PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP     

CHAPTER 1. An Ecclesiastical World-Power — Against the Most High — Christ’s Letters to His Church — Consequence of the Apostasy.

CHAPTER 2. The Visigoths in the Middle Ages — Theodoric, the Visigoth — The Visigothic Empire.

CHAPTER 3. The Suevi in the Middle Ages — Portuguese Discoveries — Discovery of the Indies and China.

CHAPTER 4. The Franks in the Middle Ages — Subjection of the Burgundians — Clovis Sole King of the Franks — The Mayors of the Palace — Empire of Charlemagne — The Invasions of the Northmen — The Formation of Normandy — Establishment of the Capetian Dynasty — The Feudal System.

CHAPTER 5. The Alemanni in the Middle Ages — Establishment of the German Kingdom — Establishment of the “Holy Roman Empire” — Origin of the Reigning House of England — Splendor of Frederick II — The Great Interregnum: Anarchy — End of the “Holy Roman Empire.” CHAPTER 6. The Burgundians in the Middle Ages — The Marathon of Switzerland — Switzerland Free.

CHAPTER 7. The Angles and Saxons in the Middle Ages — Britain Becomes England — Kings, Aldermen, Earls, Churls, Thralls — Northumbrian Supremacy — The Danish Invasions — Danish Domination — Imperial England — Danish Kings of England — Reign of King Canute — William the Conqueror — The Making of Doomsday Book — English Conquest of Normandy — English Empire, House of Plantagenet — Captivity of Coeur de Lion — John Gives England to the Papacy — The Great Charter — John Desolates the Kingdom — “The Rule of Law and Not of Will” — The Hundred Years’ War.

CHAPTER 8. Pagan Philosophy the Strength of the Papacy — The New Platonic Philosophy — The First Orders of Monks — The Monkish Fanatacism — Introduced into Rome — The Stylites — “A Man of Sense Ought Hardly to Say It” — Plato’s Fallacious Reasoning — Life Only in Christ — Jesus and the Resurrection — Let this Mind Be in You — Ministers of the Inquisition.

CHAPTER 9. Theological Controversy — Council of Ephesus — Alexandria and Constantinople — Chrysostom Deposed — Both Appeal to the Pope — Cyril of Alexandria — Nestorius of Constantinople — Appeals to Rome — General Council Called — Preliminaries to the Council — Condemnation of Nestorius — Cyril Bribes the Court and Wins — The Deification of Mary.

CHAPTER 10. Theological Controversy — Second Council of Ephesus — The Eutychian Controversy — Eusebius in a Dilemma — Forecast of the Inquisition — Appeals to Rome — Instructions to the Council — The Murder of Flavianus — Regularity of the Council.

CHAPTER 11. Theological Controversy — Council of Chalcedon — Growth of the Papal Spirit — Rome’s Boundless Ambition — Another Council Decreed — “A Frightful Storm” — Condemnation of Dioscorus — Leo’s Letter the Test — Leo’s Letter Approved — The Egyptian Bishops — Leo’s Letter Completes the Creed — The Creed of Leo and Chalcedon — The Council’s Letter to Leo — Imperial Edicts Enforce the Creed — The Pope the Fountain of the Faith — Results of Theological Controversy.

CHAPTER -The Papal Temporal Power Established — The Popes as Mediators — The Lands of the Church — The Herulian Kingdom Rooted Up — The Ostrogothic Dominion — Papal Proceedings in Rome — The Papacy Put Above the State — Conspiracies Against the Ostrogoths — Justinian and the Papacy — The Trisagion Controversy — The Vandal Kingdom Uprooted — The Ostrogothic Kingdom Destroyed — The Papacy Now a World-Power.

CHAPTER 13. Restoration of the Western Empire — Justinian and Pope Vigilius — The Popes Changes of Faith — The Title of Universal Bishop — Gregory the Great — Gregory the Great to Phocas — Bishop of Rome Decreed Universal Bishop — The Lombards and the Papacy — Introduction of Image Worship — The Pope Teaches Image Worship — The Pope Appeals to the Franks — Pepin Made King — The Pope Visits Pepin — “St Peter” Writes to the Franks — Pepin’s Donation to the Papacy — Charlemagne’s Donation — Charlemagne, King of Lombardy — Image Worship Established — Charlemagne Made Emperor — Original Rome Continued in the Papacy — Western Empire Retransplanted — An Imperial Theocracy — Ecclesiastical Position of the Emperor.

CHAPTER 14. The Papacy and the Barbarians — Clovis Becomes a Catholic — The “Holy Wars” of Clovis — The Visigoths Become Catholic — Catholicism Invades Britain — Augustine and the British Christians — England Becomes Catholic — The Saxons Made Catholic — Catholicism in France — The Papacy Corrupts the Barbarians.

CHAPTER 15. The Holy Roman Empire — The Popes and the Emperors — The Pope Shields Murder — Attempted Reforms Fail — The Pope Humbles the Emperor — Saracens in the Papal States — The Pope and the Eastern Empire — Nicholas Asserts His Infallibility — Nicholas to the King of Bulgaria — The Pope to Charles the Bald — Charles the Bald to the Pope — Papal States Declared Independent — Papacy Pays Tribute to the Saracens — Pope Stephen to the Eastern Emperor — The Pope Prosecutes the Dead Formosus — The Abomination of Desolation — Romish Women Govern the Papacy — Marozia’s Son Is Made Pope — Marozia’s Grandson Is Made Pope — Pope John XII and the Emperor’s Council — Pope John XII Deposed — John XII Pope Again — Papal Reign of Terror — French Council to the Pope — “The Man of Sin, the Mystery of Iniquity” — Papacy Prohibits Marriage of the Clergy — Papacy Sold at Auction — Reform Means Ruin to the Papacy — The Normans and the Papacy — Cardinal Damiani Describes the Bishops — More Attempts to Reform the Papacy — Papal War — Hildebrand Becomes Pope.

CHAPTER 16. The Papal Supremacy — Gregory VII To Calixtus II — Hildebrand Against Married Clergy — The Meaning of “Gregory VII” — Hildebrand’s Theocratical Scheme — Gregory VII Conceives the Crusades — The War Against Marriage — Woe Inflicted By Gregory VII — The War of Investitures — Gregory Summons Henry IV — Henry IV to the Pope — Gregory Excommunicates Henry — The Empire Against Henry IV — Henry at Canossa — Henry Freed from Excommunication — A Rival King Elected — Gregory Again Excommunicates Henry — Henry IV Victor — Rome in Ruins: Gregory Dies — Maxims of Gregory VII — Origin of the Crusades — Pope Urban’s Crusade Speech — Reward and Character of the Crusaders — The First Crusade — The Capture of Jerusalem — Character of the Crusades — War of Investitures Renewed — Pope Pascal II: King Henry V — Henry V Captures the Pope — The Pope Yields to Henry V — Pascal’s Contribution to the Papacy — The Papacy in the Twelfth Century.

CHAPTER 17. The Papal Supremacy — Innocent III To Boniface VIII — The Pope Gives Ireland to England — The World’s Opinion of the Papacy — Innocent III and the King of France — Innocent III and John of England — Origin of the Quarrel with John — England under Interdict — England Given by John to Rome — Innocent’s War in Germany — Innocent Selects and Emperor — Innocent’s Emperor Turns Against Him — Crusaders Capture Constantinople — Prodigious Claims of Innocent IV — The Pinnacle of Temporal Power.

CHAPTER 18. The Papal Empire — Universality of Papal Rule — The Bishops and Their Election — Military Bishops — Papal Plunderers — “A Terror to All” — Universal Wretchedness — “A Curse to the People” — Results of Celibacy — A Most Singular Standard of Morality — Church of Rome Responsible — Judicial Oppression — Mendicant Monks — Papal Fetichism — Indulgences — Fetichism of Relics — “An Unmitigated Curse.” CHAPTER 19. “That Woman Jezebel” — Who Calleth Herself a Prophetess — Christianity in the Middle Ages — The Waldenses — The Paulicians — Paulician Martyrs — Christianity Permeates Europe — Arnold of Brescia — Waldenses Translate the New Testament — Waldensian and Paulician Missionaries — The Centers of Christianity — Jezebel’s Existence Threatened — Jezebel calls for the Sword — Jezebel’s Wrath toward Christians — The Christians Still Multiply — Innocent III Reigns — Confessed Character of the Condemned — The Papacy Compels to Sin — Acknowledged Corruption of Catholics — The Whole Strength of the Church — Papists Try to Imitate Christians — Excommunication and Interdict — Cruel Treatment of Raymond — The Nations Move at Last — The Land Laid Desolate — Supreme Hypocrisy — A Modern Perversion of History.

