He became the heir to Sweden, the dominant Baltic power. In 1710 St. Petersburg became the capital of Russia. The price for this new Russia was social distortion, but the might of Russia, real or imagined, was a vital factor in this. Peter set points for the future development of Russia. Reforms were symbols of a new world. If he had done just this, he would have jolted Russia out of Oriental isolation. But he did much more. Russia now had a properly equipped army and navy. He was involved in economic re-evaluation. Goods and money were provided. It was almost like a 36-year development plan. It left an ineradicable mark on the Russian economy and society. The issues confronting Russia at the end of the 17th c. stood between isolation and subsequent exploitation by the West; or the Westernizing of Russia so that it could maintain political independence and expand. Peter’s answer for Russia challenged the West. By adopting the fighting and commercial techniques of the West, Peter’s grand plan carried through.
PETER’S POLICY REFLECTED IN THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY Peter established factories—233 by the time he died. These were private and state-controlled. The pattern was not the same as in Western Europe, but emerged from a simple domestic economy, foisted and graphed onto Russian life. But all was artificially organized, and run by serfs. Trade in the hands of the Dutch, English and Swedish was taken over by Russians, or foreigners in Russian employ. There was development of mineral resources, especially iron in the Ural Mountains. Canals and technical schools were constructed, and the Russian Academy of Sciences planned. The state income grew from 1-and-a-half million roubles in 1685
The Rise of Russia
331
to 8-and-a-half million roubles in 1725. Peter though debased the coinage which led to inflation, with three-quarters of the national income spent on the military. The effect of artificial grafting was monopolies and debased coinage inflation. The manufactured products were shoddy, and all that could be taxed was, a factor that stifled initiative. All this had a most serious effect on the people of Russia.
THE PEASANTRY People numbers was a factor: with all initiatives artificially from the centre, there was widespread uniformity. The numerical bulk of the population were peasants living under conditions not unlike those of European conditions in the 11th c. Some were domestic slaves, others privileged household officials, others free peasants. Serfs were drafted into the new factories, and roughly speaking, peasants in the North were worse off than those in the South. In all situations, royal serfs on royal estates tended to be better off. The bulk of taxes were paid by peasants. It was essential that there should be a degree of immobility. Peter synthesized all grades of peasantry: for taxation purposes all were reduced to common calculable numbers, with all being equally unfree. It was forbidden to move from one estate to another. All were subjected to a soul tax, and the local lord was responsible for collecting it. (See Nikolai Gogol’s novel Dead Souls, 1837.) All were liable for conscription into the army or for public works. All were liable to be drafted into the factories. Whereas industrialization brought relative freedom in the West, in Russia the reverse happened. The drift had begun. By the end of the 17th c. the position in Russia was still sufficiently fluid for changes either to greater freedom or for greater servitude.
332
Robert Ignatius Letellier
THE MIDDLE CLASS Growth of a money economy meant the growth of a middle class. In Russia this was missing. Social processes were reversed. Tax and money were paramount in Russia. Only by the late 19th c. did any form of middle class emerge. State income and output depended on serfs. To resolve the social problems would have involved the economic re-structuring of the State. As Russia expanded into new territories, so the whole social and economic structure was carried with it.
THE LANDOWNERS In theory they too were servants of the State, with compulsory military training to form the officer corps. There was also compulsory education. The younger sons were drafted into the civil service. The landowners added to the insatiability of the State. Peter’s reforms affected the mobilization of the gentry as well. Tables of ranks were drawn up: all offices were ennobled. The remaining power of the Boyars was smashed.
THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT At the head was the Tsar, All men in Church and State must serve him. The Church was governed by the Synod and did not question the Tsar’s authority. The centre of the administration was the Senate nominated by the Tsar and replacing the old Zemsky, This needed special departments and a series of bureaux: the Collegia covered foreign affairs, finance and justice. In 1720 local government units were revised and the country divided into 11 Gubernie, then further divided into provinces controlled by local royal officials. The gentry were tax-collectors for the Crown. Western-style bureaucracy was grafted onto a primitive agricultural
The Rise of Russia
333
society. All this was made possible and paid for by the servitude of the country. Peter tried to mould Russia in the image the West: army, navy, factories, social customs and bureaucratic tyranny. Whatever the ultimate objective, it left a hallmark on internal and external affairs. Everyone, gentry and peasants, were harnessed in servitude to the state. All the details survived because of the success of the basic revolution. Autocracy was rendered more efficient. Work was often shoddy, but foundations were not to be dislodged. The population was hardly educated. What Peter sought was to eradicate illiteracy with a modified alphabet, translations, introduction of newspapers for the initiation of Russia into the Western way of things.
IN THE 18TH CENTURY During the century the gentry increased their grip on the peasantry, and began to evade their responsibilities. In 1727 Peter II (1715-1730) emancipated the gentry. There was technical development against the background of social malaise. Peter the Great, like the Great Elector, had to bring Russia up to Western standards: his steps were necessary in the light of the size of the country and its huge population. The Charter of Nobility (1785), a decree of Catherine II (the Great) (1762-1796), extended the privileges of the Russian nobility and thus heightened serfdom. By confirming Peter III’s decree (1762), freeing the nobility from obligatory state service, it actually removed the theoretical justification for serfdom. The Charter of Nobility granted the inviolability of a noble’s honour and his hereditary property of land and serfs, except through a trial by his peers. It exempted the nobility from personal taxation and corporal punishment, and granted the right to manufacture and trade. A system of elected provincial assemblies provided some corporate organization, but Peter I’s table of ranks was retained, and government service remained the normal form of ennoblement and occupation. The real
334
Robert Ignatius Letellier
problem was the entwining of economic and social conditions, and it needed a real revolution to emancipate one from the other.
Figure 99. Tsar Peter the Great.
GENERAL CONCLUSION: EUROPE IN 1414 COMPARED WITH EUROPE IN 1714 In 1414 the Council of Constance was called to resolve schism in the Church. By 1714 there was no longer a single Church but a diversified Christianity. The religious state mattered, with leaders choosing their own policy in affiliation and faith for their people. The Pope counted for less than ever. In 1414 the Hundred Years’ War was still in progress and the famous Battle of Agincourt took place. The war was fought for feudal reasons. In 1714 the Treaty of Utrecht ended the War of the Spanish Succession for the Spanish Crown. England and France had been in conflict yet again, but for commercial reasons this time. The Spanish Netherlands were ceded to Austria. Europe was still Christian despite the Reformation, and the heritage of the Latin Catholic Church was appreciated. The idea of the Renaissance as a phoenix is of questionable validity. Historians have searched for other Renaissances, and the centrality of the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 as the key point in the generation of new knowledge is hardly tenable. The same pattern of explosive learning is reflected in other periods of history—as in the Carolingian and TwelfthCentury Renaissances.
