Holy Roman Empire

SACRO ROMANO IMPERO. —

I. CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE

This immense barbarian State, whose king imposed the Christian faith on all, appeared in the eyes of educated people as providential: the defence of Christendom, the propagation of the faith. Charles was regarded as the head of the Christian people and the renewer of the I. Alcuin and the other men of letters at the Frankish court insist greatly on the virtually imperial character of Charles’s Kingdom; they affirm

that Charlemagne’s prosperity is indispensable to the I. of Christendom, and express the wish that he might remain for a long time at the government of the I. Charles had, moreover, for many years adopted attitudes more like those of the Byzantine emperors than those of his Merovingian predecessors: he concerned himself with religious questions, from the liturgy and worship to ecclesiastical organisation and dogma; like Constantine and Justinian, he already appeared as rex et sacerdos.

The coronation ceremony took place according to the Byzantine ritual: coronation by the Pope, followed by adoration and acclamation by the Pope himself, the Roman nobility, and the people of Rome. On the occasion, Charles had put on Roman imperial vestments; in the bulls of his diplomas was written: Renovatio Romani Imperii, while in the protocol of the diplomas he used the formula Augustus... Romanorum imperium gubernans; on the coins he appeared with the diadem on his head and the Roman mantle over his shoulders. In Roman and Frankish circles it was now said that the Roman I. had been renewed.

The Roman element in Charles’s imperial construction remained vague and entirely external. After a stay of a few months, Charles left Rome and never returned to Italy. His political authority was always linked to his status as king of the Franks and Lombards; he regarded the I. as a kind of high magistracy of a moral and religious nature, exercising dominion over the entire Christian world and imposing peace and order upon II. This conception is solemnly affirmed in the great Capitulary of 802: justice was to be the programme of government, and all the officials of the Frankish State were to be inspired by this ideal. Substantially, it cannot be said that Charles adopted new ideas in domestic politics after 800, but certainly this religious and moral mission now became more authoritative and more solemn, because it was connected with the Roman imperial and Christian tradition.

The Roman coronation provoked vigorous protests from the government of Constantinople. Charles attempted to ward off the accusations by negotiating a marriage with Irene; after the Empress’s fall, he resumed negotiations with the emperor Nicephorus, and when these failed, open war broke out along the eastern frontier, especially in the Adriatic. Only in 812 was an understanding reached: Charles was recognised as emperor by the Byzantine Emperor; there was now societas (alliance) and amicitia (cordiality) between the two. Once the question had been settled, Charles was able to provide for the succession; in 806 he had divided the Kingdoms among his sons, and in 813 he himself crowned his son Louis emperor and colleague in the basilica of Aachen (2 Sept.).

Louis the Pious succeeded his father (28 Jan. 814) in the same position as king of the Franks and Lombards and Roman emperor. In 816 he consented to the coronation being repeated by Pope Stephen V, who had specially travelled to Reims, and it was then that the rite of anointing with sacred oils was introduced: the Pope asserted that his intervention was necessary to perfect the coronation ceremony. Louis assumed the title dissina ordinante providentia imperator augustus, without mentioning Rome. Was this perhaps a clause of the Frankish-Byzantine agreement? Louis’s imperial policy was the same as his father’s. But discussion had already begun concerning the relations between the Frankish Kingdom and the I.: how could the indivisibility of imperial power be reconciled with the divisibility of the Frankish domains? The problem was resolved by Louis the Pious’s Ordinatio Imperii of July 817: the successor in the I. was to be his eldest son Lothair, with most of the territories; the younger sons were each to receive a kingdom, but in dependence on the elder. The Ordinatio was approved at the Diets of Nijmegen and Thionville (821). Lothair was crowned by his father at Aachen as early as 817; in 823, having descended into Italy, he was crowned in Rome by the Pope, who thus reaffirmed the necessity of his intervention for the perfection of the coronation. In 825 Lothair was associated by his father in the government. This unitary conception of the I., which was acquiring territorial significance, had been proposed by Louis’s minister, Wala, the abbot of Corbie.

In the civil struggles brought about by the need to assign a domain to Charles the Bald, Louis’s son by his second marriage, and then in those that broke out after Louis’s death among his sons, the Lothairian unitary conception, with the primacy of the eldest of the princes, disappeared. After the Treaty of Verdun (843), the Carolingian princes established, with the disappearance of the I., a regime of fraternity, a permanent alliance based on brotherhood, for the purpose of preserving peace.