CHAPTER 20. The Anarchy of the Papacy — Clement V Destroys the Templars — John XXII Taxes Sinning — The Emperor against John XXII — Nicholas Resigns to John — Treasure Left by John XXII — “As Drunk as a Pope” — Jubilee Reduced to Fifty Years — Clement VI to his Cardinals — The Papacy Returns to Rome — Rome Demands a Roman Pope — Urban VI Repudiated — The Two- Headed Papacy — The Anarchy Increases — Universal Simony — University of Paris on the Papacy — “Pope I Am: Pope I Will Remain” — Papal Efforts at Unity — Cardinals Unite Against Both Popes — Council of Pisa — Confusion Worse Confounded — The Triple-Headed Papacy — The Council of Constance — Pope John Flees — Pope John XXIII Deposed — Gregory XII Takes the Council — One Pope Again — The Pinnacle of Blasphemy.

CHAPTER 21. The Spirit of the Papacy — The Secret of the Papacy — The Heavenly Cherubim — The Foundation of God’s Throne — The Cherub That Sinned — Change of God’s Law Demanded — God’s Eternal Purpose — Lucifer Reflects upon God — Self Can Not Save Self — In Chains of Darkness — Sin Must be Rooted Out — Freedom of Choice — Satan Comes to This World — The Temptation in Paradise — Enmity Against God — All of Self and None of God — Enmity Against Satan — The Mystery of God — The Humility of Christ — The Change of God’s Law.

CHAPTER 22. The Reformation — England — John Wicklif Made Responsible — Wicklif Against the Papacy — The True Minister of Christ — The Friars a Moral Pestilence — The High Service of the Preacher — “Poor Priests,” “Lollards,” “Bible Men” — The True Head of the Church — The Pope Against Wicklif — Wicklif Puts the Bible into English — Sufficiency of the Scriptures — The Truth Shall Prevail — The Risen Sun of the Reformation.

CHAPTER 23. The Reformation — Bohemia — The Ministry of Militz — Militz in Rome — The Pope Denounces Militz — Matthias of Janow — Antichrist Described — The True Law of Christ — The Times of Antichrist — Bethlehem Chapel and John Huss — Wicklif’s Writings Condemned — Wicklif Still Followed Up — Wicklif’s Writings Burnt — Huss’s Love of Truth — The Papacy Condemns Huss — Crusade of Pope John XXIII — Huss Denounces Indulgences — Huss Against the Pope — “Not in the Power of the Pope” — Students Burn the Pope’s Bulls — The Papal Party Takes Life — Wicklif’s Writings Again Condemned — Huss Excommunicated — Efforts to Obtain Peace — The Only True Peace — Christ the True Head — The Holy Spirit, the True Guide — The Greater Miracles — The Abomination of Self-Deification — Huss Departs for Constance — Huss Is Entrapped — Huss Imprisoned — Huss on His “Trial” — The Emperor Against Huss — TheNoble Knight of Chlum — Christ’s Fellowship with Huss — FaithfulUnto Death — Jerome of Prague Arrested — Jerome’s Discourses — Effect of Death of Huss and Jerome.

CHAPTER 24. The Reformation — Germany — Justification By Faith — “The True Gate of Paradise” — The Faith of Jesus — The Works of the Law — Indulgences — Elector Frederick’s Dream — Theses Against Indulgences — How To Study the Scripture — The Pope Outlaws Luther — Luther Appeals to a Council — The Leipsic Discussion — A Bull Against Luther — The First Thing Necessary — The Office of the Cardinals — Let the Clergy Marry — Definition of the Papacy — Luther’s Letter to Leo — The Liberty of the Christian — Luther RenewsAppeal Against Rome — Luther Burns the Pope’s Bull — The Diet of Worms — Duke George Against Rome — The Emperor Calls Luther — Luther Stands Before the Diet — Luther Given Time — Luther’s Answer — “I Can Retract Nothing” — Imperial Edict Against Luther — “Liberty Is the Essence of Faith” — The Protest, Protestants — The Charter of Protestantism — Christianity Free Again.

CHAPTER 25. Protestantism — True and False — Theological Controversy Again — The Synergistical Controversy — Persecutions of the Anabaptists — Controversy on Philosophy — Calvinism Against Free Grace — On Papal Ground — Henry VIII Both King and Pope — Calvin’s Government Only Papal — Puritan Intolerance — Roger Williams’s Protest — Roger Williams Banished — The Most Touching Appeal in History — Persecution of John Wesley — Protestants False to Principle — Martin Luther and Roger Williams.

CHAPTER 26. The Christian Principle Triumphant — Government by the People — The Perfect Principle of Civil Government — Can Not Be Annihilated — Religious Right — Presbytery of Hanover — Religion Disestablished — Establishing Religious Freedom — Madison for Religious Right — Virginia’s Remonstrance — Fruits of Religious Establishments — Dangerous Usurpation — Religious Right Made Constitutional — The People on Religious Right — The Christian Idea — The Beacon Light of the World.

CHAPTER 27. National Apostasy A Most Astonishing Thing — The Old Order of Things — Religio-Political Combination Ready — The Papal Theory Reproduced — Unites with the Papacy — The Bond of Union — Congress Legislates Religiously — Congress Interprets Scripture — A Claim to Infallibility — The Pivot of Papal Infallibility — National Adoption of Papal Principle — The Sign of Papal Salvation — The Papacy Steps in — Republican Principle Repudiated — The Constitution Abandoned — Every Principle of Liberty Slain — National Apostasy Complete — “That They Should Make an Image” — The Image of the Beast — Papacy Again Exalted.

CHAPTER 1.

AN ECCLESIASTICAL WORLD-POWER.

THE Roman Empire had perished. “Never had the existence of a nation been more completely overthrown.” — Guizot. F1 New peoples in ten distinct kingdoms, in A.D. 476, occupied the territory which for five hundred years had been Roman. These are the nations which, inextricably involved with the papacy, are the subject of the mediaeval and modern history of Western Europe, that we are now to trace. 2. The establishment, the growth, and the reign of the papacy as a worldpower, is distinctly a subject of prophecy, as really as is the fall of Rome and the planting of the Ten Kingdoms upon the ruins thereof. Indeed, the prophecy of this is an inseparable part of the prophecy of the other. To any one who will closely observe, it will plainly appear that in the three great lines of prophecy in Daniel 7, and Daniel 8, and Daniel 11, the great subject is Rome. In the Scriptures in each of these chapters far more space is given to the description of Rome than is given to Babylon, Medo- Persia, and Grecia all together. And in Daniel 11:14 when the entrance of Rome upon the scene is marked, it is definitely and significantly stated “the children of robbers shall exalt themselves to establish the vision.” That is to say: Rome is the particular object of the vision; and when Rome is reached and she enters upon the scene, the vision is established. 3. In Daniel 7, the four great world-empires — Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia, and Rome — are pictured by four great beasts. The last characteristic of the fourth is that “it had ten horns.” Then, says the prophet, “I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them anotherLITTLE horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.” F2 This “little horn” the prophet beheld even till “the Judgment was set and the books were opened.” And then he says, “I beheld then [at the time of the Judgment] because of the great words which the horn spake. I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.” 4. Note that the prophet is considering the “little horn” in its career even to the end. But when that “little horn” comes to its end, it is not said, I beheld till the horn was broken; but, “I beheld till the beast was slain.” At the time of the Judgment “I beheld then because of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain.” This shows beyond all question that that which is symbolized by the “little horn” is simply another phase of what is symbolized by the great and terrible beast. The “little horn” is but the continuation of the beast in a different shape: the same characteristics are there: the same spirit is there: the same thing that is the beast continues through all the time of the little horn until its destruction comes; and when the destruction of the little “horn” does come, it is “the beast” that is slain and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame. 5. In Daniel 8 the thought is the same, except that both phases of this power which is Rome, are symbolized in “a little horn which waxed exceeding great toward the south and toward the east and toward the pleasant land;” that “waxed great even to the host of heaven;” who magnified himself even to the Prince of the host, and by whom the daily sacrifice was taken away and the place of His sanctuary was cast down.”