336
Robert Ignatius Letellier
SO WHEN DOES MODERN HISTORY BEGIN? 1453. Does modern history date from the Fall of Constantinople in 1453? Or the marriage that followed between Sophia Palaeologus (niece of the last Emperor Constantine XI) to Ivan III of Muscovy in 1472? There are other propositions:
c. 1450 after the invention of printing in 1436 by Johann Gutenberg of Mainz? The tremendous effect of printing pamphlets and books led to mass production, sent prices tumbling, and resulted in the dislocation of life in the monasteries, formerly at the heart of the vital copying of manuscripts. Even the Church made use of printing, and the first book published by Gutenberg was the Vulgate (1452-55). 1454. The first indulgence was printed as a convenient source of income for the re-building of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. 1454. The Pope appealed for a Crusade to recover Constantinople, but it fell on deaf ears. The old crusading spirit of the Middle Ages was dead. This could be related back to the earlier date of 1291 when the Fall of Acre marked the end of the Latin Kingdoms in Outremer.
Others choose later dates.
1492. Christopher Columbus’s discovery of America had an incalculable impact on modern life. There was the immediate result of the influx of gold and silver from Peru. National rivalries were encouraged, leading to the acquisition of colonies and the stimulation of latent aggression. 1517. The Lutheran Reformation was the source of the most radical rift in European society since the Fall of Rome in the West in 476. The unity of Christendom was fatally broken, initiating the
General Conclusion
337
eventual de-mythologization of the Christian religion, and exacerbating the creation and growth of nationalism. 1519. The Diet of Worms and the appearance of Luther before the last great Holy Roman Emperor in the medieval tradition was the symbolic moment of change between old and new ways of looking at the Christian past. There was now a new sense of divided and contentious national rivalries. 1555. This date saw the abdication of Charles V and the division of his vast global empire between the Austrian and Spanish branches of the Habsburg family. The Spanish Habsburgs ended with the childless Charles II, and resulted in the War of the Spanish Succession which saw the accession of the Bourbons in Spain (1700). The Austrian Habsburgs would eventually lose their preeminence and fall politically because of their failure to identify themselves with a narrowly German state (1866-1919). 1648. The Peace of Westphalia brought to an end the terrible Thirty Years’ War, the last great conflict based on the religious and national consequences of the 16th c. The modern European scene emerged out of this calamity. The Peace provided the political blueprint that would endure until the cataclysm of the First World War (1914-1918).
Perhaps the date for the emergence of Modern Europe coincides with the revolution in the scientific outlook of the age?
1543. Copernicus’s De Revolutibus Orbium ended the Ptolemaic era of astronomy, established heliocentrism, and so revolutionized the perception of the universe—and the place of mankind in it. 1658. Sir Isaac Newton’s De Principia attempted to explain the universe in mathematical terms, and base the understanding of science on the inductive method.
None of these dates by themselves changed the world, but all are important milestones on the evolutionary path of Western civilized
338
Robert Ignatius Letellier
humanity. History should be seen as continuous, each age with its own events and backgrounds. But one must be cautious about connecting ages as determining the events of later times. History records the development of mankind and how it has changed. If the period between 1414 and 1714 has done anything, it has revealed the stupidity of former generations, especially during the Reformation. Many factors made it a bitter period, with little compromise.
Figure 100. Ivan III and Sophia Palaeologus.
Before the end of the 16th c., politically-minded men were protesting that the horrors of the period should not be allowed to continue in the name of religion. The political philosopher Grotius emerged importantly in his advocacy of peaceful resolution. There is the need for a restatement of the fundamental principles of the Christian religion, with its message of forgiveness and reconciliation. There is need to emphasize the importance of the individual in history. Marxist historians rejected human beings as ‘frills’ in the process of historical evolution, whereas they are in fact the
General Conclusion
339
very stuff of history, acting out their parts against the background of the whole of humanity. It is necessary to understand mankind in his whole context, the importance of tolerance, and the absolute uselessness of war in resolving human problems. The West has turned on two great concepts: the Ten Commandments (establishing the basis of natural law, justice and mercy); and the Sermon on the Mount (promoting a view of understanding, generosity, kindness, compassion and forgiveness). If these great Pillars of Wisdom are disregarded, the achievements of Western civilization will be lost.
REFERENCES 100-1500 Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society (French 1940; English 1961) (London: Routledge, 2014). Brown, Peter. The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150-750 (Library of European Civilization) (London: Thames & Hudson, 1989). Butterfield, Herbert. The Origins of Modern Science, 1300-1800 (1949) rev. ed. (London: Free Oress, 1997). Cambridge Medieval History. 8 vols (Cambridge, Macmillan, 1911-1936). Cantor, Norman. Medieval History. The Civilization of the Middle Ages (1963, 1969). Chambers, Mortimer; Grew, Raymond; Herlihy, David; Rabb, Theodore K.; Woloch, Isser. The Western Experience. Fourth Edition. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, 1987). Crombie, Alaister Cameron. Augustine to Galileo: The History of Science, AD 400-1650 (1952) rev. ed. (London: Penguin Books, 1969). Davies, Norman. Europe: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).
342
References
Dunan, Marcel (ed.). Larousse encyclopedia of ancient and medieval history (London: Paul Hamlyn, 1974). Evans, Joan (ed.). The Flowering of the Middle Ages (London: Thames & Hudson; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966). Fletcher, Richard. The Conversion of Europe: from Paganism to Christianity 371-1389 AD (London: HarperCollins, 1997). Grierson, Philip. Dark Age Numismatics: Selected Studies (London, 1979). Hayes, Carlton J.H.; Baldwin, Marshall Whithed; Cole, Charles Woolsey. History of Europe (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1949). Keen, Maurice. The Pelican History of Medieval Europe (London: Penguin Books, 1969). Pirenne, Henri. An Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe (1937). Trans. E. I. Clegg (London: Routlege, 2008). Slicher van Bath, Bernard Hendrik. The Agrarian History of Western Europe, AD 500–1850 (orig. Dutch) (1960). Southern, Richard William. The Making of the Middle Ages (Yale University Press, 1953). —. Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages (London: Penguin Books, 1970). —. Medieval Humanism and Other Studies (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1970). The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History by C.W. Previte-Orton (Cambridge, 1952). Toynbee, Arnold. A Study of History. 12 vols. (1934-61) Abridged in one volume (London: Thames & Hudson, 1976). Wickham, Chris. The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000 (London: Penguin Books, 2010). Wright, Esmond, (gen. ed.). History of the World. Prehistory to the Renaissance (London: Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1969 rev. 1985).