Lothair I retained only an honorary pre-eminence, 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 merely an empty title without substance. After Louis’s death (873), the Pope intervened actively in the history of the imperial title; subsequently Charles the Bald, Carloman of Germany, and Charles the Fat were crowned. In 884, through the deaths of all the Carolingians, Charles the Fat reunited in his hands the entire I. of Charlemagne. But centralisation was now a dream: France, Germany, and Italy lived autonomous lives, and with the death of Charles the Fat (13 Jan. 888) came the definitive disintegration of the great I., which had failed because it wavered between simple spiritual unity and territorial reality. After 888, further attempts were made in Italy to recreate the I.: Guy of Spoleto, Arnulf of Germany, Louis of Provence, and Berengar I had themselves crowned in Rome by the Pope, but by then their title was useless; the political foundation was too weak to reassert the imperial principle.

The election of the king of Germany and future emperor took place in the Diet of the Empire, attended by all the lay and ecclesiastical feudal lords of Germany. At the end of the twelfth century, the princes emerged among the feudal lords, that is, the feudal lords directly dependent on the crown; the others attended no longer to decide but to give their assent. In the thirteenth century, the exclusive right of election was restricted to the few princes who held the highest offices at court. During the interregnum (1254–72), the theory of the electors took definite shape: mention was made of the bishops of Mainz, Cologne, and Trier, the chancellors—that is, of the three Kingdoms—the count palatine of the Rhine, the seneschal; the duke of Saxony, the marshal; the margrave of Brandenburg, the chamberlain; the king of Bohemia, the cupbearer, was discussed, but he was not German. The number of electors and the electoral rights of the various dynasties continued to be debated until the “Golden Bull” of Charles IV (1356), which established the regulations: the election was to take place at Frankfurt, by majority vote; the electors were to be the three ecclesiastical princes and four laymen—the duke of Bavaria, the duke of Saxony, the king of Bohemia, and the margrave of Brandenburg. In 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia recognized the count palatine of the Rhine as the eighth elector; in 1692, the prince of Brunswick-Lüneburg was declared the ninth elector.

The Empire was therefore traditionally recognized as elective by right, although in practice heredity was imposed by the predominant houses, which left the electors only the right to give their consent. Thus the emperors belonged to a few dynasties: the Saxon (942–1003), the Franconian (1024–1125), the Swabian (1137–1254), the Luxembourg (1347–1437), the Habsburg (1437–1740), and the Lorraine (1745–1806). The princes rebelled against heredity only upon the death of Henry VI (1197); the principle of election was reaffirmed in the election of Henry II (1004), Lothair III (1125), Otto IV (1198), and Henry VII (1308). The electors divided themselves among different 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; and in 1314, between Louis the Bavarian and Frederick of Habsburg. From the beginning of the twelfth century, the title King of the Romans was used to designate the king of Germany already crowned at Aachen and designated for the imperial election; Frederick Barbarossa introduced the practice of having the future successor in the Kingdom and in the Empire likewise designated by the title King of the Romans, and from the thirteenth century this title eventually replaced the title King of Germany in common usage. Some emperors who were not crowned in Rome retained the title King of the Romans throughout their lives, such as Philip of Swabia (1198–1207), Henry Raspe (1246–47), William of Holland (1247–58), Alfonso of Castile (1256–84), and his rival Richard of Cornwall (1256–72). The same was true of the kings at the end of the thirteenth century—Rudolf of Habsburg, Adolphus of Nassau, and Albert of Habsburg (1272–1308)—and later of Rupert, count palatine (1400–10), and Albert II (1437–39). Maximilian of Habsburg obtained from Julius II the right to call himself Imperator electus (Erwählter Kaiser).

Usually there were three coronations: at Aachen, as king of Germany; at Milan (or Monza), as king of Italy; and in Rome, as emperor. Some 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 in Rome (1452); Charles V was the last Emperor crowned by the Pope in Italy, at Bologna, in St. Petronius (1530). Thereafter, beginning with Ferdinand of Habsburg, a single coronation at Frankfurt became customary, because the Empire and the German Kingdom had by then become one.

