SACRED ROMAN EMPIRE. - I. CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE.
It was founded by Charlemagne, King of the Franks, of the Lombards, and Patrician of Rome, who assumed the imperial crown at the hands of Pope Leo III on Christmas night, 800, in the basilica of St. Peter in Rome. This was the culmination of all of Charlemagne’s military achievements: with the subjugation of the Lombards and the Saxons, he had fulfilled the program of the Merovingian monarchy, namely the unification of all the Germanic tribes under Frankish hegemony.
This immense barbarian state, whose king imposed the Christian faith upon all, appeared to educated eyes as providentially ordained: a defense of Christendom, a propagation of the faith. Charlemagne was regarded as the leader of the Christian people and the renewer of the Roman Empire. Alcuin and the other scholars of the Frankish court insist strongly on the virtually imperial character of Charlemagne’s kingdom; they affirm that the prosperity of Charlemagne is indispensable to the well-being of Christendom and pray that he may long govern the Empire. Charlemagne, moreover, had for many years adopted attitudes more reminiscent of the Byzantine emperors than of his Merovingian predecessors: he concerned himself with religious matters, from liturgy and worship to the organization of the Church and doctrine; like Constantine and Justinian, he already appeared as *rex et sacerdos*.
The coronation ceremony followed the Byzantine rite: coronation by the Pope, adoration and acclamation by the Pope himself, the Roman nobility, and the people of Rome. On this occasion, Charlemagne wore the imperial robes of ancient Rome; in the bullae of his diplomas was inscribed: *Renovatio Romani Imperii*, and in the protocol of the diplomas he used the formula *Augustus... Romanorum imperium gubernantis*; on his coins he appeared with the diadem on his head and the Roman mantle over his shoulders. In both Roman and Frankish circles it was now said that the Roman Empire had been renewed.
The Roman element in Charlemagne’s imperial construction remained vague and entirely external. After a stay of only a few months, Charlemagne left Rome and never returned to Italy. His political authority was always tied to his status as King of the Franks and of the Lombards; he regarded the Empire as a kind of high magistracy of a moral and religious nature, which would dominate the entire Christian world and impose peace and order upon II. This conception is solemnly affirmed in the great Capitulary of 802: justice was to be the program of government, and all officials of the Frankish state were to be inspired by this ideal. Substantially, it cannot be said that Charlemagne adopted new ideas in domestic policy after 800, but certainly this religious and moral mission was rendered more authoritative and solemn by its connection with the imperial and Christian Roman tradition.
The Roman coronation provoked lively protests from the government of Constantinople. Charlemagne sought to deflect the accusations by negotiating a marriage with Empress Irene; after her fall, he resumed negotiations with Emperor Nicephorus, which failed, leading to open war on the eastern frontier (especially in the Adriatic). Only in 811 was an agreement reached: Charlemagne was recognized as emperor by the Byzantine emperor, and thereafter there existed between them *societas* (alliance) and *amicitia* (cordiality). Once this issue was resolved, Charlemagne could turn to the question of succession; in 806 he had already divided the kingdoms among his sons, and in 813 he himself crowned his son Louis as co-emperor in the basilica of Aachen (2 September).
Louis the Pious succeeded his father (28 January 814) in the same capacity as King of the Franks and of the Lombards and as Roman Emperor. In 816 he consented to a repetition of the coronation by Pope Stephen V, who had been brought expressly to Reims, and at this time the rite of unction with holy oils was introduced: the Pope affirmed that his intervention was necessary to perfect the coronation ceremony. Louis assumed the title *divina ordinante providentia imperator augustus* without any reference to Rome. Was this perhaps a clause of the Franco-Byzantine agreement? Louis’s imperial policy was the same as his father’s. Yet already the question of the relationship between the Frankish kingdom and the Empire was being debated: how was the indivisibility of imperial power to be reconciled with the divisibility of Frankish lands? The problem was resolved by Louis the Pious’s *Ordinatio Imperii* of July 817: the eldest son, Lothar, would succeed to the Empire with the bulk of the territories, while the younger sons would each receive a kingdom, but in dependence upon the eldest. The *Ordinatio* was approved at the Diets of Nijmegen and Thionville (821). Lothar was crowned by his father in Aachen in 817; in 823, descending into Italy, he was crowned in Rome by the Pope, who thus reaffirmed the necessity of papal intervention for the perfection of the coronation. In 825, Lothar was associated by his father in the government. This unitary conception of the Empire, which acquired territorial significance, had been proposed by Louis’s minister, Wala, Abbot of Corbie.