References
343
Rome Ammianus Marcellinus. The Later Roman Empire: (A.D. 354-378). Andrew Wallace-Hadrill (ed., introd.) (London: Penguin Books, 1986). Boethius, Ancius. The Consolation of Philosophy (London: Penguin Classics, 1999). Bury, John Bagnell. A History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian (1923) (Dover Publications, 1998). Eusebius. The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine. Trans. G. A. Williamson (London: Penguin Books, 1965). Gibbon, Edward. Reflections on the Fall of Rome. Ed. David Womesley (London: Penguin Books Classics, 1995). From The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (London: Allan Lane, 1994). Kelly, Christopher. The Roman Empire: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (Oxford University Press, 2006). Kochan, Lionel. The Jew and His History (New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 1977). Tappan, E.M. The Story of the Roman People (1912) rev. ed. (London: George G. Harrap & Co., 1960).
The Barbarian World Bury, John Bagnell. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians (1928) (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2000). Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Trans. Lewis Thorpe (London: Penguin Classics, 1974). Heather, Peter. The Goths (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996). Herrin, Judith. Ravenna: Capital of Empire, Crucible of Europe (London: Allen Lane, 2020).
344
References
History of the Barbarians: A Captivating Guide to the Celts, Vandals, Gallic Wars, Sarmatians and Scythians, Goths, Attila the Hun, and Anglo-Saxons (Captivating History, 2019). Hodgkin, Thomas. Italy and Her Invaders (rpt. Obscure Press, 2006) (“The Ostrogothic invasion,” pp. 476-535). Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Barbarian West 400-1000 (1952) rev. ed. (John Wiley & Sons, 1996).
Byzantium Bury, John Bagnell. A History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian (1923) (Dover Publications, 1998). Herrin, Judith. Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire (London: Penguin Books 2008). Norwich, John Julius. A Short History of Byzantium. 3 vols. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993). —. Byzantium. The Early Centuries (1988) (London: Penguin Books, 1990). Procopius. The Secret History of the Court of Justinian. Trans. Peter Sarris. (London: Penguin Books Classics, 2007). Sarris, Peter. Byzantium: A Very Short Introduction. (Very Short Introductions) (Oxford University Press, 2017).
Anglo-Saxons Alfred the Great. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016). Bede. The Ecclesiatical History of the English People. Trans. Leo ShirleyPrice (London: Penguin Books, 1955; reprinted with revisions 1965, revised 1968, revised 1990).
References
345
Crawford, S.J. The Anglo-Saxon Influence on Christendom 600 to 800 (Oxford, 1933). Morris, Marc. The Anglo-Saxons: A History of the Beginnings of England (London: Hutchison, 2021).
The Arabs Coppée, Henry. Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors (Boston: Little, Brown, 1881). Fletcher, Richard. Moorish Spain (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1992; Phoenix, 1998). Rogan, Eugene. The Arabs. A History (London: Penguin Books, 2018). The Koran. Ed. and Trans. N.J. Dawood. Rev. ed. (London: Penguin Classics, 2014).
The Vikings Donovan, F. R. The Vikings (A Cassell Caravel Book) (London: Cassell & Company, 1964). Lewis, Archibald R. The Northern Seas: Shipping and Commerce in Northern Europe, AD 300-1100 (Princeton University Press, 1958). Sturluson, Snorri. The Prose Edda. Trans. Jesse L. Byock (London: Penguin Classics, 2005). The Vinland Sagas: The Norse Discovery of America. Trans. Hermann Palsson; Magnus Magnusson (London: Penguin Classics, 1973).
The Carolingians Chanson de Roland (The Song of Roland). Ed., Introd. and Trans. Glyn Burgess (London: Penguin Classics, 1990).
346
References
Munz, Peter. The Origin of the Carolingian Empire (Dunedin: University of Otago Press, 1960). —. Life in the Age of Charlemagne (European Life Series) (London: Batsford; New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1969). Nelson, Janet L. King and Emperor: A New Life of Charlemagne (London: Penguin Books, 2020). Pirenne, Henri. Mahomet et Charlemagne (post. 1937).
The Papacy Barraclough, Geoffrey. The Medieval Papacy (London: Thames and Hudson, 1968). Ranke, Leopold. The History of the Popes, Their Church and State, and Especially of Their Conflicts with Protestantism in the Sixteenth & Seventeenth Centuries. Trans. E. Foster. 3 vols. (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1847). Ullmann, Walter. A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London: Routledge, 1972, 2016). —. Origins of the Great Schism: A Study in fourteenth-century Ecclesiastical History (Hamden, Conn., 1967, 1972). —. The Individual and Society in the Middle Ages (London: Methuen, 1967). —. Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages (London: Methuen, 1961, 1966). Woods, T, E., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilisation (Regnery Publishing 2005).
The Holy Roman Empire Bryce, James. The Holy Roman Empire (1864) (London: Macmillan & Co., 1871).
References
347
Heer, Friedrich. The Holy Roman Empire. Trans. Janet Sondheimer (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1968). Munz, Peter. Frederick Barbarossa: the Prince and the Myth (TBS The Book Service Ltd, 1969). —. Frederick Barbarossa: A Study in Medieval Politics. (Persée: Université de Lyon, CNRS & ENS de Lyon, 1970). Whaley, Joachim. The Holy Roman Empire: a Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (Oxford University Press, 2018).
England and Magna Carta Anonymous. The Text of the Magna Carta (Paperback) (Createspace Independent Publishing Platform, United States, 2013). Galbraith, Vivian Hunter. Draft of the Magna Carta, 1215 (British Academy Proceedings, December 1968). —. “Good Kings and Bad Kings in Medieval History” (Institute of Historical Research, 1944).
The Late Middle Ages Huizinga, Johan. The Waning of the Middle Ages. Study of the Life, Thought and Art in France and the Netherlands in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (1919). Trans. F. Hopman (1926) (London: Penguin Books, 1955). Mollat, Michel. The Poor in the Middle Ages: An Essay in Social History (1973) (Yale University Press 1986). Tuchman, Barbara. A Distant Mirror. The Calamitous 14th Century (London: Penguin Books, 1978).