The further sketch of Rome in its whole career, and under whatever form, from its entrance into the field of the world’s affairs unto the end, is given in In Daniel 8:23-25: “And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.” 6. When in chapter 7 the angel explained to Daniel the meaning of these things, he said: “The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall arise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of times.” F3 7. Of the fourth great kingdom — Rome — the angel said that not only was it “diverse from all the kingdoms that were before it,” but that it was “diverse from all kingdoms.” Rome was diverse from all the powers that were before it, and also diverse from all kingdoms, in that it was a republic.

It is true that this republic degenerated into a one man power, a terrible imperial despotism, in which it was also diverse from all that were before it, and even from all; yet, the name and form of a republic were still retained, even to its latest days. 8. That empire perished, and in its place stood ten powers which were called kingdoms. But, now of this other peculiar one which comes up amongst the ten, before whom three of the ten are rooted out — of this one it is written: “He shall be diverse from the first.” The first was diverse from “all;” and yet this is diverse even from that one. This shows, then, that the power here referred to would be diverse from all, even to a degree beyond that one which is plainly declared to be diverse from all: that it would be of an utterly new and strange order. 9. Note that of this power it is written that he should “speak great words against the Most High;” that he should “wear out the saints of the Most High;” and that he should “think to change times and the law” F4 of the Most High. In the description of the same power, given in Daniel 8:25, it is stated that “he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes.”

Throughout the book of Daniel the expression “stand up,” where used in connection with kings, invariably signifies “to reign.” F5 This power, then, would reign in opposition to Christ; for only He is the Prince of princes. 10. Further information with respect to this power, is given by Paul in <530201> Thessalonians 2, where, in writing of the day of the coming of the Lord he said: “That day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God showing himself that he is God.”

And that this instruction is derived directly from the passages which we have quoted from Daniel 7 and Daniel 8, is clear from the fact that Paul appeals to the Thessalonians: “Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” When he was yet with them, and telling them these things, he “reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” The only Scriptures that they then had were the Old Testament Scriptures. And the only place in the Old Testament Scriptures where these things are mentioned which he cited, is in these chapters of the book of Daniel. 11. These specifications of scripture make it certain that the power referred to is an ecclesiastical one — it deals particularly with “the Most High:” it reigns in opposition to “the Prince of princes.” The specifications show that it is more than simply an ecclesiastical power: it is an ecclesiastical world-power, a theocratical world-kingdom, requiring worship to itself: putting itself above all else that is worshiped, even sitting “in the temple” — the place of worship — “of God, showing himself that he is God.” 12. All this is emphasized by the further description of the same power: “I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns... And upon her forehead was a name written,MYSTERY,BABYLON THE GREAT,THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” F6 These saints and martyrs of Jesus are in this same book symbolized by another woman — “a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars” — who “fled into the wilderness” F7 while this terrible woman on the scarlet-colored beast is doing all in her power utterly to “wear out the saints of the Most High.”

The condition as thus revealed, is woman against woman — Church against Church: a corrupt Church opposed to the pure Church. 13. The book of Revelation is the complement of the book of Daniel.

The book of Daniel has for its great subject national history, with Church history incidental. The book of Revelation has for its great subject Church history, with national history incidental. Accordingly, that which is but briefly mentioned in the book of Daniel concerning this ecclesiastical kingdom which takes such a large place in the world, is quite fully treated in the book of Revelation: and treated in both its phases, that of the true Church and that of the false; that of the faithful Church, and that of the apostate. 14. The line of prophecy of the Seven Churches of the book of Revelation, is a series of seven letters addressed by the Lord to His own Church in the seven phases of the complete round of her experience from the first advent of Christ unto the second. In each of these seven letters not only is counsel given in the way of right, but there are pointed out the dangers and evils that beset the Church, against which she must be especially guarded, and which, in order to remain pure, she must escape. 15. To the Church in her first stage — the Church of Ephesus — He says: “I have somewhat against thee because thou hast left thy first love.

Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works.” F8 This points definitely to the falling away that is mentioned by Paul to the elders of the Church at Ephesus ( Acts 20:30), and that is again mentioned and dwelt upon by him in 2 Thessalonians 2, which falling away, when continued, developed “that man of sin,” “the son of perdition,” “who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped” — the ecclesiastical State now under consideration. The time of this phase of the Church is by the letter itself, shown to be the days of the apostles, F9 and therefore ended about A.D. 100. 16. The letter to the Church in her second phase, is wholly commendatory.

This shows that, while individuals had continued in the apostasy mentioned in the first letter, yet the Church herself had heeded the counsel given by the Head of the Church, and had repented and returned to “the first works.” The time of this phase of the Church’s experience is definitely suggested in the letter itself, by the statement that she should “have tribulation ten days.” F10 This refers to the ten years of persecution in the reign of Diocletian, from A.D. 303-313; which was ended by the Edict of Milan, issued by the two emperors, Constantine and Licinius, March, A.D. 313. F11 17. The letter to the Church in the third phase of her experience gives the key to this particular thought which is now before us — the identification of that ecclesiastical State. In this letter Christ mentions with commendation the fact that His Church had held fast His name, and had not denied His faith, “even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr.” F12 This word “Antipas” is not a person’s name, but is a term characteristic of the times. It is composed of two words, anti, and pappas. “anti” signifies against, and “pappas” signifies papa, which is our English, and also the universal, word for “papa.” And this word “papa” is but the repetition of the simple word “pa,” and is the original of the word “pope.” 18. Therefore, the word “Antipas” — “against ‘pas’ or ‘papas’” — shows the growth of the papa-cy in the period immediately following A.D. 313.

This was the period of Constantine and onward, in which the papa-cy itself was distinctly formed. And history records that in that time, while the other principal bishops of the Church bore the title of “patriarch,” the bishop of Rome studiously avoided that particular term, as placing him on a level with other “patriarchs.” He always preferred the title of “papa,” or “pope” (Schaff F13 ): and this because “patriarch” bespeaks an oligarchical Church government — that is government by a few; whereas “pope” bespeaks a monarchial Church government — that is government by one. F14 Thus the history, and the word of the counsel of Christ, unite in marking as the characteristic of that phase of the Church’s experience, the formation of the papa-cy, and the assertion of the authority of the pope. 19. And thus, beyond all question, the papacy is identified, and that by the very Word of God itself, as that ecclesiastical State, that church-kingdom, sketched by Daniel, in Daniel 7 and Daniel 8; described by Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 2; and fully traced by John, in the Revelation. The time covered by this third letter of Christ to His Church is, by that letter itself, shown to be the time of the making of the papacy; and to the words of that letter correspond exactly the facts of the history in the period reaching from the Edict of Milan to the ruin of the empire. The “falling away,” the leaving of the “first love,” mentioned in the first letter, had, in this time of the third letter, culminated in the formation of the papacy. 20. Now this same course is traced on the side of the apostasy, in the first three steps of the line of prophecy of the Seven Seals of the book of Revelation. Under the First Seal there was seen going forth a white horse ( Revelation 6:2), corresponding to the Church in her first phase — that of her original purity, her “first love.” But the counsel of Christ in His first letter said that there was even then a falling away from that first love: and this is signified in the Second Seal, at the opening of which “there went out another horse that was red.” F15 And, under the Third Seal “I beheld, and lo a black horse!” F16 Thus the symbols of the seals, passing in three steps from white to black, mark identically the course of the apostasy in the three steps, from the first love, in which Christ was all in all, in the first stage of the Church, to the third stage, in which, “where Satan’s seat” was, and where Satan dwelt, a man was put in the place of God, in that which professed to be the Church of God, “passing himself off for God.” 21. The immediate effect of this apostasy, which developed the papacy in the Roman Empire, was the complete ruin of the Roman Empire. And, this consequence of the apostasy, which is traced in the first three steps of the two lines of prophecy of the Seven Churches and the Seven Seals, is sketched in the first four trumpets of the line of prophecy of the Seven Trumpets. And here it is — in the Seven Trumpets — that national history enters, as an incident, in this book of Church history; as in the rise of the little horn amongst the ten, in the book of Daniel, there enters Church history, as an incident, in that book of national history. The Seven Trumpets aptly enter here, because the trumpet is the symbol of war; and it was by the universal war of the floods of barbarians from the north, that there was swept away that mass of corruption that was heaped upon the Roman Empire by its union with the apostate Church, in the making of the papacy. F17 CHAPTER 2.