In the civil strife occasioned by the need to assign a domain to Charles the Bald, son of Louis’s second marriage, and then in the conflicts that broke out after Louis’s death among his sons, the unitary conception of Louis, with the primacy of the eldest prince, disappeared. After the Treaty of Verdun (843), the Carolingian princes established among themselves, with the division of the Empire, a regime of fraternity, a permanent alliance based on brotherhood, with the aim of preserving peace.
Lothar I retained only an honorary preeminence, thanks to the imperial title. In 850 he had his son Louis II crowned and consecrated emperor by the Pope, but with him the imperial dignity became an empty title without substance. After Louis’s death (875), the Pope intervened actively in the matter of the imperial title; subsequently, Charles the Bald, Carloman of Germany, and Charles the Fat were crowned—Charles the Fat in 884 reunited in his hands all of Charlemagne’s Empire, since all the Carolingians had died. But now centralization was but a dream: France, Germany, and Italy lived autonomous lives, and with the death of Charles the Fat (13 January 888) the great Empire suffered its final collapse, having faltered between a mere spiritual unity and territorial reality. After 888 there were still attempts in Italy to recreate the Empire: Guido of Spoleto, Arnulf of Germany, Louis of Provence, and Berengar I had themselves crowned in Rome by the Pope, but their title was now meaningless; the political base was too weak to reassert the imperial principle.
II. GERMAN EMPIRE
This term denotes the medieval Christian Empire created by Otto I, King of Germany, through his imperial coronation in St Peter’s, Rome, on 2 February 962 at the hands of Pope John XII, and dissolved by Emperor Francis II of Lorraine with his declaration of 6 August 1806.
Ideologically, the Ottonian Empire was linked to the Carolingian Empire, whose nostalgic memory had not vanished from the ecclesiastical and learned classes; yet its territorial base was now simply the German-Italian complex, to which Burgundy was later added through the annexation under Conrad II in 1032. The expression “Holy Empire” appears already in the age of Frederick Barbarossa (1132–1190); the expression “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” appears under Maximilian I (1493–1519).
In its origins the Romano-German Empire was a semi-religious civil dignity distinct from the monarchical institutions of the three kingdoms: the Roman coronation established its link with tradition, the consecration affirmed its spiritual character, and its Germanness was evident in the fact that the imperial dignity could be transmitted only to princes elected kings of Germany.
The election as King of Germany and future Emperor took place in the Diet of the Empire, to which all the lay and ecclesiastical feudatories of Germany were summoned. By the late twelfth century, among the feudatories there emerged the princes, namely the feudal lords who depended directly on the crown; the others took part no longer to decide but to assent. In the thirteenth century the exclusive right of election was restricted to the few princes who held the high court offices. During the Interregnum (1254–72) the theory of the electors was clarified: mention is made of the bishops of Mainz, Cologne and Trier, the chancellors of the three kingdoms; the Count Palatine of the Rhine, steward; the Duke of Saxony, marshal; the Margrave of Brandenburg, chamberlain; and there is discussion of the King of Bohemia, cupbearer, though not German. Disputes continued over the number of electors and their electoral rights until the Golden Bull of Charles IV (1356), which laid down the rules: the election should take place at Frankfurt, by majority vote, the electors being the three ecclesiastical princes and four lay princes—the Duke of Bavaria, the Duke of Saxony, the King of Bohemia and the Margrave of Brandenburg. In 1648, by the Treaty of Westphalia, the Count Palatine of the Rhine was recognized as the eighth elector; in 1692 the Prince of Brunswick-Lüneburg was declared the ninth elector.
The Empire was thus traditionally acknowledged as elective in law, though in practice heredity was imposed by the dominant houses, leaving the electors only the right to assent. Thus the emperors belonged to few dynasties: the Saxon (942–1003), the Franconian (1024–1125), the Swabian (1137–1254), the Luxemburg (1347–1437), the Habsburg (1437–1740) and the Lorraine (1743–1806). The princes rebelled against heredity only at the death of Henry VI (1197); the principle of election was reaffirmed in the elections of Henry II (1004), Lothair III (1125), Otto IV (1198) and Henry VII (1308). The electors divided between rival claimants: in 1125 between Lothair III and Frederick; in 1198 between Otto IV and Philip of Swabia; in 1256 between Alfonso of Castile and Richard of Cornwall; in 1314 between Louis of Bavaria and Frederick of Austria. From the early twelfth century it became customary to designate the King of Germany, already crowned at Aachen and designated for imperial election, with the title of King of the Romans; Frederick Barbarossa introduced the practice of having the future successor designated in the Kingdom and Empire also with the title of King of the Romans, and from the thirteenth century this title came to replace in usage the title of King of Germany. Some emperors not crowned in Rome retained the title of King of the Romans for life: Philip of Swabia (1198–1207), Henry Raspe (1246–1277), William of Holland (1247–1260), Alfonso of Castile (1256–1284) and his rival Richard of Cornwall (1256–1272); likewise the kings of the late thirteenth century, Rudolph of Habsburg, Adolph of Nassau and Albert of Habsburg (1272–1308), then Rupert, Count Palatine (1400–1410) and Albert II (1437–1439). Maximilian of Habsburg obtained from Julius II the title of Emperor Elect (Erwählter Kaiser).