348
References
1500-1700 Cambridge Modern History. Ed. Lord Acton, with Stanley Mordaunt Leathes, Sir Adolphus William Ward and G. W. Prothero. 14 vols. (Cambridge University Press, England and United States.1902). Davies, Norman. Europe: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). Dunan, M. and John Roberts (eds.). Larousse Encyclopaedia of Modern History. From 1500 to the Present Day (London: Paul Hamlyn, 1967). Reddaway, F. William. A History of Europe 1610–1715 (1948, 1952) (London: Methuen & Co., 1959). Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2013). Wright, Esmond, (gen. ed.). History of the World. The Last Five Hundred Years (London: Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1969 rev. 1984).
Renaissance Burckhardt, Jakob. The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (1860, Eng. 1878) (London: Penguin Books, 1990). Duffy, Eamon. A People’s Tragedy: Studies in Reformation (London: Bloomsbury Continuum, 2020). Hobbes, Thomas. The Leviathan. Ed. J. C. A. Gaskin (Oxford World's Classics, 2008). Hollis, Christopher. Thomas More (The Bruce Publishing Company, 1934). Lee, Alexander. Machievelli. His Life and Times (London: Picador, 2020). Machievelli, Niccolò. The Prince (London: Penguin Books, 2018). More, Sir Thomas. Utopia (London: Penguin Books, 2012). Plumb, John H. The Italian Renaissance (1961, 1987) (New York: American Heritage, 2001). Rowntree, Benjamin Seebohm. Poverty and Progress (London: Longman, Greens & Co., 1942).
References
349
Seebohm, Frederic. The Oxford Reformers: John Colet, Erasmus, and Thomas More (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1869; rpt. 2017). Welch, Evelyn. Art in Renaissance Italy 1350-1500 (Oxford History of Art) (Oxford University Press, 2000).
Exploration and Colonization Boxer, Charles Ralph. The Dutch Seaborne Empire 1600-1800 (London: Hutchinson, 1965; Pelican, 1973). —. The Portuguese Seaborne Empire, 1415-1825 (London: Hutchinson, 1969; Pelican, 1973). Granzotto, Gianni. Christopher Columbus. The Dream and the Obsession. Trans. Stephen Sartarelli (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1985). Lloyd, T. O. The British Empire, 1558-1983 (Short Oxford History of the Modern World) (Oxford University Press, 1984). Parry, John Horace. Age of Reconnaissance (California, 1963, 1981 etc., 2010). —. The Spanish Theory of Empire in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge University Press, 1940). —. The Spanish Seaborne Empire (London: Hutchinson, 1966; Pelican, 1973).
Austria Kann, Robert A. A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1526-1918 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974). Rady, Matin. The Habsburg Empire: a Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (Oxford University Press, 2017). Wandruszka, Adam. The House of Habsburg. Six Hundred Years of a European Dynasty (London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1964).
350
References
France Hatton, Ragnhild Marie. Louis XIV and His World (New York: Putnam, 1972). Neale, John Ernest. The Age of Catherine de’ Medici and Essays in Elizabethan History (London: Jonathan Cape, 1963). Perkins, James Breck. Richelieu and the Growth of French Power (Ayer Publishing, 1971). Phillips, Henry. Church and Culture in Seventeenth-Century France (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Germany Schiller, Friedrich. The History of the Thirty Years’ War (Createspace Independent Publishing Platform, United States, 2017). Wedgwood, C. V. The Thirty Years' War (London: Methuen, 1981).
The Ottoman Empire Barber, Noel. Lords of the Golden Horn: The Sultans, Their Harems and the Fall of the Ottoman Empire (London: Book Club Associates, 1974; Pan Books 1976). Kinross, Lord. The Ottoman Centuries. The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire (New York: Morrow Quill Paperbacks, 1977). Wheatcroft, Andrew. The Ottomans. Dissolving Images (1993) (London: Penguin Books, 1995).
Poland Davies, Norman. Europe: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).
References
351
—. Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland. New ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). —. God's Playground: A History of Poland, Volume I (2nd ed.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Russia Bruce Lincoln, W. The Romanovs (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson 1981). Cowles, Virginia. The Romanovs (London: William Collins, 1971; Penguin Books 1974). Moscow, Henry and Black, Cyril. Russia Under the Czars (A Cassell Caravale Book). (London: Cassell, 1962).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dr. Robert Ignatius Letellier Author and Lecturer, Madingley Hall, Cambridge, UK Email: [email protected] ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7079-7113
Robert Ignatius Letellier is a member of Trinity College Cambridge, the Maryvale Institute in Birmingham, and the Institute of Continuing Education at Madingley Hall, Cambridge. His publications number over 100 items, including books and articles on the Romantic novel, the Bible, European history and culture. He has specialized in the Romantic opera, opéra-comique, operetta, and nineteenth-century ballet. He has also worked as a consultant for the BBC, the Royal Opera House and several record companies.
