Chapter IV: Of Provincial and Communal Institutions (4)

It is certain, notwithstanding the assertions to the contrary
of many historians of Jeanne, that from this date the English
were rendered absolutely masters of the bailiwick of Chaumont.
The principal fortresses of Bassigny, notably Nogent-le-Roi
and Montigny-le-Roi, received garrisons of the enemy. The
'registres du Trésor des Chartes,' preserved in our National
Archives, where the acts emanating from the English government
[chancellorship] during this period are registered, are full
of letters of pardon or of remission granted in the name of
Henry V. and Henry VI. to different inhabitants of this
bailiwick, and nothing proves better to what degree the
authority of the king of England was at that time received and
accepted in this region. Some of these letters were given on
account of offenses committed in the provostship of Andelot,
of which the châtellenie of Vaucouleurs held, as is known.
This châtellenie was, in truth, the last fragment of French
soil that Charles VII. had kept at the eastern extremity of
his kingdom, as he had succeeded in keeping Mont-Saint-Michel
at the western extremity. Pressed upon by the
Anglo-Burgundians on the south, by the restless and violent
Robert of Saarbruck, seigneur of Commercy, on the north,
hemmed in, on the east and west, between the possessions of
the dukes of Bar and of Lorraine, who were unceasingly at war
with their neighbors, this little corner of the earth was a
sort of arena where all parties came into collision; and
during the four or five years which immediately preceded the
first apparition of the archangel Michael to the Maid, toward
the middle of 1425, ten or twelve leaders of bands may be
counted who emulated each other, as it were, in ravaging it in
all directions. During the first half of the 15th century, the
men at arms of the marches of Lorraine had the reputation of
being, with the Bretons, the greatest pillagers in the world.
… We know now in all its details a curious episode which
particularly concerns the native village of Jeanne. This
episode had remained completely unknown up to the present day,
and it was a fortunate accident which, in the beginning of our
researches, commenced in 1878, caused us to discover in the
National Archives, in the 'registres du Trésor des Chartes,'
the document in which the relation of it is found. There is
question in this document of a remission of penalty granted by
King Charles VII. to a certain Burthélemy de Clefmont for the
murder of an Anglo-Burgundian band-leader who had carried away
the cattle from two villages of the châtellenie of
Vaucouleurs; now, these two villages are precisely Greux and
Domremy. … Different circumstances of the narrative, compared
with several documents relative to the leader killed by
Barthélemy de Clefmont, do not permit us to place the incident
at any other date than 1425. … The principal, not to say the
only wealth of the inhabitants of Domremy, was the cattle
which they pastured in the meadows of the Meuse. The
configuration of the soil permits the cultivation only of some
fields situated along the border of these meadows, at the foot
of the wooded hill against which the village is set; so, the
little grain that was harvested there would not have sufficed
to feed the population. … We understand then the important
injury done to these unfortunate peasants by taking from them
at one stroke all the communal flock; they were completely
ruined; they were stripped between one day and another of the
most precious of their possessions; they were almost condemned
to die of poverty with very brief delay. Such a disaster would
have cast down a spirit of ordinary temper; it had no other
effect than to exalt the profound faith and to awaken the
already extraordinary energies of the little Jeannette d'Arc.
Endowed, notwithstanding her tender years, with that almost
superhuman moral force of which we read that it transports
mountains, she called Heaven confidently to the assistance of
her people, and our readers already know that Heaven heard her
voice. Jeanne de Joinville, lady of Ogéviller, the good
châtelaine of Domremy, must have been keenly touched by the
unfortunate situation caused to her people, and she had
besides the greatest interest in making the brigands in the
pay of Henri d'Orly disgorge, in order to assure the payment
of her taxes. This is why she complained to her cousin Antoine
de Lorraine, count of Vaudemont, who had in his immediate
tenure the château of Doulevant, occupied by the chief of
these brigands. The count hastened to give satisfaction to the
demands of his relative; he sent Barthélemy de Clefmont, one
of his men at arms, in pursuit of the marauders.
{3755}
The expedition was a complete success. Though the cattle had
already been taken as far as Dommartin-le-Franc, twenty
leagues distant from the shores of the Meuse, they were
recovered. Antoine de Lorraine then caused them to be restored
to the lady of Ogéviller whose people, those of Greux as well
as of Domremy, thus came again into possession of the precious
booty which had been stolen from them and which they believed
irreparably lost. What a signal favor of Providence, a
miracle, these poor people in general and Jeannette d'Arc in
particular must have seen in a restitution so unhoped for! In
the meantime,—we may reasonably suppose this, if not affirm it
with certainty,—the news of a great defeat inflicted on the
English before Mont-Saint-Michel, toward the end of June 1425,
by sea as well as by land, must have arrived at Domremy.
Almost at the same time, that is in the last days of the
following August, they learned that these same English had
just invaded Barrois and that they had burned dwellings at
Revigny as well as in the ban of Chaumont, near Bar-le-Duc.
Never had Jeanne felt more sorrowfully 'the pity it was for
the kingdom of France,' and never also had she had a more
entire faith in God to assure the salvation of her country.
The theft, then the restitution of the cattle of Greux and
Domremy, the victory won by the defenders of
Mont-Saint-Michel, the invasion of Barrois by the English,
here are the three principal occurrences which immediately
preceded and which explain, at least in a certain degree, the
first apparition of the archangel Michael to the little
Jeannette d'Arc."

