Teutonic settlers, and they continued during the ages of CHAP. XII. Lombard and Frankish rule in Italy to regard the East Roman sovereign as the representative of their ancient masters. Charles the Great acknowledged by treaty their dependence on the East; and in the tenth century, when summoned to submit to Otto II, they had said, 'We wish to be the servants of the Emperors of the Romans' (the Constantinopolitan). Their fleet, joined with a force of Frankish Crusaders, overthrew this very throne in A.D. 1204, but the pretext of allegiance to the East had served its turn, and had aided them in defying or evading the demands of obedience made by the Teutonic princes. Alone of all the Italian republics, Venice never, down to her extinction by France and Austria in A.D. 1797, recognized within her bounds any secular Western authority save her own.

The kings of Cyprus and Armenia sent to Henry VI to The East. confess themselves his vassals and ask his help. Over remote Eastern lands, where Frankish foot had never trode, Frederick Barbarossa asserted the indestructible rights of Rome, mistress of the world. A letter to Saladin, amusing from its absolute identification of his own Empire with that which had sent Crassus to perish in Parthia, and had blushed to see Mark Antony 'consulem nostrum' at the feet of Cleopatra, is preserved by Hoveden: it bids the Soldan withdraw at once from the dominions of Rome, else will she, with her new Teutonic defenders, of whom a pompous list follows, drive him from them with all her ancient might."

" It is not necessary to prove this letter to have been the composition of Frederick or his ministers. If it be (as it doubtless is) contemporary, it is equally to the purpose as an evidence of the feelings and ideas of the age. As its authenticity has been questioned, I may mention that it is to be found not only in Hoveden, but also in the ‘Itinerarium regis Ricardi,' in Ralph de Diceto, and in the Chronicon Terrae Sanctae.' See Dr. Stubbs' edition of Hoveden, vol. ii. p. 356.

CHAP. XII.

The Byzantine Emperors.

Dignities

and titles.

Unwilling as were the great kingdoms of Western Europe to admit the territorial supremacy of the Emperor, the proudest among them never refused, until the end of the Middle Ages, to recognize his precedence and address him in a tone of respectful deference. Very different was the attitude of the East Roman princes, who denied his claim to be an Emperor at all. The separate existence of the Eastern Church and Empire was always, as has been said above, a blemish in the title of the Teutonic sovereigns. But it was even more. It was a continuing protest against the whole system of an Empire Church of Christendom, centring in Rome, ruled by the successor of Peter and the successor of Augustus. Instead of the one Pope and one Emperor whom mediaeval theory presented as the sole earthly representatives of the invisible Head of the Church, the world saw itself distracted by the interminable feud of rivals, each of whom had much to allege on his behalf. It was easy for the Latins to call the Easterns schismatics and their Emperor an usurper, but practically it was impossible to dethrone him or reduce them to obedience - indeed the Teutonic sovereigns never made a serious claim to the provinces in which Greek was spoken-nor could the Eastern Church be treated, even in controversy, with the contempt that any Western schismatics would have incurred. But as the East Roman Empire is treated of in a separate chapter, it is sufficient here to indicate this one conspicuous exception to the general recognition of imperial supremacy.

Though Otto the Great and his successors had dropped all titles save the highest, they did not therefore endeavour to unite their several kingdoms, but continued to go through four distinct coronations at the four capitals of their Empire. These are concisely given in the verses

* See Appendix, Note C.

of Godfrey of Viterbo, a notary of Frederick's house- CHAP. XII. hold:

'Primus Aquisgrani locus est, post haec Arelati,

Inde Modoetiae regali sede locari

Post solet Italiae summa corona dari :

Caesar Romano cum vult diademate fungi

Debet apostolicis manibus reverenter inungi.'

crowns.

By the crowning at Aachen, the old Frankish capital, the The four monarch became 'king'; formerly 'king of the Franks,' or 'king of the Eastern Franks'; now, since Henry II's time, 'king of the Romans, always Augustus.' At Monza (or, more rarely, at Milan) in later times, at Pavia in earlier times, he became king of Italy, or of the Lombards; at Rome he received the double crown of the Roman Empire, 'double,' says Godfrey, as 'urbis et orbis':

'Hoc quicunque tenet, summus in orbe sedet;'

though others hold that, uniting the mitre to the crown, it typifies spiritual as well as secular authority. The crown of Burgundy or the kingdom of Arles, first gained by Conrad II, was a much less splendid matter, and carried with it little effective power. Most Emperors never assumed it at all, Frederick I not till late in life, when an interval of leisure left him nothing better to do. These four crowns furnish matter of endless discussion to the

b

Godefr. Viterb., Pantheon, M. G. H., Script. xxii. p. 221.