Usually there were three coronations: at Aachen as King of Germany, at Milan (or Monza) as King of Italy, and at Rome as Emperor. Some sovereigns also went to Burgundy to be crowned King there. The last emperor crowned King of Italy at Milan was Charles IV (1356); Frederick III was the last emperor crowned at Rome (1452); Charles V was the last emperor crowned by the Pope in Italy, at Bologna in St Petronius (1530). Thereafter, from Ferdinand of Habsburg onwards, a single coronation at Frankfurt was used, since the Empire and the German Kingdom had become one and the same.
The imperial coronation had a mystical significance and a juridical value and was necessary to perfect the assumption of the throne. Since the Ottonian tradition established that it should take place through the Pope, the latter claimed the right to approve the royal election held in Germany and therefore the right of choice in case of contested elections between two claimants. This right was vigorously asserted by Innocent III against the German princes and by John XXII against Louis of Bavaria. The coronation included the taking of an oath of fidelity to the Pope, the anointing with holy oils, the delivery of the sword, sceptre, ring and, from the thirteenth century, also the orb; ordained subdeacon, the new emperor assisted the Pope at the celebration of Mass, participated as a sacred person in Communion under both kinds (though not after the fifteenth century), and was received as a canon by the chapters of St Peter’s in the Vatican and of St John Lateran.
The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation inherited the Carolingian politico-religious conceptions: namely, the defence of the Church and orthodoxy, the preservation of peace, the promotion of justice and faith against internal enemies (heretics) and external ones (infidels). From this religious conception there sprang a political conception: all Christendom was subject to the Empire by right; the emperor was the moral head of the Christian people and the source of law, the universal organ of justice. These conceptions were developed by imperialist politicians and jurists, from Peter Crassus to Dante (De Monarchia, Divine Comedy) and Bartolus of Saxoferrato.
Such concepts inevitably became the starting point for an exaggerated conceptual system. While in theory the Gelasian doctrine of the distinction between Church and Empire prevailed, with the Church having precedence by virtue of its charismatic office, Otto I claimed the right to appoint popes and bishops without distinguishing between spiritual and temporal elements. Otto III departed from this tradition by envisaging a Christian-Roman Empire in which Church and Empire were identified; yet in practice he too did not depart from caesaropapism. Under the emperors of the eleventh century these tendencies became more pronounced: Henry II had an almost priestly concept of the imperial office, presided over councils and promoted the moral reform of the Church; caesaropapism presented itself in its most religious aspect.
Under Conrad II the problem was viewed politically: the aim was the subjection of all lay and ecclesiastical powers to the emperor. Henry III gathered the fundamental motives of his predecessors’ religious policy, but the reforming activity pursued by the Empire with severity provoked the reaction of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which in the Gregorian Dictatus Papae found the hierocratic programme and the assertion of the superiority of religious authority over the civil.
Between the two opposing tendencies the contrast appears in the question of investitures: the Church wishes to affirm its moral autonomy and religious freedom, freeing itself from the ties by which, through feudalization, it has been subordinated to civil authority. The imperialists uphold the rights of the Empire as indicated by historical tradition: concord between Church and State, protection and control of the Papacy by the Empire. The irreconcilability of the two theses leads to a discussion of a clear separation of the spiritual from the temporal, but nowhere is there any willingness to risk an antitraditional solution: the Church cannot do without the civil element, the Empire must rely on the Church. The Concordat of Worms (1122) is a provisional compromise between Callistus II and Henry V, often violated by their successors. Thus the struggle resumes between Frederick Barbarossa and Alexander III: Papacy and Empire oppose each other as two universal monarchies contending for world dominion; there are disputes of a territorial nature, the Matildine lands, the territories of central Italy, and then the very grave issue of the conquest of the Kingdom of Sicily by the Empire, which involves the danger for the Papacy of being encircled and struck in its political and religious independence. But theoretical questions are also debated: whether the Empire is a papal benefice, whether the pope can claim to scrutinize the election and conduct of the emperor.