_S. Luce,
Jeanne d'Arc a Domremy
(translated from the French),
chapters 2-3._

FRANCE: A. D. 1582.
Footing secured at the mouth of the Senegal.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1582.

FRANCE: A. D. 1631.
First printed newspaper publication.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1631 (page 2594).

FRANCE: A. D. 1648-1715.
Relations with Germany and Austria.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1715.

FRANCE: A. D. 1682-1693.
Contest of the King and the Gallican Church with the Papacy.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1682-1693 (page 2462).

FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1770.
The fatal policy in Europe which lost to the French their
opportunity for colonial aggrandizement.

"Louis XIV. had made France odious to her neighbors and
suspected by all Europe. Those who succeeded him required much
prudence and wisdom to diminish the feelings of fear and
jealousy which this long reign of wars and conquests had
inspired. They were fortunate in that the moderation demanded
of them was for France the most skilful and advantageous
policy. France kept Alsace, Franche-Comte, Flanders,
Roussillon, and beyond this enlarged frontier she was no
longer menaced by the same enemies. The treaty of Utrecht had
modified the entire balance of power. There is henceforward no
house of Austria excepting in Germany. It is too often
forgotten, in speaking of this house and its rivalry with that
of France, that the most ardent center of hatred was in Spain.
It was Spain which cherished that violent rancor which, for
lack of words as much as of ideas, is placed to the account of
Austria alone. Spain is no longer to be feared; she is
weakened, she is becoming dependent. A cadet of France, a
Bourbon, reigns at Madrid, and the roles, in that direction,
are exchanged. As to Austria even, she has increased
undoubtedly: she has taken the Low Countries, Milan, Naples,
very soon she adds Sicily to them; but she is scattered. In
multiplying her outposts, she presents so many points of
aggression to her adversaries. France has the Low Countries
under her hand: Savoy threatens Milan: and, in Germany,
Prussia, which is growing, groups the opponents of the Empire.
France completes her work by the annexation of Lorraine. The
house of Lorraine is transported to Tuscany, and by the effect
of the same treaty, that of Vienna in 1738, Naples and Sicily
pass to the Spaniards. It seems that henceforward France has
only to conserve on the continent. She presents to it the most
compact power. Her principal enemy in it is greatly reduced.
She is surrounded by states, weaker than she, who defer to her
and fear her; she can resume that fine role of moderator and
guardian of the peace of Europe which Richelieu had prepared
for her, and bear elsewhere, into the other hemisphere, the
superabundance of her forces and that excess of vigor which in
great nations is precisely the condition of health. The future
of her grandeur is henceforward in the colonies. There she
will encounter England. Upon this new stage their rivalry will
be revived, more ardent than in the days of the hundred years
war. To maintain this struggle which extends over the entire
world, France will not be too strong with all her resources.
When she is engaged in Canada and the Indies at the same time,
she will not need to carry her armies across the Rhine. Peace
on the continent is the condition necessary to the magnificent
fortune which awaits her in America and Asia. If she wishes to
obtain it she must renounce continental ambitions. She can do
it; her defense is formidable. No one about her would dare to
fire a gun without her permission. But, alas! she is far
removed from this wisdom, and, in attempting to establish
colonies, and make changes in the kingdoms of Europe at the
same time, she will compromise her power in both worlds at
once. The French desire colonial conquests, but they can not
abstain from European conquests, and England profits by it.
Austria becomes her natural ally against France. These
powerful diversions keep the French on the ground. However,
they can yet curb Austria; they have Prussia, Savoy, Poland
and Turkey if necessary. Diplomacy is sufficient for this
game; but this game is not sufficient for the French
politicians. The hatred of the house of Austria survives the
causes of rivalry. This house seems always 'the monster' of
which Balzac speaks. One is not satisfied to have chained it;
one can cease only after having annihilated it. 'There is
always,' writes Argenson, 'for politicians a fundamental rule
of reducing this power to the point where the Emperor will not
be a greater landholder than the richest elector.' Charles VI.
dies in 1740; he leaves only a daughter; the opportunity seems
favorable, and noisily sounding the death-cry (l'hallali) they
take the field at the head of all the hunters by inheritance.

See AUSTRIA: A. D.1740, and after (pages 212-220).

{3756}

They go 'to make an emperor, to conquer kingdoms!' The
Bavarian whom they crown is a stage emperor, and, as for
conquests, they are considered only too fortunate that Maurice
of Saxe preserves to France those of Louis XIV. The coalition
has no other result than to enlarge Prussia. Meanwhile France
is beaten on the sea and abandons solely to the resources of
his genius Dupleix, who with a handful of men was founding an
empire. There was besides another small matter; after having
exposed Canada in order to conquer Silesia for the king of
Prussia, it was lost in order to have the pleasure of giving
back that province to the queen of Hungary. France had played
the game of England in the war of the succession of Austria,
she played that of Austria in the seven years war.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and after (pages 1495-1502).