INDEX OF NAMES A Aetius, Roman general, 37, 38 Alaric, Visigothic king, 35, 49 Alberquerque, Alfonso d', admiral, 229 Alcuin of York, scholar, xvi, 74, 90, 91, 93, 94, 104 Alfred (the Great), king of Wessex, 40, 52, 68, 103, 104, 110 Al-Khawrizmi, mathematician, 146 Ali, descendant of Mohammed, 81 Aquinas, Thomas, St, scholar, xxiii, 83, 150, 151, 153, 199 Aristotle, philosopher, xiv, 52, 60, 149, 150, 152, 200, 253 Attila the Hun, xiv, 34, 37 Augustus, Roman emperor, 11 Augustine of Canterbury, St., 68, 70 Augustine of Hippo, St., theologian, 26, 40, 93, 261
B Bacon, Francis, scholar, 167
Bede, the Venerable, historian, 41, 69 Ecclesiastical History, 41 Benedict of Nursia, St./Benedictine Order, xiv, 41, 53, 54, 57, 67, 68, 69, 70, 115, 119, 126, 151 Benedict VIII, pope, 119 Benedict IX, pope, 119 Boethius, philosopher, xiv, 52, 53, 54, 55, 93, 104, 149 The Consolation of Philosophy, 52, 55 Boniface VIII, pope, xiv, 153, 174, 178, 180,192 Unam Sanctam, 153, 174, 178, 191 Boniface of Crediton, St., missionary, xiv, 70, 71, 72, 74, 85 Boris Godunov, Tsar of Muscovy, 326 Buridan, Jean, scholar, 152
C Calvin, Jean, reformer, 275 Casimir III, king of Poland, 180 Cassiodorus, scholar, xiv, 40, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 93 History of the Goths, 40
356
Index of Names
Catherine de' Medici, Queen of France, 204, 275, 277, 278, 279 Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia, 333 Charlemagne, king of the Franks, Emperor Charles I, 87-100 Song of Roland, 89, 95, 150 Charles IV, emperor, 184, 186, 188, 217 Charles V, HR emperor, xxv, 199, 212, 215, 221, 222, 233, 260, 261, 263, 264, 268, 269, 270, 272, 274, 337 Charles VI, HR emperor, 224 Charles VII, king of France, 204, 208 Charles VIII, king of France, 209 Charles IX, king of France, 278, 309 Charles XI, king of Sweden, 322 Charles XII, king of Sweden, 322-324 Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy, 204, 207 Charles Martel, Frankish ruler, xviii, 50, 71, 79, 90 Clement V, pope, 175, 178 Clement VI, pope, 180 Clement VII, pope, 274 Clement XI, pope, 301 Unigenitus, 301 Clovis, king of the Franks, xv, xxii, xx, 48, 49, 50, 54, 87, 143 Colbert, Jean-Baptiste, minister of state, 237, 249, 300, 306 Columbus, Christopher, explorer, 106, 198, 199, 229, 239, 336 Conrad II, HR emperor, 119 Constantine I (the Great), Roman emperor, xiii, 17-24, 48, 60 Constantine V, Byzantine emperor, 81 Constantine XI, Byzantine emperor, 226, 336 Copernicus, Nikolaus, cosmologist, 199, 227, 228, 242, 245, 254-255, 256, 257, 337
D Da Gama, Vasco, explorer, 228,240 Dias, Bartholomeu, explorer, 228 Diocletian, Roman emperor, 6, 11, 13-16 Dominic, St., founder, 82-83, 162, 173, 231, 260 Drake, Sir Francis, English mariner, 198, 235 Dushan, Stephen, Tsar of Serbia, 218
E Edward I, king of England, 158-159, 175 Edward III, king of England, 176, 203 Elizabeth I, queen of England, 235, 277, 278 Eugène of Savoy, soldier, 223 Eugenius IV, pope, 177 Eusebius of Caesarea, 18, 19, 20, 23 The History of the Church, 19 Evelyn, John, traveller, 228
F Ferdinand I, HR emperor, 222, 269 Ferdinand II, HR emperor, 289, 293 Ferdinand of Aragon, 229, 231 Francis 1, king of France, 264, 267, 274 Francis II, king of France, 275, 576 Francis of Assisi, St., founder, 161, 162, 170, 173, 175 Frederick 1 (Barbarossa), HR emperor, xxii, 112, 133-136, 140, 143, 146, 187 Frederick II, emperor, 52, 136, 142, 146, 153, 170, 173, 174, 184, 212 Frederick III, emperor, 177, 186, 187, 207, 212, 213, 214 Frederick William I (the Great Elector) of Prussia, xxxi, xxxiii, 302, 313-317
Index of Names G Galileo Galilei, scientist, 255-256 Gelasius, pope, xiv, 66 Gerson, Jean, academic, xxiv, 166, 165, 176 Gildas, scholar, 40 De calamitate, 40 Gratian, canonist, 147 Gregory I (the Great), pope, xiv, 67-68, 72, 73, 104 Gregory III, pope, 71 Gregory IV, pope, 119 Gregory V, pope, 117 Gregory VI, pope, 126 Gregory VII, pope 119, 131-132, 136, 146 Gregory IX, pope, 176, 178, 286 Gregory XIII, 286 Gregory of Tours, bishop, 40, 48 History of the Franks Grotius (Hugo de Groot), political philosopher, xxvii, 247, 290, 338 De jure belli et pacis, 247 Guise family, 235, 271, 277-279, 280, 281 Gustavus I Vasa, king of Sweden, 274, 319 Gustavus II Adolphus, king of Sweden, xxxii, 288, 289, 294, 319-322, 327, 330 Gutenberg, Johann, printer, 26, 186, 189, 336
H Hawkins, John, English mariner, 235 Henry II, HR emperor, 117, 119, 126 Henry III, HR emperor, 117, 119, 126, 127 Henry IV, HR emperor, xxvi, xxx, 119, 120, 131, 132, 137, 170 Henry V, HR emperor, 121 Henry II, king of England, 140 Henry IV, king of England, 179 Henry V, king of England, 204 Henry VI, king of England, 204
357
Henry VIII, king of England, 5, 244, 267, 274 Henry II, king of France, 269, 270, 275 Henry III, king of France, 278, 309 Henry IV, king of France, xxx, 235, 279284, 286, 287, 303 304 Henry the Navigator, Prince, 228 Hobbes, Thomas, political philosopher, xxiii, 135, 158, 247-248 The Leviathan, 247-248 Hus, John, proto-reformer, xxiv, 164, 176, 177, 186, 216, 286
I Idrisi, geographer. 162 Innocent III, pope, xxi, 136, 142, 156, 168,170,171,173,197 Irnenius of Bologna, canonist, 148, 162 Isabella of Castile, 229, 231 Isidore of Seville, scholar, 40 Etymologies, 40 Ivan III (the Great), tsar of Muscovy, 198, 219, 325, 336, 338 Ivan IV (the Terrible), tsar of Muscovy, 326