THE VISIGOTHS IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

THE Ecclesiastical Empire is the grand center of the history that we are now to study. Yet with this there are inseparably connected other empires, and the Ten Kingdoms of Western Europe. In the nature of the case, these will have to be considered to a greater or less extent. Therefore, in order that each of these may have its due attention, as well as that the history of the Ecclesiastical Empire itself may be followed uninterruptedly and the more intelligently, it will be best first to sketch the kingdoms of Western Europe through the Middle Ages. 2. The Ten Kingdoms could not continue in either undisturbed or undisturbing relations, even among themselves. As ever in human history from the day of Nimrod, the desire to enlarge dominion, the ambition for empire, was the chief characteristic, the ruling passion, among these. 3. The first to make their power predominant among the Ten Kingdoms was the Visigoths. It will be remembered F18 that under Wallia the Visigoths as early as A.D. 419 had gained a permanent seat in Southwestern Gaul, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Bay of Biscay, and from the River Loire to the River Rhone, with their capital at Toulouse.

There the newly established kingdom “gradually acquired strength and maturity.” “After the death of Wallia [A.D. 419], the Gothic scepter devolved to Theodoric, the son of the great Alaric; and his prosperous reign of more than thirty years [A.D. 419-451] over a turbulent people, may be allowed to prove that his prudence was supported by uncommon vigor, both of mind and body. Impatient of his narrow limits, Theodoric aspired to the possession of Arles, the wealthy seat of government and commerce; but” this enterprise failed. 4. “Theodoric, king of the Visigoths, appears to have deserved the love of his subjects, the confidence of his allies, and the esteem of mankind. His throne was surrounded by six valiant sons, who were educated with equal care in the exercises of the Barbarian camp, and in those of the Gallic schools: from the study of Roman jurisprudence they acquired the theory, at least, of law and justice.” “The two daughters of the Gothic king were given in marriage to the eldest sons of the kings of the Suevi and of the Vandals, who reigned in Spain and Africa.” — Gibbon. F19 This domestic alliance with the house of the king of the Vandals was fraught with farreaching and dreadful consequences. The king of the Vandals at that time daughter-in-law had formed a conspiracy to poison him. With Genseric, his own suspicion was sufficient proof of guilt, and upon the hapless daughter of Theodoric was inflicted the horrible penalty of cutting off her nose and ears. Thus mutilated, she was sent back to the house of her father. 5. By this outrage Theodoric was stirred up to make war upon the king of the Vandals, in which he was widely supported by the sympathy of his neighbors. To protect himself and his dominions from this dangerous invasion Genseric by “rich gifts and pressing solicitations inflamed the ambition of Attila,” who, thus persuaded, marched, A.D. 451, with an army of seven hundred thousand men in his memorable invasion of Gaul.

This required that not only the forces of Theodoric, but all the power of the whole West should stand unitedly in defense of their very homes. The battle that was fought was the battle of Chalons. “The body of Theodoric, pierced with honorable wounds, was discovered under a heap of the slain: his subjects bewailed the death of their king and father; but their tears were mingled with songs and acclamations, and his funeral rites were performed in the face of a vanquished enemy. The Goths, clashing their arms, elevated on a buckler his eldest son, Torismond, to whom they justly ascribed the glory of their success; and the new king accepted the obligation of revenge as a sacred portion of his paternal inheritance.” — Gibbon. F20 6. Torismond was murdered in A.D. 453 by his younger brother, Theodoric II, who reigned till 466. In 456 he invaded Spain in an expedition against “the Suevi who had fixed their kingdom in Gallicia,” and who now “aspired to the conquest of Spain,” and even threatened to attack Theodoric under the very walls of his own capital. “Such a challenge urged Theodoric to prevent the bold designs of his enemy: he passed the Pyrenees at the head of the Visigoths: the Franks and the Burgundians served under his standard... The two armies, or rather the two nations, encountered each other on the banks of the River Urbicus, about twelve miles from Astorga; and the decisive victory of the Goths appeared for a while to have extirpated the name and kingdom of the Suevi. From the field of battle Theodoric advanced to Braga, their metropolis, which still retained the splendid vestiges of its ancient commerce and dignity.” — Gibbon. F21 The king of the Suevi was captured and slain by Theodoric, who “carried his victorious arms as far as Merida,” whence he returned to his capital. 7. In A.D. 466 Theodoric was assassinated by Euric, who reigned till 485.

Immediately upon his accession he renewed the Visigothic invasion of Spain. “He passed the Pyrenees at the head of a numerous army, subdued the cities of Saragossa and Pampeluna, vanquished in battle the martial nobles of the Tarragonese province, carried his victorious arms into the heart of Lusitania, and permitted the Suevi to hold the kingdom of Gallicia under the Gothic monarchy of Spain” which he made permanent. F22 8. “The efforts of Euric were not less vigorous nor less successful in Gaul; and throughout the country that extends from the Pyrenees to the Rhone and the Loire, Berry and Auvergne were the only cities, or dioceses, which refused to acknowledge him as their master.” “As soon as Odoacer had extinguished the Western Empire, he sought the friendship of the most powerful of the barbarians. The new sovereign of Italy resigned to Euric, king of the Visigoths [A.D. 476-485], all the Roman conquests beyond the Alps as far as the Rhine and the ocean; and the Senate might confirm this liberal gift with some ostentation of power, and without any real loss of revenue or dominion. 9. “The lawful pretensions of Euric were justified by ambition and success; and the Gothic nation might aspire, under his command, to the monarchy of Spain and Gaul. Arles and Marseilles surrendered to his arms; he oppressed the freedom of Auvergne; and the bishop condescended to purchase his recall from exile by a tribute of just, but reluctant praise.

Sidonius waited before the gates of the palace among a crowd of ambassadors and suppliants; and their various business at the court of Bordeaux attested the power and the renown of the king of the Visigoths.

The Heruli of the distant ocean, who painted their naked bodies with its cerulean color, implored his protection; and the Saxons respected the maritime provinces of a prince who was destitute of any naval force. The tall Burgundians submitted to his authority; nor did he restore the captive Franks till he had imposed on that fierce nation the terms of an unequal peace. The Vandals of Africa cultivated his useful friendship: and the Ostrogoths of Pannonia were supported by his powerful aid against the oppression of the neighboring Huns. The North (such are the lofty strains of the poet) was agitated or appeased by the nod of Euric; the great king of Persia consulted the oracle of the West; and the aged god of the Tyber was protected by the swelling genius of the Garonne.” F23 10. The reign of Euric “was the culminating point of the Visigothic monarchy in Gaul.” — Guizot. F24 He was succeeded, A.D. 485, by his son, Alaric II, at the time “a helpless infant.” Though Alaric II reigned twenty-two years, he so “gave himself up to the pursuit of pleasure” that his reign “was the epoch of the decay of the Visigothic monarchy in Gaul,” which indeed ended at the death of Alaric II by the hand of Clovis the Frank, in the battle of Poitiers, A.D. 507. Alaric II was succeeded by his infant son, Amalaric, who was taken into Spain. And though the Visigoths still held in Gaul “a narrow tract of seacoast from the Rhone to the Pyrenees,” from this time forward their dominion was properly in Spain, to which country it was limited, and wherein its seat was permanently fixed in the reign of Theudes, who succeeded Amalaric in A.D. 531, and reigned till 548. 11. The kingdom of the Visigoths continued to flourish in all Spain until A.D. 711. By that time luxury had so enervated them, and their despotism and persecutions had so estranged the subject peoples, that in a single year, 711-712, Tarik, the Saracen commander, conquered the country from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Bay of Biscay, a distance of seven hundred miles.