Frederic was the most equivocal of allies. In 1755, he
deserted cynically and passed over to the English, who had
just recommenced war against France. England having Prussia,
it was important in order to maintain the equilibrium, that
France have Austria. Maria Theresa offered her alliance and
France accepted it. Thus was concluded the famous treaty of
May 1, 1756. The object of this alliance was entirely
defensive. This is what France did not understand, and she did
not cease to be a dupe for having changed partners. Louis XV.
made himself the defender of Austria with the same blindness
as he had made himself her adversary. The continental war
which was only the accessory became the principal. From a
ruling power, France fell to the rank of a subordinate. She
did not even attain the indirect result to which she
sacrificed her most precious interests. Frederic kept Silesia,
France lost Canada and abandoned Louisiana; the empire of the
Indies passed to the English. Louis XV. had thus directed a
policy the sole reason for which was the defeat of England, in
such a way as to assure the triumph of that country. 'Above
all,' wrote Bernis to Choiseul, then ambassador at Vienna,
'arrange matters in such a way that the king will not remain
in servile dependence on his allies. That state would be the
worst of all.' It was the state of France during the last
years of the reign of Louis XV. The alliance of 1756 which had
been at its beginning and under its first form, a skilful
expedient, became a political system, and the most disastrous
of all. Without gaining anything in territory, France lost her
consideration in Europe. She had formerly grouped around her
all those who were disturbed by the power of Austria; forced
to choose between them and Austria, she allowed the Austrians
to do as they chose. To crown the humiliation, immediately
after a war in which she had lost everything to serve the
hatred of Maria Theresa for Frederic, she saw those
unreconcilable Germans draw together without her knowledge,
come to an understanding at her expense and, in concert with
Russia, divide the spoil of one of the oldest clients of the
French monarchy, Poland. There remained to France but one
ally, Spain. They were united in 1761 by the Family Pact, the
only beneficial work which had been accomplished in these
years of disaster. … To the anger of having felt herself made
use of during the war, to the rancor of having seen herself
duped during the peace, was joined the fear of being despoiled
one day by an ally so greedy and so little scrupulous. 'I
foresee,' wrote Mably some years later, 'that the Emperor will
demand of us again Lorraine, Alsace and everything which may
please him.'—'Who can guaranty France, if she should
experience a complicated and unfortunate war,' said one of the
ministers of Louis XVI., 'that the Emperor would not reclaim
Alsace and even other provinces?' It was in this way that the
abuse made by Austria of the alliance revived all the
traditions of rivalry. Add that Maria Theresa was devout, that
she was known to be a friend of the Jesuits, an enemy of the
philosophers, and that at the King's court, the favorites were
accounted as acquired from Austria: everything thus
contributed to render odious to public opinion the alliance
which, in itself, already seemed detestable. At the time when
they were beginning to style the partisans of new ideas
'patriots,' they were in the habit of confounding all the
adversaries of these ideas with the 'Austrian party.' … The
marriage of Marie Antoinette with the Dauphin was destined to
seal forever the alliance of 1756. The unfortunate princess
accumulated on her head the hatreds and prejudices heaped up
by three centuries of rivalry and excessively stimulated by
the still smarting impression of recent wrongs. Even the cause
of her coming to France rendered her suspected by the French;
they imputed to her as a crime her attachment to the alliance,
which was, notwithstanding, the very reason of her marriage.
To understand the prodigious unpopularity which pursued her in
France, it is necessary to measure the violence of the
passions raised up against her mother and her country; it was
summed up, long before the Revolution, in that word which
became for Marie Antoinette a decree of forfeiture and of
death: the Austrian."

_A. Sorel,
L'Europe et la Révolution française
(translated from the French),
part 1, pages 288-297._

FRANCE: A. D. 1776-1778.
Disposition to aid the revolt of the
English colonies in America.
The American embassy.
Dealings of Beaumarchais and Silas Deane.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776-1778 (pages 3241, 3244).

FRANCE: A. D. 1777.
The first daily newspaper.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1777 (page 2600).

FRANCE: A. D. 1788-1789.
Paris in the Revolution.
The part of the Nobodies.

"The history of the revolution can no more be understood
without understanding the part played in it by Paris, than one
can conceive of the tragedy of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet
left out; and to understand the part played by Paris in the
revolution is equally impossible. … Let us commence at the
bottom with the nobodies. They are no specialty of Paris.
There are many of them in every city, but the larger the city
the greater the percentage. Paris, therefore, has the highest.
They are isolated particles. In the ushering in of the new era
they have no part. The regulations concerning the elections to
the States-General contain no provision in regard to them. …
It was simply a matter of course, that these nobodies went for
nothing in the question at hand. Whether they were likely to
continue to be nothing in it, nobody seems to have asked. …
The existence of this class was partly due to natural causes,
the working of which the wit of man can to a degree mitigate,
but never prevent.

{3757}

In the 'ancien régime,' however, the wit of man had altogether
been bent upon stimulating it. The privilege-bane had also
been extended over the domain of labor. When, in 1776, Turgot
broke down the guilds, the Parliament of Paris strenuously
opposed the government, declaring: all Frenchmen are divided
into established corporations, forming one continuous chain
from the throne down to the lowest handicraft, indispensable
to the existence of the state, and not to be abolished, lest
the whole social order break asunder. That was but too true.
Since the days of Henry III. (1574-1589) the forcing of all
industrial pursuits into the strait-jacket of guildships had
been carried to the extreme of utter absurdity. Here, too, the
chronic financial distress had been the principal cause. At
first the handicrafts, which everybody had been at liberty to
practice, were withdrawn from free competition and sold as a
privilege, and then, when nothing was left to be sold, the old
guilds were split up into a number of guildlets, merely to
have again something to put on the counter. And it was not
only left pretty much to the masters whom they would admit to
the freedom of the guild, but besides the charges for it were
so high that it was often absolutely out of the reach even of
the most skillful journeyman. Even a blood-aristocracy was not
lacking. In a number of guilds only the sons of masters and
the second husbands of masters' widows could become masters.
Thus an immense proletariat was gradually formed, which to a
great extent was a proletariat only because the law
irresistibly forced it into this position. And the city
proletariat proper received constant and ever-increasing
additions from the country. There such distress prevailed,
that the paupers flocked in crowds to the cities. … In 1791,
long before the inauguration of the Reign of Terror, there
were in a population of 650,000, 118,000 paupers (indigents).
Under the 'ancien régime' the immigrant proletariat from the
country was by the law barred out from all ways of earning a
livelihood except as common day-laborers, and the wages of
these were in 1788, on an average, 26 cents for men and 15 for
women, while the price of bread was higher than in our times.
What a gigantic heap of ferment!"