J Jerome of Bethlehem, St., 26, 29, 96 Vulgate, 26, 96 Jerome of Prague, reformer, 176, 177, 186 Joachim of Flora, mystic, 152 Joan of Arc [Jeanne d'Arc], St.2, French heroine, 204, 273 John (Lackland), king of England, xxiii, 156, 159, 170, 174 John II Casimir, king of Poland, 310 John III Sobiewski, king of Poland, 223, 310, 311 John XII, pope, 116 John XXIII, pope, 176
358
Index of Names
Justinian, Byzantine emperor, xiii, 41, 49, 54, 60-65, 68, 148
K Khalid, Arabic general, 77, 79 Kepler, Johann, cosmologist, 200, 255, 256
L Langton, Stephen, archbishop, 156 Las Casas, Bartolomé, philanthropist, 231, 233 Leo I (the Great), pope, xiv, 8, 37, 38, 66 Leo III, pope, xv, 96 Leo IX, pope, 127, 128 Leo X, pope, 274 Leonardo da Vinci, artist, 200, 253, 254, 260 Lippershym, Hans, inventor, 227-228 Louis XI, king of France, xxvi, 206-209, 273, 282 Louis XIII, king of France, xxx, 282, 288, 298, 299, 305 Louis XIV, king of France, xxviii, xxx, 60, 237, 239, 243, 249, 283, 284, 298- 299, 301-307, 314, 323 Louis II Jagiello, king of Hungary, 215, 222 Loyola, Ignatius, St., founder, 82-83, 267 Luther, Martin, reformer, xxv, 198, 214, 222, 223, 246, 259, 260, 261, 262, 265, 263, 264,265, 270, 275, 286, 287, 308, 320, 336, 337
M Machiavelli, Niccolò, diplomat, author, 243, 244 The Prince, 243-244
Magellan, Ferdinand, explorer, 199, 229, 240, 260 Marsiglio of Padua, political theorist, 152, 179 Martin V, pope, 176 Mary of Burgundy, 207, 215 Mary Queen of Scots, 276 Matthias, HR emperor, 288 Maximilian I, HR emperor, xxv, 211, 212213, 214, 215, 260 Maximilian II, HR emperor, 286, 309 Maximilian of Bavaria, elector, 286 Melanchthon, Philip, theologian, 261, 262, 262 Mohammed, religious leader, 75-86 More, Thomas, chancellor, author, 244-247, 251, 259 Utopia, 244-247
N Newton, Sir Isaac, scientist, 200, 253, 254, 255, 256, 337
O Odilo of Cluny, St., abbot, 98-99 Odoacer, Gothic king, 27, 31, 34, 37, 51 Orosius, scholar, 40, 103, 105 Adversus paganos, 40, 103, 105 Otto I (the Great), HR emperor, xix, 112, 114-118 Otto II, HR emperor, 117 Otto III, HR emperor, 117
P Paul III, pope, 231, 267-268 Pepin III, Frankish king, 71, 89, 90, 96
Index of Names Peter I (the Great), emperor of Russia, xxxiii, 225, 328-334 Peter II, emperor of Russia, 333 Peter III, emperor of Russia, 333 Peter Orseolo, king of Hungary, 119 Philip II (Augustus), king of France, xxii, 136, 140-143, 146, 156, 170 Philip IV (the Fair), king of France, 174, 175, 181 Philip II, king of Spain, xxix, 199, 221, 232, 233, 234, 272, 278, 279, 286 Philip III, king of Spain, 286 Pius II, pope, 178, 197 Pizarro, Francisco, conquistador, 230 Plato, philosopher, xiv, 52, 60, 147, 150 Procopius, Byzantine scholar, 41, 63 History of the Vandals, 41 Ptolemy, cosmologist, 149, 228, 254, 337
R Rhabanus Maurus, philosopher, 70 Rhases, physician, 146 Richelieu, Cardinal Armand, minister of state, xxx, 237, 274, 282, 288, 289, 297299, 301, 304, 305 Rokoczi, Francis, Hungarian patriot, 224 Rollo the Viking, xviii, 98, 104 Romanov, Mikhail, tsar of Russia, 327 Romulus Augustulus, Roman emperor, 27, 30 Rudolf I, HR emperor, 184 Rudolf II, HR emperor, 286, 287, 288 Rurik the Viking, xviii, 106
S Savanarola, reformer, 260 Sidonius of Clermont, bishop, 41 Sigismund, HR emperor, 186
359
Sigismund II Jagiello, king of Poland, 308, 309 Sigismund III, king of Poland, 326 Snorri Sturluson, author, 105, 110 Heimskringla, 105 Prose Edda, 105 Sophia Palaeologus, 219, 338 Stilicho, Roman general 30, 35 Suleiman the Magnificent, Ottoman sultan, 220, 225 Sylvester II, pope, 126 Sylvester III. pope, 119
T Tamerlane (the Great), Tartar leader, 218, 219, 326 Theodoric, Gothic king, xiii, xvi, 34, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 93 Theodosius, Roman emperor, 26, 29, 35, 61, 132 Tilly, Johann Count von, general, 288, 289, 294, 321
V Vesalius, Andreas, antomist, 254, 257 Vigilius, pope, 65
W Wallenstein, Albrecht, Count von, general, xxvi, 289, 293, 321 William I the Conqueror, king of England, 105, 129 Domesday Book, 105
360
Index of Names X
Xavier, Francis, St., missionary, 83
Z Zeno, Byzantine emperor, 34, 51
INDEX OF TERMS A Abbasid dynasty, 81 absolutism, xiii, xxx, xxxi, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi, 205, 212, 224, 243, 273-284, 290292, 297, 299, 307, 311, 316, 326 Age of Discovery, xiii, 227-240 Age of Reason, xv America, xviii, xxix, 102, 105, 106 (Vinland), 198, 227, 229, 230, 231, 232, 236, 237, 238, 239 (colonization), 300, 325, 336 American Indians, 233, 234, 237 Arabic Empire, xxii, 75-86 Armada, the Spanish, xxix, 221, 235, 239, 279 Artists, 200, 254 Avars, xv, 85, 88, 89 Avignon, 175, 176, 178, 179, 192, 197 Augsburg Confession, 264, 269
B Balkans, xxi, 218 banking (Fuggers, Medici), 231, 248
Barbarian invaders, xiii Barbarian West, 43-46 Battles (chronological): Milvian Bridge (312), 17 Châlons (451), 37 Vouglé (507), 49 Nineveh (627), 60, 78 Tours (732), xvii, 71, 79, 88, 91 Fontenoy (845), 97 Lechfeld (955), 115 Menfo (1044), 119 Hastings (1066), 123 Manzikert (1075), xvii Unstrut (1075), 131 Hundersfeld (1109), 121 Legnano (1176), 135 Bouvines (1214), 141, 142, 156, 174 Crécy (1346), 203 Poitiers (1356), 203 Kossovo (1389), 218 Angora (1402), 218 Tannenberg (1410), 187 Agincourt (1415), 203, 33 Constantinople (1453), xvii, 218, 242, 335, 336 Belgrade (1457), 218
362
Index of Terms