This can be easily understood from the fact that to the great and decisive battle against the invading Saracens, Roderick, the king of the Visigoths, went “sustaining on his head a diadem of pearls, incumbered with a flowing robe of gold and silken embroidery, and reclining on a litter or car of ivory, drawn by two white mules.” — Gibbon. F25 12. The remnant of the Visigoths, “a scanty band of warriors, headed by Pelayo, probably a member of the Visigothic royal family, found refuge in the cave of Covadonga, among the inaccessible mountains of Asturias” in the extreme northwestern part of the peninsula, “Their own bravery and the difficulties of the country enabled them to hold their own; and they became the rallying point for all who preferred a life of hardship to slavish submission.” 26 This little band of warriors, never subdued, continued to hold their own, and to grow in strength and success. Little by little they pushed back the Saracens, enlarging their territory, and holding all that they gained. This they steadily continued for seven hundred and eighty years, when, in A.D. 1492, the last vestige of Mohammedan power in Spain was broken, and the descendants of the original Visigoths once more possessed the whole country. The present — A.D. 1901 — child-heir to the throne of Spain is Alfonso XIII; and Alfonso I was the grandson of Pelayo, the intrepid leader of that “scanty band of warriors” who in A.D. 712 “found refuge in the cave of Covadonga among the inaccessible mountains of Asturias.” 13. The year of the final recovery of Spain from the Mohammedan power, it will be noted, was also the very year of the discovery of the West Indies by Columbus — A.D. 1492. This era of discovery and conquest opened by Columbus, and continued by Balboa, Cortes, and others, with an intricate complication of territorial accessions in Europe, suddenly at the beginning of the sixteenth century elevated Spain to the place of the leading power, and her king — Charles I — to the position of the greatest sovereign, then in the world. In fifty years, however, she had begun a decline which steadily continued till she was reduced, in 1898, to the bounds of the original kingdom of the Visigoths in the Spanish peninsula, with a few outlying islands.

CHAPTER 3.

THE SUEVI IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

ON the original and permanent settlement of the Suevi, in the Roman Empire, they occupied “the greater portion of Southern and Western Spain; and their capital was Astorga.” In the period between the departure of the Vandals into Africa, A.D. 429, and the coming of the Visigoths into Spain, A.D. 456, the Suevi were “the only barbarian power left in the peninsula.” — Hodgkin. F27 Though in the great battle with Theodoric, the Visigoth, in 456, they were signally defeated and their power was much weakened, yet the distinct Suevic kingdom continued until 587, when, by the power of Leovigild the Visigoth, it became entirely subject and tributary to the Visigothic kingdom. 2. During the time of the occupation of the peninsula by the Mohammedan power, 711, the Suevi, until about 1250, shared the fate of the Visigoths.

As little by little the brave descendants of the unconquerable Pelayo pushed back the bounds of the Mohammedan dominion, the Suevi, inhabiting the territory of what is now Portugal and Galicia, was really the first to be freed. Indeed Alfonso I, grandson of Pelayo, not only drove the Mohammedans out of Galicia, but was able to advance “with his victorious troops” as far as to the River Douro. Alfonso III, 866-910, made expeditions as far south as to Coimbra and Lisbon, though his permanent southern boundary was still the River Douro. 3. Ferdinand the Great, king of Leon, Castile, and Galicia, 1055-1064, and his son, in 1065, carried the boundary southward till it included the present Portuguese province of Beira. Alfonso VI, 1072-1109, compelled the cession of Lisbon and Santerem, which was practically all that part of the province of Estramadura, which lies west and north of the River Tagus. In 1086 the danger that the Mohammedans would regain these territories was so great that Alfonso VI “summoned the chivalry of Christendom to his aid. Among the knights who came to his assistance were Counts Raymond and Henry of Burgundy;... and in 1094 he combined the fiefs of Coimbra and Oporto into one great county,” called Terra Portucalensis, or County of Porto Cale; and, with the hand of his daughter Theresa, conferred it upon Henry of Burgundy, who thus became Count of Portucalensis: Porto Cale: Portugal. And that the Suevi who at the first inhabited Southern and Western Spain and Galicia, were the root of this Portugal, is clear from the fact that “ethnologically the Galicians are allied to the Portuguese, whom they resemble in dialect, in appearance, and in habits, more than any other inhabitants of the peninsula.” F28 4. The history of Portugal as a kingdom, therefore, really begins with this gift by Alfonso VI, descended from Alfonso I, grandson of Pelayo the Visigoth, to Henry of Burgundy, in A.D. 1094. It must be remembered, however, that at that time Portugal was only a county, held in fief by Henry of Burgundy as vassal of Alfonso VI, king of Leon, Castile, and Galicia, who by reason of his great successes assumed the title of “Emperor of Spain.” This grand title, however, vanished with him; and he was no sooner dead than Count Henry, his beneficiary, invaded the kingdom in a contest with four other claimants, to make himself king. He carried on this contest for five years, but failed; and died suddenly at Astorga in 1112, leaving his wife Theresa to rule the county of Portugal during the minority of his infant son, Affonso Henriques. 5. “Affonso Henriques, who, at the age of seventeen, assumed the government [1112-1185], was one of the heroes of the Middle Ages. He succeeded to the rule of the county of Portugal when it was still regarded as a fief of Galicia; and after nearly sixty years of incessant fighting, he bequeathed to his son a powerful little kingdom, whose independence was unquestioned, and whose fame was spread abroad throughout Christendom by the reports of the victories of its first king over the Mohammedans. The four wars of independence which Affonso Henriques waged against Alphonso VII, lasted more than twelve years, and were fought out on the Galician frontier with varying success, until the question of Portuguese independence was peaceably established and confirmed by the valor of the Portuguese knights who overcame those of Castile in the famous tournament of Valdevez, and Affonso Henriques assumed the title of King of Portugal.” F29 6. It was not till the reign of Affonso III, 1248-1279, that the Mohammedans were finally expelled, and Portugal attained its ultimate European limits by the Portuguese conquest of all the territory west of the River Guadilquiver, and southward to the sea. Thus Portugal effected the expulsion of the Mohammedans from her dominions, two hundred and fifty years before Spain completely recovered hers. After this had been accomplished there was a long period of comparative peace, in which the kingdom and the people greatly prospered. About 1400 there was begun by the Portuguese an era of exploration and discovery, that is one of the greatest in the history of the world; that at that time led the world; and that brought to the king of Portugal “an income greater than that of any prince in Europe, so that he had no need of taxes.” 7. This splendid era of discovery was begun by Prince Henry, son of King Joao, or John, who by his energy and success acquired the title “the Navigator.” “Until his day the pathways of the human race had been the mountain, the river, and the plain, the strait, the lake, and the inland sea. It was he who conceived the thought of opening a road through the unexplored ocean — a road replete with danger, but abundant in promise.

Born on March 4, 1394, Prince Henry was a younger son of King Joao of Portugal, and of Philippa of Lancaster, the grandchild of Edward III; so that he was half an Englishman. Prince Henry relinquished the pleasures of the court, and took up his abode on the inhospitable promontory of Sagres at the extreme southwestern angle of Europe.” His great aim was to find the sea-path to the then only known Indies. He did not accomplish it; but he did a great thing in destroying the terror of the great ocean, and so opening the door of courage to those who should come after. His ships and men reached the islands of Madeira and Porto Santo in 1418 and 1420, which were granted to him by the king, his brother, in 1433. They doubled the Cape of Bojador in 1433. In 1435 they went a hundred and fifty miles beyond Cape Bojador. In 1443 they went twenty-five miles beyond Cape Blanco. In 1445 they reached the mouth of the River Senegal. In 1455 he passed Cape Verde and went as far as to the mouth of the River Gambia.