_H. von Holst,
The French Revolution,
lecture 2._

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1792.
Effects of the Revolution in Germany.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1789-1792.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1794.
Myths of the Revolution.

"The rapid growth and the considerable number of these myths
are one of the most curious features of the Revolution, while
their persistent vitality is a standing warning for historical
students. I claim to show that Cazotte's vision was invented
by Laharpe, that Sombreuil's daughter did not purchase his
liberty by quaffing blood, that the locksmith Gamain was not
poisoned, that Labussière did not save hundreds of prisoners
by destroying the documents incriminating them, that the
Girondins had no last supper, that some famous ejaculations
have been fabricated or distorted, that no attempt was made to
save the last batch of victims, that the boys Barra and Viala
were not heroes, that no leather was made of human skins, that
no Englishmen plied the September assassins with drink, that
the 'Vengeur' crew did not perish rather than surrender, that
the ice-bound Dutch fleet was not captured, that Robespierre's
wound was not the work of Merda, but was self-inflicted, and
that Thomas Paine had no miraculous escape."

_J. G. Alger,
Glimpses of the French Revolution,
preface._

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1796.
The Assignats of the Revolution.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1789-1796 (page 2212).

FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1807.
Napoleon and Germany.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1796-1807.

FRANCE: A. D. 1855-1895.
Acquisitions in Africa.

(See in this Supplement)
AFRICA: 1855, 1864, 1876-1880, and after.

FRANCE: A. D. 1858-1886.
Conquest of Tonkin and Cochin China.

See TONKIN (page 3114).

FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1892.
Advance in the policy of Protection.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1871-1892 (page 3082).

FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895.
Assassination of President Carnot.
Election and resignation of M. Casimir-Périer.
Election of M. Faure to the Presidency.

"The most startling of all the deeds in the recent revival of
anarchistic activity was the assassination of M. Carnot,
President of the French Republic, on the 24th of June. While
driving through the streets of Lyons, where he was taking part
in the opening ceremonies of an exposition, he was mortally
stabbed by an Italian Anarchist named Santo Caserio. The
assassin was immediately captured, and was executed August 16.
His trial did not reveal any accomplices, though there was
evidence tending to show that the deed was resolved upon by a
band of Anarchists. Caserio boasted of his identification with
the sect. … According to the constitutional prescription, a
joint convention of the two chambers of the legislature was
immediately summoned for a presidential election. The
convention met at Versailles, June 27, M. Challemel-Lacour,
president of the Senate, in the chair, and on the first ballot
chose M. Casimir-Périer by 451 out of a total of 851 votes, M.
Brisson, the Radical candidate, stood second, with 195, and M.
Dupuy third, with 97."

_Political Science Quarterly,
December, 1894._

On the 15th of January, 1895, M. Casimir-Périer astonished the
world and threw France into consternation, almost, by suddenly
and peremptorily resigning the Presidency. The reason given
was the intolerable powerlessness and practical inutility of
the President under the existing constitution. The exciting
crisis which this resignation produced was passed through
without disorder, and on the 17th the National Assembly
elected M. François Felix Faure to the office of President.

FRANCE: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES (page 2010).

FRANCE, Bank of.

See MONEY (page 2212).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin,
and the first subscription library.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2017).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin:
Electrical discovery.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
A. D. 1745-1747 (page 770).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin:
Examination before Parliament.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766 (pages 3192-3201).

FRANKLIN, Sir john.
Northern explorations and voyages of.
Loss and search for.

See (in this Supplement)
ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1822, and after.

{3758}

FREDERICK BARBAROSSA, in Italy.

See (in this Supplement)
GERMANY: A. D. 1154-1190, and 1162-1177;
also, pages 1811-1813.

FREE CITIES OF GERMANY, The.

See (in this Supplement)
GERMANY: 13-15th CENTURIES; also, page 473.

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.

See below: TOLERATION, RELIGIOUS.

FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW,
The first.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793 (page 3305).

The Second.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850 (pages 3388-3391).

GALEN, and the development of anatomy and physiology.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 2d CENTURY (page 2128).

GALVANI'S ELECTRICAL DISCOVERIES.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
A. D. 1786-1800 (page 771).

GAUL: Ancient commerce.

See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

GENOA: The Bank of St. George.

See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2207).

GENOA: Mediæval Commerce.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

GEORGE III.:
Conversation with Governor Hutchinson
on affairs in the colonies.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (pages 3210-3213).

His absolute notions of Kingship.

See England: A. D. 1760-1763 (page 927).

GEORGE, Henry, and the Single Tax movement.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880 (page 2955).

GERM THEORY OF DISEASE, Origin and development of the.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES,
and 19TH CENTURY (pages 2138, 2144, and after).