The imperial coronation had a mystical significance and juridical value, and was necessary to complete the assumption of the throne. Since the Ottonian tradition established that it should be carried out by the Pope, the Pope claimed the right to approve the royal election held in Germany and hence the right to choose in the event of a disputed election between two claimants. This right was vigorously defended 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, anointing with the sacred oils, and the delivery of the sword, scepter, and ring, followed from the thirteenth century onward by the orb as well. Having been ordained subdeacon, the new emperor assisted the Pope in celebrating Mass and, as a sacred person, participated in Communion under both Species (though no longer in the fifteenth century); he was received as a canon by the Chapters of St. Peter in the Vatican and of St. John Lateran.

The German Roman Empire inherited the Carolingian political-religious conceptions: namely, the defense of the Church and of orthodoxy, the preservation of peace, and the promotion of justice and faith against internal enemies (heretics) and external enemies (infidels). From this religious conception arose a political conception: all Christendom was de iure subject to the Empire; 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 political thinkers and jurists, from Peter Crassus to Dante (De monarchia, Divina Commedia), and to Bartolus of Sassoferrato.

Such concepts inevitably had to serve as the starting point for a caesaropapist conceptual system. While in theory the Gelasian doctrine of distinction prevailed, with the Church predominant on account of its charismatic office, Otto I claimed the right to elect popes and bishops without distinguishing between the spiritual and temporal elements. Otto III departed from this tradition by envisioning a Christian Roman Empire in which Church and Empire were identified; in practice, however, he too did not move away from caesaropapism. Under the emperors of the eleventh century, these tendencies asserted themselves more forcefully: Henry II held an almost priestly conception of the imperial office—he presided over councils and promoted the moral reform of the Church; caesaropapism appeared in its most religious form.

Under Conrad II, the problem was viewed politically: the aim was to subject all lay and ecclesiastical powers to the emperor. Henry III gathered together the fundamental motives of his predecessors’ religious policy, but the reforming activity carried out by the Empire with severity provoked a reaction from the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which found in the Gregorian Dictatus Papae its hierocratic program and its affirmation of the superiority of religious authority over civil authority.

Between the two opposing tendencies, the conflict appears in the question of investitures: the Church seeks to assert its moral autonomy and religious freedom, freeing itself from the ties which, through feudalization, have subordinated it to civil authority. The imperialists uphold the rights of the Empire as indicated by historical tradition: harmony between Church and State, and the protection and control of the Papacy by the Empire. The irreconcilability of the two theses leads to discussion of a clear separation of the spiritual from the temporal, but neither side is willing to risk an antitraditionalist solution: the Church cannot do without the civil element, and the Empire must rely upon the Church. The Concordat of Worms (1122) is a provisional transaction between Callistus II and Henry V; their successors often violated II. Thus the struggle resumes between Frederick Barbarossa and Alexander III: the Empire and the Papacy oppose one another as two universal monarchies contending for dominion over the world; there are territorial disputes concerning the Matildine lands and the territories of central Italy, and then comes the most serious dispute, that over the Empire’s conquest of the Kingdom of Sicily, which entails the danger that the Papacy may be encircled and struck in its political and religious independence. But theoretical questions are also debated: whether the Empire is a papal benefice, and whether the pope may claim the right to scrutinize the election and conduct of the emperor.

In the imperial schism between Otto IV and Philip, Pope Innocent III asserts his superiority with regard to the transfer (principaliter) and the coronation (finaliter), and then asserts the rights ratione peccati. Frederick II, in opposition to the Popes who maintain that Christus rex et sacerdos de ordine Melchisedach transmitted to the Apostle Peter the spiritual power to be exercised directly and the temporal power to be exercised through princes, sets forth the Gelasian theory of distinction: imperial power comes directly from God; the prince has the right and duty to protect Christendom and the Church. Innocent IV responds by excommunicating the Emperor, deposing him, releasing his subjects from their oath of allegiance, and inviting the princes to elect another emperor.

The conflict abates during the interregnum: the rival princes turn to the Pope as arbiter, Rudolf of Habsburg renounces the traditional territorial claims, but it later flares up again under Boniface VIII, who imposes his superiority upon Albert of Habsburg; Clement V at first supports Henry VII on his journey for the coronation, but then, in the Emperor’s action against the King of Naples, perceives a new danger to papal independence and reasserts the ancient superiority. Thus John XXII claims the government of the Empire during the new civil struggle in Germany and entrusts its vicariate to the King of Naples. Louis the Bavarian vigorously opposes the 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 electors assembled at Rhense (16 July 1338) swear to defend the liberties, rights, and customs of the Empire, proclaim that imperial dignity comes directly from God, and declare the papal sentences against the Emperor unjustified. In the «Golden Bull» of 1356, no further mention is made of papal right. The struggle between the Papacy and the Empire now languishes and is dealt with only by canonists and jurists; the imperial coronations of the fifteenth century no longer give rise to discussions and conflicts: they are simple ceremonies.