Prince Henry, the Navigator, died Nov. 13, 1460. 8. The enterprise which Prince Henry, the Navigator, had so well begun, was continued after his death. In 1462 the Cape Verde Islands were discovered and colonized. In the same year an expedition under Pedro de Cintra reached a point on the Serra Leone coast, six hundred miles beyond the Gambia. In 1469 another expedition under Fernan Gomez reached the Gold Coast. In 1484 Diogo Cam reached the mouth of the Congo. In Barholomew Dias succeeded in rounding the extreme southern point of Africa, as far as to Algoa Bay. The cape he named Cabo Tormentoso, — Cape Torment, — but the king of Portugal, Joao II, cheered with the prospect that the way was now surely opened to India, named it Cape of Good Hope. 9. This continued series of successes had drawn to Lisbon, the Portuguese capital, adventurous strangers “from all parts of the world;” and among these there came from Genoa, in Italy, in 1470, Christopher Columbus. He entered the service of the king of Portugal, where he remained till 1484, making “several voyages to the coast of Guinea.” As early as 1474 he had determined in his mind that the world is round; that therefore India should be reached by sailing westward; and that he would sail in that direction to find it. His project he made known to King Joao II, who referred him to his Committee of Council for Geographical Affairs. The committee rendered a decidedly adverse report; but the bishop of Ceuta, seeing that the king was inclined to favor Columbus’s view, suggested to him that he reap the advantage of it by sending an expedition unknown to Columbus. The king adopted the suggestion, sent out his expedition which from fear soon returned. Columbus, discovering the trick that had been attempted, in just indignation quitted Lisbon in 1484; and so the glory and the wonders of the discovery of the Western Continent, the New World, was lost to Portugal. 10. The Portuguese, however, having passed the most southern point of Africa, followed up the attempt to reach India by sailing eastward. In July, 1497, Vasco da Gama sailed from Lisbon. November 22 he rounded the Cape of Good Hope. Christmas day, as he was sailing along, land was sighted, which, in honor of the day, he named Natal. April 7, 1498, he reached Mombas, on the east coast of Africa, near the equator; and May 20, 1498, the India problem was solved by his sighting the Malabar coast of Western India, and anchoring his ships before Calicut. March 9, 1500, another expedition left Lisbon, under the command of Pedro Alvarez Cabral, and April 22 discovered the southeast coast of Brazil, taking possession in the name of the king of Portugal. Cabral then sailed for India, arriving at Calicut in September, and continued his voyage southward as far as to Cananore, and finally to Cochin. In 1501 Joao da Nova discovered the island of Ascension, and Amerigo Vespucci discovered the Rio Plata and Paraguay. Ceylon was discovered in 1505. In 1506 Albuquerque “explored the coasts of Arabia and Persia, made the king of Ormus tributary to the king of Portugal, and sent embassies to Abyssinia.” In he conquered Goa, on the Indian coast, a little north of Calicut. In the Moluccas, or Spice Islands, off the east coast of China, were discovered; and in 1517 the grand era of Portuguese discovery was fitly rounded out by the Fernam Peres de Andrade’s discovery of China, and entering “into commercial relations with the governor of Canton.” 11. These discoveries led large numbers of the Portuguese to emigrate in search of fortune; and the great wealth poured into the kingdom by the trade of the new lands, induced luxury and consequent enervation of those who remained at home: while there was also no immigration, and the soil was worked by slaves. These things of themselves weakened the kingdom; but as though to make its decline certain, in 1536 King Joao III established the Inquisition, which “quickly destroyed all that was left of the old Portuguese spirit.” Because of these things at home and the tyranny and corruption of the governors in the colonies, “everything went from bad to worse.” In 1578 the direct royal succession expired with King Sebastian.

The kingdom fell for two years to the late king’s uncle, who was old, and died the last day of January, 1580; and, in the confusion and intrigues of the several aspirants to the throne that followed, Philip II, king of Spain, was successful in seizing the kingdom and making himself also king of Portugal. 12. In 1640 the Portuguese revolted and were successful in casting off the yoke of Spain, in expelling the Spaniards from Portugal; and in reestablishing a kingdom of their own by crowning a king of their own choice — the duke of Braganza as King Joao IV. During “the sixty years’ captivity” to Spain, however, the trade of her wide possessions, and a considerable portion of those possessions themselves, had been absorbed by other nations. From this Portugal never recovered; and has since had very little power or influence outside her proper European limits.

CHAPTER 4.

THE FRANKS IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

IT was by the Franks, under the leadership of Clovis, that the Visigothic monarchy was broken and deprived of its possessions in Gaul, which it had held for nearly a hundred years. Thus, of the Ten Kingdoms, after the Visigoths the Franks were the next in order to make their power predominant, and even supreme. 2. As late as “thirty years after the battle of Chalons” the tribes of the Franks who had “settled in Gaul were not yet united as one nation.” “Several tribes, independent one of another, were planted between the Rhine and the Somme; there were some in the environs of Cologne, Calais, Cambrai, even beyond the Seine and as far as Le Mans, on the confines of the Britons... The two principal Frankish tribes were those of the Salian Franks and the Ripuarian Franks, settled, the latter in the east of Belgica, on the banks of the Moselle and the Rhine; the former toward the West, between the Meuse, the ocean, and the Somme. Meroveus, whose name was perpetuated in his line, was one of the principal chieftains of the Salian Franks; and his son Childeric, who resided in Tournay, where his tomb was discovered in 1655, was the father of Clovis, who succeeded him in 481, and with whom really commenced the kingdom and history of France.” — Guizot. F30 3. As late as A.D. 486 there was a small portion of Gaul, embracing the cities of Rheims, Troyes, Beauvais, Amiens, and the city and diocese of Soissons, which was still fairly Roman, and was ruled by Syagrius, a Roman, under the title of Patrician, or, as some give it, king of the Romans. “The first exploit of Clovis was the defeat of Syagrius,” in A.D. 486, and the reduction of the country which had acknowledged his authority. By this victory all the country of Gaul north of the Moselle, clear to the Seine, was possessed by the Franks. “The Belgic cities surrendered to the king of the Franks; and his dominions were enlarged toward the east by the ample diocese of Tongres, which Clovis subdued in the tenth year of his reign.” — Gibbon. F31 4. Until this time the Franks and the Alemanni had made almost equal progress in Gaul, and had made their conquests in that province, apparently in perfect national friendliness. But now both nations had become so powerful that it was impossible that two such fierce and warlike nations should subsist side by side without an appeal to arms for the decision of the question as to which should have the supremacy. 5. “From the source of the Rhine to its conflux with the Main and the Moselle, the formidable swarms of the Alemanni commanded either side of the river by the right of ancient possession, or recent victory. They had spread themselves into Gaul, over the modern provinces of Alsace and Lorraine; and their bold invasion of the kingdom of Cologne summoned the Salic prince to the defense of his Ripuarian allies. Clovis encountered the invaders of Gaul in the plain of Tolbiac [A.D. 496] about twenty-four miles from Cologne, and the two fiercest nations of Germany were mutually animated by the memory of past exploits, and the prospect of future greatness. The Franks, after an obstinate struggle, gave way; and the Alemanni, raising a shout of victory, impetuously pressed their retreat. But the battle was restored by the valor, and the conduct, and perhaps by the piety, of Clovis; and the event of the bloody day decided forever the alternative of empire or servitude. The last king of the Alemanni was slain in the field, and his people were slaughtered, or pursued, till they threw down their arms, and yielded to the mercy of the conqueror. Without discipline it was impossible for them to rally; they had contemptuously demolished the walls and fortifications which might have protected their distress; and they were followed into the heart of their forests by an enemy not less active, or intrepid, than themselves. 6. “The great Theodoric congratulated the victory of Clovis, whose sister Albofleda the king of Italy had lately married; but he mildly interceded with his brother in favor of the suppliants and fugitives, who had implored his protection. The Gallic territories, which were possessed by the Alemanni, became the prize of their conqueror; and the haughty nation, invincible, or rebellious, to the arms of Rome, acknowledged the sovereignty of the Merovingian kings, who graciously permitted them to enjoy their peculiar manners and institutions, under the government of official, and, at length, of hereditary dukes.” — Gibbon. F32 7. The defeat of the Burgundians followed that of the Alemanni, A.D. 499. “The kingdom of the Burgundians, which was defined by the course of two Gallic rivers, the Saone and the Rhone, extended from the forest of Vosges to the Alps and the sea of Marseilles. The scepter was in the hands of Gundobald. That valiant and ambitious prince had reduced the number of royal candidates by the death of two brothers, one of whom was the father of Clotilda; but his imperfect prudence still permitted Godesil, the youngest of his brothers, to possess the dependent principality of Geneva. 8. “The allegiance of his brother was already seduced; and the obedience of Godegesil, who joined the royal standard with the troops of Geneva, more effectually promoted the success of the conspiracy. While the Franks and Burgundians contended with equal valor, his seasonable desertion decided the event of the battle; and as Gundobald was faintly supported by the disaffected Gauls, he yielded to the arms of Clovis [A.D. 500], and hastily retreated from the field, which appears to have been situate between Langres and Dijon. He distrusted the strength of Dijon, a quadrangular fortress, encompassed by two rivers, and by a wall thirty feet high, and fifteen thick, with four gates, and thirty-three towers; he abandoned to the pursuit of Clovis the important cities of Lyons and Vienna; and Gundobald still fled with precipitation, till he had reached Avignon, at the distance of two hundred and fifty miles from the field of battle. A long siege and an artful negotiation admonished the king of the Franks of the danger and difficulty of his enterprise. He imposed a tribute on the Burgundian prince, compelled him to pardon and reward his brother’s treachery, and proudly returned to his own dominions, with the spoils and captives of the southern provinces. 9. “This splendid triumph was soon clouded by the intelligence that Gundobald had violated his recent obligations, and that the unfortunate Godegesil, who was left at Vienna with a garrison of five thousand Franks, had been besieged, surprised and massacred by his inhuman brother. Such an outrage might have exasperated the patience of the most peaceful sovereign; yet the conqueror of Gaul dissembled the injury, released the tribute, and accepted the alliance and military service of the king of Burgundy. Clovis no longer possessed those advantages which had assured the success of the preceding war, and his rival, instructed by adversity, had found new resources in the affections of his people. The Gauls or Romans applauded the mild and impartial laws of Gundobald, which almost raised them to the same level with their conquerors. The bishops were reconciled and flattered by the hopes, which he artfully suggested, of his approaching conversion; and though he eluded their accomplishment to the last moment of his life, his moderation secured the peace and suspended the ruin of the kingdom of Burgundy.” — Gibbon. F33 10. In A.D. 507 Clovis turned his arms against the Visigoths in southwestern Gaul, who were ruled by Alaric II. “At the third hour of the day, about ten miles from Poitiers, Clovis overtook, and instantly attacked, the Gothic army, whose defeat was already prepared by terror and confusion. Yet they rallied in their extreme distress, and the martial youths, who had clamorously demanded the battle, refused to survive the ignominy of flight. The two kings encountered each other in single combat. Alaric fell by the hand of his rival; and the victorious Frank was saved, by the goodness of his cuirass, and the vigor of his horse, from the spears of two desperate Goths, who furiously rode against him to revenge the death of their sovereign. The vague expression of a mountain of the slain serves to indicate a cruel though indefinite slaughter.” — Gibbon. F34 In A.D. 508 a treaty of peace was made between the two peoples. “The Visigoths were suffered to retain the possession of Septimania, a narrow tract of seacoast, from the Rhone to the Pyrenees; but the ample province of Aquitain, from those mountains to the Loire, was indissolubly united to the kingdom of France.” F35 11. In A.D. 510, Anastasius, emperor of the Eastern Empire of Rome, sent to Clovis “at Tours a solemn embassy, bringing to him the titles and insignia of Patrician and Consul. ‘Clovis,’ says Gregory of Tours, put on the tunic of purple and the chlamys and the diadem; then mounting his horse he scattered with his own hand and with much bounty gold and silver amongst the people on the road which lies between the gate of the court belonging to the basilica of St. Martin and the church of the city. From that day he was called Consul and Augustus. On leaving the city of Tours he repaired to Paris, where he fixed the seat of his government.’ 12. “Paris was certainly the political center of the dominion, the intermediate point between the early settlements of his race and himself in Gaul, and his new Gallic conquests; but he lacked some of the possessions nearest to him... To the east, north, and southwest of Paris were settled some independent Frankish tribes, governed by chieftains with the name of kings. So soon as he had settled in Paris, it was the one fixed idea of Clovis to reduce them all to subjection. He had conquered the Burgundians and the Visigoths; it remained for him to conquer and unite together all the Franks. The barbarian showed himself in his true colors, during this new enterprise, with his violence, his craft, his cruelty, and his perfidy.” By the basest treachery and by sheer murder he put out of his way the kings of these Frankish tribes; and “so Clovis remained sole king of the Franks: for all the independent chieftains had disappeared.” — Guizot. F36 13. Clovis died, Nov. 27, 511; and his dominions were divided among his four sons — Theodoric, or Thierry I, Childebert, Clodomir, and Clotaire I.