----------GERMANY:Start--------

GERMANY:
Outline sketch of general history.

See EUROPE (page 1015, and after).

GERMANY: A. D. 962.
Otto I. and the Restoration of the Empire.

"And now it came about that out of the midst of the Germanic
nations a new monarchy arose which wrested itself free from
the immediate influence of the papacy and its antiquated
pretensions and broke a new path for the idea of the empire,
an idea that seemed to have been fully crushed. This was the
empire of Otto the Great. It was not to be compared with the
old Roman empire, it did not at all come up to what the
Carolingian had been. But it did give strong and irrevocable
expression to the idea of a highest authority in Germany, an
authority bound up with religion, yet independent in itself. …
The foundation of the Germanic empire, that is of an
organization which, resting on the internal development of the
German nations had won a universal position through the
extension of the power of the Ottos over Italy, forms the
event of world-wide importance of the tenth century. … This
Germanic empire had no genealogical origin that was entirely
indisputable, but it did in so far have an advantage over the
Carolingian empire that the right of heredity in the German
monarchy decided of itself the question of succession to the
empire. Besides this it had a sort of overlordship over its
neighbors to maintain which was different from that earlier
one: the attempts at Christianizing and at the same time
reducing to submission took in other regions extending far
beyond the limits of the former ones. It was a resuscitation
of the idea of the old Roman empire but by no means of its
form. On the contrary, through constant struggles new
constitutional forms had developed themselves of which the old
world had as yet no conception. Not that it is the proper
place here to enter more deeply into the question of the
feudal system which gave to public life an altogether changed
aspect. But, in a word or two at least, we must characterize
this transformation. Its essence is that an attempt was made
to adjust the conception of obedience and military service to
the needs of the life of the individual. All the arrangements
of life changed their character so soon as it became the
custom to grant land to local overlords who, in turn, provided
with possessions according to their own several grades, could
only be sure of being able to hold these possessions in so far
as they kept faith and troth with the lord-in-chief of the
land. It was through and through a living organization, which
took in the entire monarchy and bound it together into a
many-membered whole; for the counts and dukes for their own
part entered into a similar relationship with their own
sub-tenants. Therewith the possession of land entered into an
indissoluble connection with the theory of the empire, a
connection which extended also to those border nations which
were in contact with and subordinate to the monarchy. That an
empire so constituted could not reckon on such unconditional
obedience as had been paid to the old Roman empire is clear as
day. Nevertheless the whole order of things in the world
depended on the system of adjusted relationships, the keystone
or rather commanding central point of which was formed by this
same empire. It could scarcely claim any longer to be
universal but it did nevertheless hold the chief place in the
general state-system of Europe, and it proved a powerful
upholder of the independence of the secular power. It was just
this idea of universal power, and altogether of ascendancy
over the Christian world, that was indelibly implanted in the
German empire. But could this idea be actually realized, was
Germany strong enough to carry it through? Otto the Great
originated it, but by no means carried it to its completion.
He passed his life amid constant internal and external
struggles; no lasting form of constitution was he able to
leave behind. That is, one might almost say, what is most
characteristic of great natures: they can originate, indeed,
but they cannot complete."

_L. von Ranke,
Weltgeschichte,
(translated from the German),
volume 7, pages. 5-7._

{3759}

"For what else did he (Otto I) wish to found but a
world-monarchy like that of the Caesars? Emperor of the Romans
and Augustus did he call himself and at Rome he had received
his imperial crown. And was not for him the most sacred spot
in the universe the grave of St. Peter at Rome? Was not this
Saxon in armor an equally eager apostle of the Roman church
with that Anglo-Saxon monk who as servant of the pope had
planted Christianity in North German lands? While Otto was
determined to extend the power of his empire as far as to the
most distant peoples of the still unexplored north and east,
he at the same time purposed to bear to the end of the world
Christianity in the form in which Rome had given it him. The
bones of the Roman martyrs he carried over the Alps and
through faith in them he worked wonders; woods were cleared,
marshes dried, cities built, victories won over the most
dangerous enemies. Not only did the language of Rome sound
forth from the altars of Saxony: it became at the same time
the language of affairs in the emperor's chancery, and in it
the commands of the all-powerful Augustus were issued to the
whole world. Thus did Otto, although through and through a
Saxon warrior of the old stamp, live wholly at the same time
in those Roman ideas against which, in times gone by, his
forefathers had struggled. The mightiest contradictions which
have affected the course of the world's history met together
in his personality in full force, and reconciled themselves
there just as they did in the great onward course of events. …
In all the movements of the time Otto took part with force and
with success; the imperial title was now no empty name as it
had been in the last years of the Carolingian period. But not
through laws, not through an artificial state system, not
through a great army of officials did Otto rule Western
Europe, but more than all through the wealth of military
resources which his victories had placed in his hands. Through
the great army of his German vassals who were well versed in
war he overthrew the Slavonians, kept the Danes in check,
compelled the Hungarians to relinquish their nomadic life of
plunder and to seek settled dwelling places in the plains of
the Danube; so that now the gates of the East through which up
till then masses of peoples threatening everything with
destruction had always anew broken in upon the West were
closed forever. The fame of his victories and his feudal
supremacy, extending itself further and further, made him also
protector of the Burgundian and French kingdoms, and finally
lord of Lombardy and of the City of Rome. With the military
resources of Germany he holds in subjection the surrounding
peoples; but through the power thus won, on the other hand, he
himself gains a proud ascendancy over the multitude of his own
vassals. Only for the reason that he wins for himself a truly
royal position in Germany is he enabled to gain the imperial
crown; but this again it is which first really secures and
confirms his own and his family's rule in the German lands. On
this rests chiefly his preeminent position, that he is the
first and mightiest lord of Western Christendom, that as such
he is able at any moment to bring together a numerous military
force with which no people, no prince can any longer cope. But
not on this alone. For the Catholic clergy also, spreading far
and wide over the whole west, serves him as it were like a new
crowd of vassals in stole and cassock. He nominates the
archbishops and bishops in his German and Italian kingdoms as
well as in the newly converted lands of the North and East; he
rules the successor of St. Peter and through him exercises a
decisive influence on church progress even in the western
lands where he does not himself install the dignitaries of the
church. Different as this German empire was from the Frankish,
faulty as was its organization, its resources seemed
nevertheless sufficient in the hand of a competent ruler to
maintain a far-reaching and effectual rule in the West; the
more so as it was upheld by public opinion and supported by
the authority of the church. But one must not be led into
error; these resources were only sufficient in the hands of a
so powerful and active prince as Otto. From the Elbe marshes
he hastened to the Abruzzian Mountains; from the banks of the
Rhine now to the shores of the Adriatic, now to the sand-dunes
of the Baltic. Ceaselessly is he in motion, continually under
arms—first against the Wends and Hungarians, then against the
Greeks and Lombards. No county in his wide realm, no bishopric
in Catholic Christendom but what he fixed his eye upon and
vigilantly watched. And wherever he may tarry and whatever he
may undertake his every act is full of fire, force and vigor
and always hits the mark. With such a representative the
empire is not only the highest power in the Western world but
one which on all its affairs has a deep and active influence—a
power as much venerated as it was dreaded."