Granson, Morat, Nancy (1477), 207 Pavia (1525), 268 Mohacs (1526), xvii, 222, 263 Vienna (1529), xvii Mühlburg (1547), 268, 269, 270 Lepanto (1571), 219, 221, 226 White Mountain (1620), 287 Breitenfeld (1631), 289 Vienna (1683), 223, 310 Azov (1696), 268 Zenta (1697), 223 Carlowitz (1699), 223 Poltava (1709), 329 Beowulf, Anglo-Saxon epic, 69 Bishop of Rome, xvii, xviii, 65, 175 Black Death, 180, 192 Black Sea, xxii, xxiv, 44, 106, 107, 108, 217, 225, 329 Bohemia, xx, 113, 123, 176, 177, 179, 184, 185, 186, 212, 218, 222, 230, 235, 286, 287, 288 Burgundy, 203-110 Byzantine Empire, xvi, xxii, 62, 59-64, 217 Byzantium, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiv, 17, 20, 37, 52, 59, 59-64, 60, 61, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 90, 94, 96, 101, 106, 108, 123, 146, 149, 161, 173, 217, 218, 325, 344
C Calvinism, 201, 246, 248, 260, 266, 269, 271, 275, 276, 286 287, 314 Carlowitz, Treaty of, 223 Carolingian Renaissance, 93, 97, 100 Catholic Church, xviii, 41, 48, 49, 65-74, 68, 99, 187-182, 237, 263, 265, 267, 335, 346 Catholic League (France), 235, 279, 280; (Germany), xxvi, 286, 288 Chinese Empire, xxi, 3, 79, 87, 228 Christian faith, xv, xvii, 231
Church the, early, 65-74 decline of, 173-182 medieval, 167-172 civil codes, xvi civilization, xvi, xvii, xviii, xx, xxv, xxviii, xxxvii, 3, 4, 5, 19, 36, 43, 54, 81, 87, 101, 104, 107, 116, 124, 167, 172, 191, 217, 234, 241, 256, 260, 325, 327, 328, 339, 341, 348 Cluny, monastic order, 98-99, 116, 126 Columba of Iona, missionary. 86 Colonialism, xiii, 227-260, 237 Constantinople, xvi, xviii, xxi, 5, 9, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 33, 34, 37, 59, 60, 63, 65, 84, 96, 116, 198, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 225, 227, 241, 335, 336 Coronation, (Charlemagne), xix, xxvii, 40, 89, 91, 9596 (Emp. Otto I), 111, 116 (Emp. Henry V), 121 (French rite), 132, 134, 139 (Henry 1), 156 (Louis XI), 206 (Emp. Frederick III), 224 Cortés, Hernando, conquistador, 230 Councils of the Church (chronological): Nicea 1, xiii, 18, 20, 22 Chalcedon, xiv Nicea 2, 81 Lateran 4, 17, 171 Pisa, 178 Constance, 168, 176, 177, 178, 186, 335 Basle, 177 Florence, 178, 179 Trent, 267, 268, 272, 276, 308 Councils, secular: (the Lords, the King's), xxiv (ad Parliamentum), 150 (the Royal), 208, 213, (the Queen's), 229
Index of Terms (of the Indies), 232 (Regency), 277 (Provincial), 298 (Conseil du roi), 298 (Dietines), 309
D Dark Ages, the, xiii, 33, 39-42 deconstruction, xiii Diet. See Parliament: HRE, Poland discontinuity, xiii
E Eastern Empire, xvi, xvii, 14, 20, 37, 96 East India Companies, 236, 250 economics, xv, xxxii, 92, 151, 248, 249 Edict of (chronological): Milan, 17, 18, 19 Nantes, xxvi, 249, 280, 281-282, 297; revocation of, 300, 302, 314 Toleration, 276 January, 277 Grace, 282 Rest, 289 education, xv, 127, 162, 231, 246, 332, 353 Eleventh Century, the, 123-130 Emperor, office of, xvi, xvii, xix, xxiv, xxvi, xxviii, xxix, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29, 34, 37, 51, 52, 54, 60, 64, 66, 81, 96, 112, 113, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 124, 126, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 153, 164, 170, 173, 176, 177, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 199, 207, 212, 213, 214, 215, 221, 223, 224, 233, 260, 261, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 283, 285, 286, 287, 289, 290, 291, 293, 302, 313, 336, 337, 346 Enlightenment, xiii
363
European expansion (colonialism), 227-240 European history, xx, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii, 70, 82, 83, 94, 114, 155, 158, 247, 304, 329, 353
F Feudalism, xxi, xxii, xxiv, xxix, 45, 52, 58, 98, 117,125, 127, 133, 135, 136, 139, 141, 143, 146, 148, 151, 156, 157, 158, 162, 172, 203, 205, 209, 233, 237, 242, 242, 243, 298, 315, 335 Fourth Century, the, 25-32 France medieval, 139-144 in the 15th c., 203-210 in the 16th c., 273-284 in the 17th c., 298-306 Franks/Frankland, xv, 27, 35, 40, 41, 44, 4750, 71, 72, 84, 88, 89, 96 freedom of worship, xvii, 281
G Gallician Articles, 300 Golden Bull, the, 178, 179, 183-185 Goths, xiii, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 51, 54, 61
H Habsburg dynasty, xxvi, 186, 211-215, 222, 223, 224, 230, 235, 243, 266, 272, 275, 283, 286, 287, 288, 289, 291, 292, 297, 301, 304, 313, 337 rise of, 211-216 Hanseatic League the, 185, 285 heritage, xv, xviii, xxii, xxxi, 9, 148, 241, 247, 304, 335, 348
364
Index of Terms
Holy Roman Empire, xx, xxiii, xxx, xxxv, 5, 8, 96, 111-130, 112, 118, 120, 121, 126, 184, 185, 211, 217, 222, 235, 244, 260, 263, 266, 270, 288, 291, 292, 302, 309, 313, 346, 347 Medieval Empire, the, 183-190 Hohenstaufen dynasty, 120, 134, 136, 142, 212 Huguenots, the, 249, 275-278, 280, 281, 282, 288, 287-288, 299, 300, 301, 313 Hungary, xx, xxi, xxv, 37, 54, 61, 115, 119, 123, 128, 168, 186, 215,218, 222, 223-225, 235, 263, 286, 287, 291, 324 Huns, xiii, xiv,27, 35, 36, 37, 87 Hussite Wars, 177, 178, 186, 287
I India, xiv, 4, 8, 18, 62, 83, 106, 147, 148, 152, 218, 229, 231, 233, 236, 250, 300 Imperialism, xxi Investiture Conflict, the, 131-138 Islam, 75-86, 217-226
J Jagiellon dynasty, 187, 215, 308, 309 Jesuits (the Society of Jesus), 231, 237, 267, 286, 308 Jews, the, 175, 180
K Kiev, xxii, xxiv, 5, 106, 107, 108, 124, 198, 307, 325, 327 King's Peace, the, xv, 45 Koran, 76, 148, 149
L Law of Escheat, 140, 207 Leihezwang, 116, 135 Lombards, 54, 61, 67, 68, 71, 72, 89, 96