Theodoric, or Thierry I, the eldest son, had the northeastern portion, which lay on both sides of the Rhine, with his capital at Metz. Childebert, the second son, held the central part, the country around Paris, with Paris as his capital. Clodomir, the third son, received western Gaul, along the Loire; and had his capital at Orleans. Clotaire, the youngest son, ruled in the northern part of Gaul, with his capital at Soissons. The Alemanni under the governorship of dukes, belonged with the eastern partition and were tributary to Theodoric. The Burgundians were still ruled by their own kings until 532, when the last Burgundian king, Sigismond, the son of Gundobald, was removed by being buried alive in a deep well, and the Burgundians, too, ruled by dukes, “were still permitted to enjoy their national laws under the obligation of tribute and military service; and the Merovingian princes peaceably reigned over a kingdom, whose glory and greatness had been first overthrown by the arms of Clovis.” — Gibbon. F37 14. The quadruple division of the dominions of Clovis ended in 558 by being merged in the sole rule of Clotaire I, who held the power till his death in 561, when it was again divided into four parts among his four sons — Charibert, king of Paris; Gontran, of Orleans; Sigebert, of Metz; and Chilperic, of Soissons. The Burgundians fell to the portion of Gontran, who left Orleans, and fixed his capital in their country. 15. “In 567 Charibert, king of Paris, died, without children, and a new partition left only three kingdoms — Austrasia, Neustria, and Burgundy.

Austrasia, in the east, extended over the two banks of the Rhine, and comprised, side by side with Roman towns and districts, populations that had remained Germanic. [The Alemanni — Suabians — belonged in this division.] Neustria, in the west, was essentially Gallo-Roman, though it comprised in the north the old territory of the Salian Franks, on the borders of the Scheldt. Burgundy was the old kingdom of the Burgundians, enlarged in the north by some few counties. Paris, as having been the residence of Clovis, their common progenitor, “was kept as a sort of neutral city, which none of them could enter without the common consent of all.” — Guizot. F38 16. In A.D. 567-570, the Lombards, who until this time had continued to dwell in Noricum and northern Panmonia, led by their King Alboin, removed to Italy. F39 “The victorious Autharis [A.D. 584-590] asserted his claim to the dominion of Italy. At the foot of the Rhaetian Alps, he subdued the resistance, and rifled the hidden treasures, of a sequestered island in the lake of Comum. At the extreme point of Calabria, he touched with his spear a column on the seashore of Rhegium, proclaiming that ancient landmark to stand the immovable boundary of his kingdom.” With the exception of the possessions of the Exarchate of Ravenna, and some cities on the coast, “the remainder of Italy was possessed by the Lombards; and from Pavia, the royal seat, their kingdom was extended to the east, the north, and the west, as far as the confines of the Avars, F40 the Bavarians, and the Franks of Austrasia and Burgundy.” — Gibbon. F41 17. “In A.D. 613 new incidents connected with family matters placed Clotaire II, son of Chilperic, and heretofore king of Soissons, in possession of the three kingdoms” of Austrasia, Neustria, and Burgundy. Clotaire II “kept them united until 628 and left them so to his son Dagobert I, who remained in possession of them until 638. At his death a new division of the Frankish dominions took place, no longer into three but two kingdoms:

Austrasia being the one, and Neustria and Burgundy the other.” — Guizot. F42 18. In tracing this history farther it is essential to note the rise of a new character in these kingdoms, — the Mayor of the Palace, — which finally developed the era of Charlemagne. The last king of the line of Clovis, who displayed or possessed any of the characteristics of a king was Dagobert I.