_W. von Giesebrecht,
Deutsche Kaiserzeit
(translated from the German).
volume 1, pages 476-484._

"He (Otto) now permanently united the Roman empire to the
German nation and this powerful and intelligent people
undertook the illustrious but thankless task of being the
Atlas of universal history. And soon enough did the connection
of Germany with Italy result in the reform of the church and
the revival of the various sciences, while in Italy itself it
was essentially the Germanic element which brought into being
the glorious civic republics. Through a historical necessity,
doubtless, Germany and Italy, the purest representatives of
the antique and the Teutonic types and the fairest provinces
in the kingdom of human thought, were brought into this
long-lasting connection. From this point of view posterity has
no right to complain that the Roman empire was laid like a
visitation of Fate on our Fatherland and compelled it for
centuries to pour out its life-blood in Italy in order to
construct those foundations of general European culture for
which modern humanity has essentially Germany to thank."

_Gregorovius,
Geschichte der Stadt Rom
(translated from the German),
volume 3, page 334._

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 936-973 (pages 1439-1441).

GERMANY: 11-12th Centuries.
The question of the Investitures.

See (in this Supplement) PAPACY: A. D. 11-12TH CENTURIES.

{3760}

GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1272(?).
The Rise of the College of Electors.

"At the election of Rudolph [1272 or 1273?] we meet for the
first time the fully developed college of electors as a single
electoral body; the secondary matter of a doubt regarding what
individuals composed it was definitely settled before
Rudolph's reign had come to an end. How did the college of
electors develop itself? … The problem is made more difficult
at the outset from the fact that, in the older form of
government in Germany there can be no question at all of a
simple electoral right in a modern sense. The electoral right
was amalgamated with a hereditary right of that family which
had happened to come to the throne: it was only a right of
selection from among the heirs available within this family.
Inasmuch now as such selection could,—as well from the whole
character of German kingship as in consequence of its
amalgamation with the empire—take place already during the
lifetime of the ruling member of the family, it is easy to
understand that in ages in which the ruling race did not die
out during many generations, the right came to be at last
almost a mere form. Usually the king, with the consent of
those who had the right of election, would, already during his
lifetime, designate as his successor one of his heirs,—if
possible his oldest son. Such was the rule in the time of the
Ottos and of the Salian emperors. It was a rule which could
not be adhered to in the first half of the 12th century after
the extinction of the Salian line, when free elections, not
determined beforehand by designation, took place in the years
1125, 1138 and 1152. Necessarily the clement of election now
predominated. But had any fixed order of procedure at
elections been handed down from the past? The very principle
of election having been disregarded in the natural course of
events for centuries, was it any wonder that the order of
procedure should also come to be half forgotten? And had not
in the meantime social readjustments in the electoral body so
disturbed this order of procedure, or such part of it as had
been important enough to be preserved, as necessarily to make
it seem entirely antiquated? With these questions the
electoral assemblies of the year 1125 as well as of the year
1138 were brought face to face and they found that practically
only those precedents could be taken from what seemed to have
been the former customary mode of elections which provided
that the archbishop of Mainz as chancellor of the empire
should first solemnly announce the name of the person elected
and the electors present should do homage to the new king.
This was at the end of the whole election, after the choice
had to all intents and purposes been already made. For the
material part of the election, on the other hand, the part
that preceded this announcement, they found an apparently new
expedient. A committee was to draw up an agreement as to the
person to be chosen; in the two cases in question the manner
of constituting this committee differed. Something essential
had now been done towards establishing a mode of procedure at
elections which should accord with the changed circumstances.
One case however had not been provided for in these still so
informal and uncertain regulations; the case, namely, that
those taking part in the election could come to no agreement
at all with regard to the person whose choice was to be
solemnly announced by the archbishop of Mainz. And how could
men have foreseen such a case in the first half of the 12th
century? Up till then double elections had absolutely never
taken place. Anti-kings there had been, indeed, but never two
opposing kings elected at the same time. In the year 1198,
however, this contingency arose; Philip of Suabia and Otto IV
were contemporaneously elected and the final unanimity of
choice that in 1152 had still been counted on as a matter of
course did not come about. As a consequence questions with
regard to the order of procedure now came up which had hardly
ever been touched upon before. First and foremost this one:
can a better right of one of the elected kings be founded on a
majority of the votes obtained? And in connection with it this