The Empire retains great importance in European politics because it continues to be the symbol of European moral unity; later, the emperor’s primacy wanes and becomes merely a right of precedence in ceremonial, though it is not always acknowledged and respected.

The Empire’s relations with Italy change over the centuries. In the tenth century, the Kingdom of Italy is included in the Roman Empire as a conquest of the German king. From the tenth to the twelfth century, the emperors aim to complete the conquest of the peninsula by fighting the Arabs, Byzantines, and Normans. The problem is resolved with the conquest by Henry VI. The organization of Italy in the tenth century is entrusted to the great marches; in the eleventh century, their feudalization determines the imperial reaction. The emperors now favor the lesser feudal nobility and the cities, but later the autonomist tendencies of the cities provoke the opposition of Frederick Barbarossa, who seeks to subject the cities directly to the imperial potestas. The Treaty of Constance (1183) recognizes the consular organization of the cities, from which an entire system of independent urban government develops. After the battle of Cortenuova, Frederick II plans the organization of Italy through general, regional, and communal imperial vicariates; everything vanishes after his death. Henry VII resumes the plan, but now the system of vicariates is reconciled with the system of the lordships, based democratically, that arose in the Communes; later, in the fifteenth century, the lordship-vicariate, through the adoption of feudal titles, enters the imperial feudal hierarchical system. In juridical tradition, the Empire retains special rights (reservata iura) and, over various Italian States, still asserts fiscal and jurisdictional rights in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

The organization of the Empire was always rudimentary and feudal in type. Otto II briefly contemplated a Roman organization, creating a permanent capital in Rome with a Byzantine-style court. Attempts at a centralized feudal organization were made under Frederick Barbarossa and Henry VI. Under Frederick II, centrifugal tendencies were already prevailing in Germany through the action of the free cities and territorial princes. The anarchy of the interregnum made palpable the need for a prince to represent peace and order, but the elections of Rudolf and Henry VII brought to the throne princes concerned only with creating a state of their own. The «Golden Bull» of 1356 recognized the autonomy of the princes to reorganize the Empire, creating a political system that would reconcile imperial authority, the power of the princes, and the autonomies of the cities. The debates were livelier under Maximilian (Diet of Augsburg, 1500). Reorganizational policy seems to have become the ideal of Charles V, but the princes disguise their separatist tendencies through the protection of Lutheranism. The Caesarist Diets of Speyer (1520) and Augsburg (1530) were answered by the League of Schmalkald. The struggle between centralization and separatism led to the Peace of Augsburg of 1555; the religious freedom granted to the princes recognizes that the Empire is divided into the Corpus evangelicum and the Corpus catholicum; the Empire loses its unity, and the independence of the princes is strengthened. The Thirty Years’ War was the final attempt to save the Empire; it failed because of the anti-Habsburg interventions of Swabia and France. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) confirmed the absolute independence of all the German princes, granting them the right to make peace and war and to negotiate alliances with other princes. The Empire became merely a confederation of princes and cities (approximately 350), with a nominal head in the Emperor, assisted by a diet without authority; imperial power was supplied by the aggregate of the Habsburg States: Austria, Hungary, and Bohemia. Thus the Empire survived until the Napoleonic era.

During the nineteenth century, much discussion took place in Germany concerning the value and usefulness of the medieval I. from the national point of view. Sybal represented the negative tendency, regarding the I. and all its Roman policy as a squandering of energies that brought about the ascendancy of eccentric forces. Ficker, on the other hand, maintained that imperial policy is an essential part of the life of the German people and of its civilization. This problem may also be viewed from the Italian standpoint, namely, whether the union of Italy with Germany signified the triumph of particularist forces over the centralizing monarchic tradition that lasted from Alboino to Berengario II; but there is no doubt that precisely the Italian particularism fostered by union with the I. contributed powerfully to the creation of the civilization of the Communes and the Signorie—that is, taken as a whole, of the Renaissance.