* It has been thought that the taking of the crown of Italy - it was pretty regularly taken from Henry II's time, but whether by Otto II and Otto III is less clear- was a recognition of the separate nationality of Italy. But the fact that there had been a separate kingdom in Italy ever since Alboin's invasion made the crown seem to give some fuller, or more direct, rights to the person who obtained it than he enjoyed simply as Emperor. Italy, though a part of the Empire, had not been merged in Germany.

a See Appendix, Note A.

b Some, says Marquard Freher, add a fifth crown, of Germany (making that of Aachen Frankish), supposed to belong to Regensburg.

CHAP. XII.

Meaning of the four coronations.

old writers; they tell us that the Roman was golden, the German silver, the Italian iron, the metal corresponding to the dignity of each realm. Others say that that of Aachen is iron, and the Italian silver, and give elaborate reasons why it should be so. There seems to be no doubt that the allegory created the fact, and that all three crowns were of gold (or gilded silver), though in that of Italy there was and is inserted a piece of iron, a nail, it was believed, of the true Cross.

Why, it may well be asked, seeing that the Roman crown made the Emperor ruler of the whole habitable globe, was it thought necessary for him to add to it minor. dignities which might be supposed to have been already included in this supreme one? The reason seems to be that the imperial office was conceived of as something different in kind from the regal, and as carrying with it not the immediate government of any particular kingdom, but a general suzerainty over and right of controlling all. Of this a pertinent illustration is afforded by an anecdote told of Frederick Barbarossa. Happening once to inquire of the famous jurists who surrounded him whether it was really true that he was 'lord of the world' (dominus mundi), one of them simply assented, another, Bulgarus, answered, 'Not as respects ownership' (non quantum ad dominium). In this dictum, which is evidently conform

с

'Dy erste ist tho Aken: dar kronet men mit der Yseren Krone, so is he Konig over alle Dudesche Ryke. Dy andere tho Meylan, de is Sulvern, so is he Here der Walen. Dy drüdde is tho Rome; dy is guldin, so is he Keyser over alle dy Werlt.' Gloss to the Sachsenspiegel, quoted by Pfeffinger. Similarly Peter de Andlau.

₫ Cf. Gewoldus, De Septemviratu imperii Romani. One would expect some ingenious allegorizer to have discovered that the crown of Burgundy must be, and therefore is, of copper or bronze, making the series complete, like the four ages of men in Hesiod. But I have not been able to find any such.

able to the philosophical theory of the Empire, we have CHAP. XII. a pointed distinction drawn between feudal sovereignty, which supposes the prince original owner of the soil of his whole kingdom, and imperial sovereignty, which is irrespective of place and exercised not over things but over men, as God's rational creatures. But the Emperor, as has been said already, was also the East Frankish king, uniting in himself, to use the legal phrase, two wholly distinct persons,' and hence he might acquire more direct and practically useful rights over a portion of his dominions by being crowned king of that portion, just as a feudal monarch often came to be count of lordships whereof he was already feudal superior; or, to take a better illustration, just as a bishop may hold livings in his own diocese. That the Emperors, while continuing to be crowned at Milan and Aachen, did not in practice call themselves kings of the Lombards and of the Franks, was probably merely because these titles seemed insignificant compared to that of Roman Emperor.

not assumed till

In this supreme title, as has been said, all lesser honours 'Emperor' were blent and lost, but custom or prejudice forbade the German king to assume it till actually crowned at Rome the Roman by the Pope. Matters of phrase and title are never unim- coronation. portant, least of all in an age not only uncritical but also superstitiously attached to forms and precedents and this restriction had the most important consequences. The reverence for Rome as the ancient seat of power, and the

• Hence the numbers attached to the names of the Emperors are often different in German and Italian writers, the latter reckoning neither Henry the Fowler nor Conrad I. So Henry III (of Germany) calls himself 'Imperator Henricus Secundus'; and all distinguish the years of their regnum from those of their imperium. Cardinal Baronius insists on calling Henry V Henry III, not recognizing Henry IV's coronation, because it was performed by an antipope.