other: who on the whole has a right to cast an electoral vote?
Even though men were inclined now to answer the first question
in the affirmative, the second, the presupposition for the
practical application of the principle that had been laid down
in the first, offered all the greater difficulties. Should
one, after the elections of the years 1125 and 1152 and after
the development since 1180 of a more circumscribed class of
princes of the realm, accept the existence of a narrower
electoral committee? Did this have a right to elect
exclusively, or did it only have a simple right of priority in
the matter of casting votes, or perhaps only a certain
precedence when the election was being discussed? And how were
the limits to be fixed for the larger circle of electors below
this electoral committee? These are questions which the German
electors put to themselves less soon and less clearly than did
the pope, Innocent III, whom they had called upon to
investigate the double election of the year 1198. … He speaks
repeatedly of a narrower electoral body with which rests
chiefly the election of the king, and he knows only princes as
the members of this body. And beyond a doubt the repeated
expressions of opinion of the pope, as well as this whole
matter of having two kings, at the beginning of the 13th
century, gave men in Germany cause for reflection with regard
to these weighty questions concerning the constitutional forms
of the empire. One of the most important results of this
reflection on the subject is to be found in the solution given
by the Sachsenspiegel which was compiled about 1230. Eike von
Repgow knows in his law-book only of a precedence at elections
of a smaller committee of princes, but mentions as belonging
to this committee certain particular princes: the three
Rhenish archbishops, the count Palatine of the Rhine, the duke
of Saxony, the margrave of Brandenburg and,—his right being
questionable indeed—the king of Bohemia. … So far, at all
events, did the question with regard to the limitation of the
electors seem to have advanced towards its solution by the
year 1230 that an especial electoral college of particular
persons was looked upon as the nucleus of those electing. But
side by side with this view the old theory still held its own,
that certainly all princes at least had an equal right in the
election. Under Emperor Frederick II, for instance, it was
still energetically upheld. A decision one way or the other
could only be reached according to the way in which the next
elections should actually be carried out. Henry Raspe was
elected in the year 1246 almost exclusively by ecclesiastical
princes, among them the three Rhenish archbishops. He was the
first 'priest-king' (Pfaffenkönig). The second 'priest-king'
was William of Holland. He was chosen by eleven princes, among
whom was only one layman, the duke of Brabant. The others were
bishops; among them, in full force, the archbishops of the
Rhine.
{3761}
Present were also many counts. But William caused himself
still to be subsequently elected by the duke of Saxony and the
margrave of Brandenburg, while the king of Bohemia was also
not behindhand in acknowledging him—that, too, with special
emphasis. What transpired at the double election of Alphonse
and Richard in the year 1257 has not been handed down with
perfect trustworthiness. Richard claimed later to have been
elected by Mainz, Cologne, the Palatinate and Bohemia;
Alphonse by Treves, Saxony, Brandenburg and Bohemia. But in
addition to the princes of these lands, other German princes
also took part,—according to the popular view by assenting,
according to their own view, in part at least, by actually
electing. All the same the lesson taught by all these
elections is clear enough. The general right of election of
the princes disappears almost altogether; a definite electoral
college, which was looked upon as possessing almost
exclusively the sole right of electing, comes into prominence,
and the component parts which made it up correspond in
substance to the theory of the Sachsenspiegel. And whatever in
the year 1257 is not established firmly and completely and in
all directions, stands there as incontrovertible at the
election of Rudolph. The electors, and they only, now elect;
all share of others in the election is done away with.
Although in place of Ottocar of Bohemia who was at war with
Rudolph Bavaria seems to have been given the electoral vote,
yet before Rudolph's reign is out, in the year 1290, Bohemia
at last attains to the dignity which the Sachsenspiegel, even
if with some hesitation, had assigned to it. One of the most
important revolutions in the German form of government was
herewith accomplished. From among the aristocratic class of
the princes an oligarchy had raised itself up, a
representation of the princely provincial powers as opposed to
the king. Unconsciously, as it were, had it come into being,
not exactly desired by anyone as a whole, nor yet the result
of a fixed purpose even as regarded its separate parts. It
must clearly have corresponded to a deep and elementary and
gradually developing need of the time. Undoubtedly from a
national point of view it denotes progress; henceforward at
elections the danger of 'many heads many minds' was avoided;
the era of double elections was practically at an end."

_K. Lamprecht,
Deutsche Geschichte
(translated from the German),
volume 4, pages 23-28._

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152 (page 1444).

GERMANY:A. D. 1154-1190.
Frederick Barbarossa in Italy.

See (in this Supplement) ITALY: A. D. 1154-1190.

GERMANY:A. D. 1162-1177.
The Emperor and the Pope.