In the imperial schism between Otto IV and Philip, Pope Innocent III asserts his superiority through translation (principaliter) and coronation (finaliter), then affirms rights ratione peccati. Frederick II, to the popes who claim that the Christus rex et sacerdos of the order of Melchisedech transmitted to the Apostle Peter the spiritual power to be exercised directly and the temporal power to be exercised through princes, opposes the Ghibelline theory of distinction: imperial power comes directly from God; to the prince the right and duty to protect Christendom and the Church. Innocent IV responds by excommunicating the Emperor, deposing him, absolving his subjects from their oath of loyalty, and inviting the princes to elect another emperor.
The contrast abates during the interregnum: rival princes turn to the Pope as arbiter, Rudolph of Habsburg renounces traditional territorial claims, but it revives under Boniface VIII, who imposes his superiority on Albert of Habsburg; Clement V first favors Henry VII in his coronation journey, but then in the Emperor’s action against the King of Naples discerns a new danger to papal independence and reaffirms the ancient superiority. Thus John XXII
claims to govern the Empire during the new civil war in Germany, entrusting its vicariate to the King of Naples. Louis the Bavarian vigorously opposes papal excommunications; exploiting the democratic conceptions of Marsilius of Padua, he organizes his own coronation in Rome by the Roman people, deposes John XXII, and replaces him with an antipope. The prince-electors assembled at Rhense (16 July 1338) swear to defend the liberties, rights, and customs of the Empire, proclaim that the imperial dignity derives directly from God, and declare unjustified the papal sentences against the Emperor. In the “Golden Bull” of 1356 no further mention is made of papal right. Now the struggle between Papacy and Empire languishes and is taken up only by canonists and jurists; imperial coronations in the 15th century no longer provoke discussion or controversy: they are mere ceremonies.
The Empire retains great importance in European politics because it continues to be the symbol of European moral unity; then the primacy of the emperor wanes and becomes merely a right of precedence in ceremonial, not always recognized or respected.
The Empire’s relations with Italy change over the centuries. In the 11th century the Kingdom of Italy is included in the Holy Roman Empire as a conquest of the German king. The emperors from the 11th to the 12th centuries aim to consolidate the conquest of the peninsula by fighting Arabs, Byzantines, and Normans. The problem is resolved with the conquest by Henry VI. The organization of Italy in the 10th century is entrusted to the great marches; in the 11th century their feudalization determines the imperial reaction. Now the emperors favor the lesser feudal lords and the cities, but then the autonomist tendencies of the cities provoke the opposition of Frederick Barbarossa, who seeks to subject the cities directly to imperial potestas. The Treaty of Constance (1183) recognizes the consular civic organization from which develops an entire system of independent civic government. After the battle of Cortenuova, Frederick II plans the organization of Italy with general, regional, and municipal imperial vicariates; all this vanishes after his death. Henry VII resumes the plan, but now the system of vicariates is reconciled with the system of democratic-based signorie that have arisen in the communes; later, in the 15th century, the signoria-vicariate, with the adoption of feudal titles, enters the imperial feudal hierarchical system. The Empire retains in juridical tradition special rights (reservata iura) and in several Italian states still in the 17th–18th centuries asserts fiscal and jurisdictional rights.
The organization of the Empire was always rudimentary, of a feudal type. Otto II briefly considered a Roman organization, creating a definitive capital in Rome with a Byzantine-style court. Attempts at centralized feudal organization were made by Frederick Barbarossa and Henry VI. Under Frederick II the centrifugal tendencies already prevail in Germany through the free cities and territorial princes. The anarchy of the interregnum makes the need for a prince who represents peace and order keenly felt, but the elections of Rudolph and Henry VII bring to the throne princes concerned only with building their own states. The “Golden Bull” of 1356 was the recognition of the autonomy of the princes to reorganize the Empire, creating a political system that reconciles imperial authority, the power of the princes, and the autonomies of the cities. Discussions are liveliest under Maximilian (Diet of Augsburg, 1500). The reorganizing policy seems to become the ideal of Charles V, but the princes mask their separatist tendencies with the protection of Lutheranism. To the imperial diets of Speyer (1529) and Augsburg (1530) the League of Smalcald responds. The struggle between centralization and separatism culminates in the Peace of Augsburg (1555); the religious liberty granted to the princes is the recognition that the Empire is divided into the Corpus Evangelicum and the Corpus Catholicum; the Empire loses its unity; the independence of the princes is strengthened. The Thirty Years’ War is the last attempt to save the Empire; it fails because of the intervention of anti-Habsburg forces from Swabia and France. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) confirms absolute independence on all German princes, granting them the right to make peace and war and to conclude alliances.