M Machiavellian, xxvii, xxviii, 206, 243-244, 250, 329 Magna Carta, xxiii, 155-160 Magyars, xvi, 85, 108, 115, 223-225 Maps, 10, 106, 108, 109, 120, 227, 295 Medieval Church,167-172 Medieval Period, xiii, 8, 39, 52, 152, 187, 199, 248 Medieval Universities, 161-166 Bologna, 162, 164, 255 Cambridge, 163 Oxford, 163 Padua, 182 Paris, 141, 162, 164 Prague, 164, 183 Mediterranean Sea, xvi, xx, 8, 71, 83, 87, 142 mercantilism, xiii, xxxii, 236, 249, 250, 300 Mongols, the, 218, 219, 326
N Nicea, xvii, 17, 20, 22, 81
O Ostrogoths, 51, 52, 53, 54 Ostrogothic Italy, 51-58 Ottomans, the, xvii, xviii, 217-226
Index of Terms P Papacy, the, xviii, xx, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, 19, 66, 67, 72, 94, 96, 101, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 126, 127, 128, 131, 134, 135, 156, 168, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 183, 197, 267, 346 Register of Papal Records, 40 Parliament, xix, xx, xxii, xxiv, 154, 167, 177 Althing (Iceland), xix, 105 Cortes (Castile), 104 Diet (HRE), xxvi, 120, 121, 185, 212, 213, 223, 225, 261, 264, 268, 269, 286, 287, 322, 337 Duma (Russia), 327 Estates General (France), xxx, 104, 205, 277, 282, 298, 299 Landtage (Prussia), 104, 315 Model Parliament England), xxiv, 157, 159, 174, 175, 178,179, 205, 247, 277, 301, 302 Rikstag (Sweden), xxxii, 104, 320, 321, 322 Sejm (Poland), xxxi, 308-309 Thing (Frankland), 88, 92 In the colonies: (cabildos), 232, (parliament), 237 Pax Catholica, 198 Pax Romana, 198 Peace and Truce of God, the (Pax et Treuga Dei), 98-99 Persia, xxi, 10, 44, 60, 61, 62, 77, 78, 79, 81, 87, 149 Poland in the 11th c., 121 in the 17th c., 307-312 szlachta (nobility), 308, 309, 310 politicians, xv, 275
365
Pope, office of, xviii, xix, xxiv, xxv, xxix, xxx, xxxi, 37, 38, 52, 65, 66, 67, 71, 72, 89, 96, 112, 116, 117, 119, 121, 125, 126, 127, 128, 132, 134, 135, 136, 142, 145, 152, 153, 156, 161, 162, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 185, 192, 197, 229,231, 232, 234, 243, 246, 247, 253, 255, 263, 264, 267, 268, 273, 274, 277, 281, 286, 290, 301, 308, 335, 336
R Reformation, xiii, xvii, xxvii, xxix, 47, 83, 158, 198, 214, 223, 259-272, 260, 261, 263, 265, 275, 276, 286, 287, 308, 335, 336, 338, 348 religion, xv, xvii, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxx, xxxi, xxxiv, 10, 17, 19, 20, 26, 34, 51, 59, 75, 76, 77, 87, 101, 106, 149, 150, 164, 198, 200, 214, 218, 220, 224, 230, 234, 235, 243, 245, 246, 247, 248, 266, 269, 270, 271, 272, 275, 276, 278, 287, 288, 320, 337, 338 Renaissance, xiii, xxx, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiv, 33, 39, 59, 93, 97, 100, 141, 145, 146, 152, 186, 193, 197, 199, 200, 201, 206, 213, 219, 227, 231, 241-252, 242, 243, 247, 248, 249, 254, 256, 262, 316, 335, 342, 348, 349 Roman Empire, xiii, xvi, xvii, xix, xx, 312, 4, 7, 8, 10, 19, 25, 28, 33, 35, 37, 48, 60, 61, 63, 75, 84, 87, 94, 96, 101, 117, 211, 343, 344 decline of, 33-38 Roman Law, xvii, xxiv, 26, 46, 48, 51, 59, 60, 61, 63, 134, 147, 148 Romans, xvi, xix, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20, 37, 41, 44, 48, 49, 52, 82, 88, 117, 253 Rome, xvi, xviii, xx, xxi, xxiii, xxiv, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21,
366
Index of Terms
25, 26, 28, 35, 36, 37, 39, 43, 44, 46, 54, 65, 67, 68, 71, 75, 84, 101, 111, 116, 117, 119, 121, 126, 131, 133, 134, 145, 169, 170, 172, 174, 176, 178, 187, 197, 198, 244, 266, 308, 326, 336, 342, 343 Russia, 325-340
S Salic Law, 49, 84, 203, 279 Saxons, xvi, 35, 44, 70, 71, 90, 102, 104 Schmalkaldic League, xv, 262, 265, 266267, 268, 286 serfdom, xxxi, xxxii, 126, 201, 308, 315, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333 Sigismund III, king of Poland, 326 Snorri Sturluson, author, 105, 110 Heimskringla, 105 Prose Edda, 105 society, xv, xvi, xix, xxiii, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxxi, xxxii, xxxv, xxxvii, 3, 8, 9, 10, 26, 43, 44, 70, 78, 82, 84, 98, 105, 114, 128, 150, 151, 158, 161, 163, 168, 191, 192, 199, 245, 246, 247, 250, 261, 290, 315, 316, 330, 333, 336, 341, 342, 346 Song of Roland, 89, 95, 150 Sweden in the 17th & 18th cc., 319-311 Synod of Neustria and Austrasia, 72, 170 Rome 119 Whitby, 69, 170 Vienna, 121 Worms, 119
T Thirty Years War, the, 285-296 Time of Troubles (Russia), 326 Treaties (chronological): Bautzen (1018), 119
Brétegny (1360), 203 Troyes (1420), 203 Péronne (1472), 207 Arras (1482), 207 Tordesillas (1497), 226 Chambord (1555), 269 Cateau-Cambresis (1559), 271,272 Vervins (1598), 281 Stolbova (1617), 320, 327 Westphalia (1648), 212, 224, 290-295, 313, 314, 322, 337 Brömsebro (1645), 322 Roskilde (1658), 320, 322 Pyrenees (1659), 290, 301 Andrussovo (1667), 310, 327, 328 Oliva (1690), 20, 301 Ryswick (1697), 302 Carlowitz (1699), 203, 224 Pruth (1711), 329 Utrecht (1714), 238, 304, 335 Nystadt 91721), 330 Constantinople (1832), 220 Toledo, capture of, xvii, 82, 83, 125, 148, 149 Twelfth-Century Renaissance, 141, 146153 Two Swords, Theory of, xiv, xix. 66, 96, 112 Turks, the, 217-226
U Union of Brest-Livtovsk, 308 Union of Evangelical Estates, 286-286, 288
V Vandals, 35, 36, 37, 41 Varangians, 106-107
Index of Terms Vikings, the, xx, xxii, xxiii, 85, 98, 101110, 104, 105, 106, 107, 111, 114, 229, 325, 345 Vinland, 102, 106, 109 Visigoths, 35, 36, 47, 48, 68, 82
367 W
Western History, xiii
Z Zemsky Sobor, Diet of, 327