Alike in some respects, what contrasts they present in others. So faithfully have the chroniclers performed their tasks that it is comparatively easy to call them up and make them pass in review before us. Hildebrand, unimposing in appearance, but passionate and indomitable; Henry IV, intelligent, but violent; the tall, fair-haired, princely Barbarossa; the thin, but well-proportioned, Frederick II, of studious mien; and finally the majestic Innocent III, now giving way to bursts of anger, and now plunged into fits of deep melancholy. The principles which these men represented could not have had better advocates.
The Issues.
An examination of the three main struggles shows that each of these champions of Church and State hoped to realize a definite aim which he usually sought to attain in his own way. It is most interesting to follow the ebb and flow of the tide of battle. The pope was the first to throw down the gage of battle by attempting to remove the Church from politics through the suppression of simony and the marriage of the clergy. The very boldness of Gregory in daring to alter conditions which had not been disturbed for generations, and that, too, in the face of the strongest opposition, calls forth not only surprise, but admiration, which increases as we examine the forces upon which he relied to accomplish his results, namely, the canon law, the church organization and the ban of excommunication. According to some authorities, the very year which witnessed the settlement of the first great struggle (1122), marked the birth of Frederick I, the second great champion of the rights of the empire, rightly named the imperialist Hildebrand. Selecting Charlemagne as his model, he strove not only to unify his German possessions, but to re-establish the power and authority of the empire in Europe by reasserting its right to rule Rome and the Lombard cities, and by endeavoring to unite with it the Norman possessions in the south of Italy. These attempts naturally brought him into conflict with the papacy, which feared so dangerous a neighbor on its very borders. His main reliance was in the recently-revived study of the Roman law, and in a his labors he governed himself by the maxim that “all that pleases a prince has the force of law.” Innocent III, with perhaps the highest conception of his position of any individual who had thus far occupied the chair of St. Peter, dared to assert that the Lord gave that apostle the rule not only of the Universal Church, but also the rule of the whole world. That these were not mere phrases on his lips was shown by his efforts to extend his authority to the furthest bounds of Christendom. Favored somewhat by circumstances, he became for a time the arbiter of the destinies of the empire, but at no time did he have a foeman worthy of his steel within its confines. These were rather to be found in the limits of Christendom in the rising kingdoms of France and England, whose sovereigns nevertheless trembled before his threats and repented of their misdeeds. Like Gregory VII, he asked for no stronger weapons than the terrors inspired by the wrath of Mother Church. Finally there appeared in the arena the brilliant ward of this the greatest of popes, Frederick II, aptly characterized as the first of modern kings, striving for absolute mastery in Sicily and in Germany, placing his trust, as did his illustrious ancestor in the Roman law, but utilizing at the same time his knowledge of men and the rising power of the bourgeoisie. His plans, like those of Barbarossa, met with vigorous opposition at the hands of the popes and for much the same reasons.
Effects of the Struggle.
When we pass to our final consideration, namely, the effects of these struggles on their participants and upon Europe, we find ourselves face to face with incidents of a most dramatic character. The scene at Canossa is the most familiar of these, but there was also the no less humiliating spectacle later at the portals of St. Mark’s in Venice, when Frederick Barbarossa sought a reconciliation with Alexander III, followed almost a hundred years later by the tragic end of the last of the Hohenstaufen. These events, dramatic as they appear, serve rather to mark the progress of the long struggle than as epitomes of its results. These must be sought in the relative position and influence of the Church and empire in Europe at the end of the period. Although both reached the apogee of their power and influence during this period, the middle of the thirteenth century marks the period of their decline. This decay was more marked at first in the case of the empire, which practically ceased to exist in name. The time, however, was not far distant when the papacy, too, was to enter the valley of humiliation and drink to the dregs the bitter cup which it had put to the lips of its great adversary. “One generation more and the same nation which had sent an army to defend its cause in Italy was to strike it in the face with the iron glove of one of its own subjects, and was then to capture it and hold it, an ignominious tool for political ends during a century more.”[6] These facts, with a more detailed statement of the various symptoms of decay, should be impressed upon the student as the teacher brings the period to a close.
Literature.
The account of the three phases of the struggle as given by Grant in his “Outlines of European History,” is especially to be recommended for its brevity, clearness, simplicity and comprehensiveness; also Chapter X in Adams’s “Civilization During the Middle Ages,” which summarizes the struggle from a slightly different standpoint. Portraits of the main actors are to be found in Bemont and Monod’s “Medieval Europe from 395 to 1270”; Tout, “Empire and Papacy,” and Emerton, “Medieval Europe” (814-1300). These books are also valuable for their details of the struggle. There is abundant source material in Robinson, Ogg, and Thatcher and McNeal to make clear the attitude of the popes, notably of Gregory VII and the various treaties and compromises which mark the different stages of the struggle. In some cases contemporary accounts are given of the struggle itself, e. g., of the scene at Canossa. In this connection mention might be made of the description of this scene by Dr. Jaeger as an illustration of the narrative method of presentation as employed by the German schoolmaster.[7]
English History in the Secondary School
C. B. NEWTON, Editor.