See (in this Supplement) PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1177.

GERMANY:12th-17th Centuries.
Causes of the Disintegration of the Empire.

"The whole difference between French and German constitutional
history can be summed up in a word: to the ducal power, after
its fall, the crown fell heir in France; the lesser powers,
which had been its own allies, in Germany. The event was the
same, the results were different: in France centralization, in
Germany disintegration. The fall of the power of the
stem-duchies is usually traced to the subjugation of the
mightiest of the dukes, Henry the Lion, who refused military
service to the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa just when the
latter most needed him in the struggle against the Lombards.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183 (page 2813).

… The emperor not only banned the duke, he not only took away
his duchy to bestow it elsewhere, but he entirely did away
with this whole form of rule. The western part, Westphalia,
went to the archbishops of Cologne; in the East the different
margraves were completely freed from the last remnants of
dependence that might have continued to exist. In the
intervening space the little ecclesiastical and secular lords
came to be directly under the emperor without a trace of an
intermediate power and with the title of bishop or abbot,
imperial count, or prince. If one of these lords, Bernard of
Ascanium, received the title of Saxon duke, that title no
longer betokened the head of a stem or nation but simply an
honorary distinction above other counts and lords. What
happened here had already begun to take place in the other
duchy of the Guelphs, in Bavaria, through the detachment from
it of Austria; sooner or later the same process came about in
all parts of the empire. With the fall of the old stem-duchies
those lesser powers which had been under their shadow or
subject to them gained every where an increase of power:
partly by this acquiring the ducal title as an honorary
distinction by the ruler of a smaller district, partly by
joining rights of the intermediate powers that had just been
removed to their own jurisdictions and thus coming into direct
dependence on the empire. … Such was the origin of the idea of
territorial supremacy. The 'dominus terrae' comes to feel
himself no longer as a person commissioned by the emperor but
as lord in his own land. … As to the cities, behind their
walls remnants of old Germanic liberty had been preserved.
Especially in the residences of the bishops had artisans and
merchants thriven and these classes had gradually thrown off
their bondage, forming, both together, the new civic
community. … The burghers could find no better way to show
their independence of the princes than that the community
itself should exercise the rights of a territorial lord over
its members. Thus did the cities as well as the principalities
come to form separate territories, only that the latter had a
monarchical, the former a republican form of government. … It
is a natural question to ask, on the whole, when this new
formation of territories was completed. … The question ought
really only to be put in a general way: at what period in
German history is it an established fact that there are in the
empire and under the empire separate territorial powers
(principalities and cities)? As such a period we can designate
approximately the end of the 12th and beginning of the 13th
centuries. From that time on the double nature of imperial
power and of territorial power is an established fact and the
mutual relations of these two make up the whole internal
history of later times. … The last ruler who had spread abroad
the glory of the imperial name had been Frederick II. For a
long time after him no one had worn the imperial crown at all,
and of those kings who reigned during a whole quarter of a
century not one succeeded in making himself generally
recognized. There came a time when the duties of the state, if
they were fulfilled at all, were fulfilled by the territorial
powers.
{3762}
Those are the years which pass by the name of the interregnum.
… Rudolph of Hapsburgh and his successors, chosen from the
most different houses and pursuing the most different
policies, have quite the same position in two regards: on the
one hand the crown, in the weak state in which it had emerged
from the interregnum, saw itself compelled to make permanent
concessions to the territorial powers in order to maintain
itself from one moment to another; on the other hand it finds
no refuge for itself but in the constant striving to found its
own power on just such privileged territories. When the kings
strive to make the princes and cities more powerful by giving
them numerous privileges, and at the same time by bringing
together a dynastic appanage to gain for themselves an
influential position: this is no policy that wavers between
conceding and maintaining. … The crown can only keep its place
above the territories by first recognizing the territorial
powers and then, through just such a recognized territorial
power by creating for itself the means of upholding its
rights. … The next great step in the onward progress of the
territorial power was the codification of the privileges which
the chief princes had obtained. Of the law called the 'Golden
Bull' only the one provision is generally known, that the
seven electors shall choose the emperor; yet so completely
does the document in question draw the affairs of the whole
empire into the range of its provisions that for centuries it
could pass for that empire's fundamental law. It is true that,
for the most part it did not create a new system of
legislation but only sanctioned what already existed. But for
the position of all the princes it was significant enough that
the seven most considerable among them were granted an
independence which comprised sovereign rights, and this not by
way of a privilege but as a part of the law of the land. A
sharply defined goal, and herein lies the deepest
significance, was thus set up at which the lesser territories
could aim and which, after three centuries, they were to
attain. … This movement was greatly furthered when on the
threshold of modern times the burning question of church
reform, after waiting in vain to be taken up by the emperor,
was taken up by the lower classes, but with revolutionary
excesses. … The mightiest intellectual movement of German
history found at last its only political mainstay in the
territories. … This whole development, finally, found its
political and legal completion through the Thirty Years War
and the treaty of peace which concluded it. The new law which
the Peace of Westphalia now gave to the empire proclaimed
expressly that all territories should retain their rights,
especially the right of making alliances among themselves and
with foreigners so long as it could be done without violating
the oath of allegiance to the emperor and the empire. Herewith
the territories were proclaimed to be what they had really
been for a long time—states under the empire."

_I. Jastrow,
Geschichte der deutschen Einheitstraum und seiner Erfüllung
(translated from the German).
pages 30-37._