After his death in A.D. 638, the kings dwindled into insignificance, if not idiocy, and the Mayors of the Palace assumed sole authority, yet always in the name of the “do-nothing” kings; and the struggle for supremacy was kept up between the mayors, as it had been before by the kings. Finally, in A.D. 687, Pepin of Heristal, Mayor of the Palace, of Austrasia defeated Berthar, mayor of Neustria, at the battle of Testry, and so brought the contest virtually to an end. “From that time to the end of his life, in A.D. 714, Pepin of Heristal was unquestioned master of all Franks, the kings under him being utterly insignificant.” Pepin of Heristal was succeeded by his son Charles, who in A.D. 732 won the name of Martel — the Hammer — by the crushing defeat which he gave to the Saracens under Abdel- Rahman at the battle of Tours. 19. Charles Martel died Oct. 22, 741, and left his dominions divided between his two sons, Pepin the Short, and Carloman. Pepin had Neustria, Burgundy, Provence, and the suzerainty of Aquitaine. Carloman had Austrasia, Thuringia, and Allemannia. Each, however, with only the title of Mayor of the Palace. In 746 Carloman abdicated his power, left his dominions to Pepin, had Pope Zachary to make him a monk, and shut himself up in the monastery of Monte Casino. Thus in 747 Pepin the Short found himself sole master of all the heritage of Clovis, but still with only the title of Mayor of the Palace. At last in 751 he decided to put an end to the fiction. He sent an embassy to the pope to consult him “on the subject of the kings then existing amongst the Franks, and who bore only the name of king without enjoying a tittle of royal authority.” The pope, who had been already posted on the matter, answered that “it was better to give the title of king to him who exercised the sovereign power.” Accordingly the next year in March, 752, “in the presence and with the assent of the general assembly” at Soissons, Pepin was proclaimed king of the Franks, and received from the hand of St. Boniface the sacred anointing. “At the head of the Franks, as Mayor of the Palace from 741, and as king from 752, Pepin had completed in France and extended in Italy the work which his father Charles Martel had begun and carried on from 714 to 741 in State and Church. He left France reunited in one and placed at the head of Christian Europe.” — Guizot. F43 He died at the monastery of St. Denis, Sept. 18, 768. 20. Pepin, like his father, left his dominions to two sons, Charles and Carloman; but in 771 Carloman died, leaving Charles sole king, who, by his remarkable ability, became Charles the Great —CHARLEMAGNE. “The appellation of great has often been bestowed and sometimes deserved, but\parCHARLEMAGNE is the only prince in whose favor the title has been indissolubly blended with the name... The dignity of his person, the length of his reign, the prosperity of his arms, the vigor of his government, and the reverence of distant nations, distinguish him from the royal crowd; and Europe dates a new era from his restoration of the Western Empire.” — Gibbon. F44 21. It seems almost certain that Charlemagne really aspired to the restoration of the Roman Empire. But one life was too short, and there was no second Charlemagne. Besides this, the prophetic word was written that when once Rome was divided into its ten parts, they should not be made to cleave one to another any more than could iron and clay. 22. Charlemagne reigned forty-six years — forty-three from the death of Carloman — thirty-three of which were spent in almost ceaseless wars. He conducted, in all, fifty-three expeditions — thirty-one against the Saxons, Frisons, Danes, Slavs, Bavarians, and the Avars in southern Germany, Bohemia, Noricum, and Pannonia; five against the Lombards, in Italy; twelve against the Saracens, in Spain, Corsica, and Sardinia; two against the Greeks; and three in Gaul itself against the Aquitanians and the Britons.

Thus Saxony, Bohemia, Bavaria, Pannonia; the Lombard kingdom of Italy as far as the duchy of Beneventum; that part of Spain between the Pyrenees and the river Ebro; Burgundy, Alemannia, and all Gaul, were subject to Charlemagne. 23. He already wore the iron crown of Lombardy, in addition to bearing the kingship of all the Frankish dominions; and on Christmas day, 800, in the church of St. Peter, Pope Leo III placed a precious crown upon the head of this mighty king, while the great dome resounded with the acclamations of the people: “Long life and victory to Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned by God the great and pacific emperor of the Romans.” “And when in 801 an embassy arrived with curious presents from Harun-al-Rashid, the great caliph who held in the East the like position to that held by Charles in the West, men recognized it as a becoming testimony to the world-wide reputation of the Frankish monarchy.” “For fourteen years, with less of fighting and more of organization, Charles the Great proved that he was worthy of his high title and revived office of emperor of the West.” 24. But this honor, this power, and this glory were short-lived.

Charlemagne died at Aix-la-Chapelle, Jan. 28, 814, and the unity of the empire which he had formed was at an end. “Like more than one great barbaric warrior, he admired the Roman Empire that had fallen, — its vastness all in one and its powerful organization under the hand of a single master. He thought he could resuscitate it, durably, through the victory of a new people and a new faith, by the hand of Franks and Christians. With this view he labored to conquer, convert, and govern. He tried to be, at one and the same time, Caesar, Augustus, and Constantine. And for a moment he appeared to have succeeded; but the appearance passed away with himself. The unity of the empire and the absolute power of the emperor were buried in his grave.” — Guizot. F45 25. Charlemagne was succeeded by his only surviving son, Louis the Pious, or Easy, upon whom he had fixed the succession in 813, about six months before his death. Louis passed his life in a struggle with an ambitious second wife, and three undutiful sons, who by constant rebellions abused his natural gentleness and goodness. In the quarrels and jealousies of his sons he was twice deposed and twice restored; and perhaps only escaped a third deposition, by his death, June 20, 840. This set his sons free to wrangle among themselves, which they did till the fearful battle of Fontanet, June 25, 841; and the treaty of Verdun, August, 843, put an end to their mutual struggles and “to the griefs of the age.” Lothair, the eldest son, retained the title of emperor; and received the Italian territory, with a long, narrow strip stretching from the Gulf of Lyons to the North Sea, bounded on the east by the Alps and the Rhine, and on the west by the Rhone, the Saone, the Meuse, and the Scheldt. Charles the Bald had all the rest of Gaul. Louis the German received Alemannia and all the rest of the German lands east of the Rhine, with the towns of Mainz, Worms, and Spires, on the western bank of that river. 26. This division, though counted as marking the real beginning of the history of France and Germany as separate kingdoms, continued but a short time. For the emperor Lothair died in 855, and was succeeded in his possessions to the north of Italy by Lothair II, who died in 869, when Charles the Bald seized upon his territory. But Louis the German disputed his seizure of the whole prize, and in 870 they signed the treaty of Mersen by which Louis became possessed of most of Lotharingia, or, as it was now called, Lorraine; Charles the Bald the rest of it; and Lothair’s brother, Louis II, was allowed to retain the possessions of his father in Italy. Louis II died in 875, and Charles the Bald managed to secure the imperial crown, and aimed at the possession of the whole empire with it. But Louis the German, at his death in 876, had divided Germany among his three sons, — Carlman, Louis, and Charles, — the second of whom, Louis, met Charles the Bald on the field of Andernach, and gained such a victory over him as not only to put an effectual damper upon his imperial aspirations, but to force him to give up the portions of Lorraine that had been ceded to his father by the treaty of Mersen. Carlman and Louis both soon died, and the German kingdom passed to Charles surnamed “the Fat,” the youngest of the three sons of Louis the German. 27. Charles the Fat, incompetent, indolent, and gluttonous, became, without any effort of his own, sovereign of all the dominions of Charlemagne, except Burgundy, which now became again an independent state. Alemannia — Swabia — he inherited from his father in 876; by the death of his brother Carlman, he received Bavaria, and became king of Italy, in 880; he was crowned emperor in 881; the death of his brother Louis of Saxony gave him all the rest of the Germanic possessions; and as Charles the Bald had died in 877, and had no successor who could relieve France from the scourge of the Northmen, Charles the Fat was invited to become the king of France, at the death of Carloman in 885. But instead of boldly meeting the Northmen with an army, he adopted the policy of buying off these bold savages who had plundered Cologne and Treves, and had fed their horses over the very grave and in the beautiful basilica of Charlemagne. And when they laid siege to Paris and Charles still pursued the same cowardly course, his disgusted subjects under the leadership of his nephew Arnulf, deposed him in 887, and in a week or two afterward he died. Charles the Fat was the last ruler who ever reigned over both France and Germany. After his deposition, the history of these two countries is distinct. 28. At the time of the deposition of Charles the Fat, France proper was already broken up into “twenty-nine provinces or fragments of provinces which had become petty states, the former governors of which, under the names of dukes, counts, marquises, and viscounts, were pretty nearly real sovereigns. Twenty-nine great fiefs, which have played a special part in French history, date back to this epoch.” — Guizot. F46 This divided condition of things prevented any systematic defense of the land against the Norman invasions, which like wave after wave of a mighty tide flooded the land. After Charles the Fat had so signally failed them in their struggle against the Normans, the states of France chose from among themselves to be central ruler and king, Eudes, count of Paris. Before Charles the Fat had come to Paris with his army only to buy off the Normans, Eudes had demonstrated his ability and valor, in the defense of Paris against the terrible siege pressed by the Normans led by Rolf; and he was now, A.D. 888, rewarded with the position and title of king. 29. The Northmen — Nor’men, Nor’man, Normans — were people of the far north: first of Scandinavia in general, later more especially of Norway.

Their invasions of France began even in the time of Charlemagne. For when Charlemagne one day “arrived by mere hap and unexpectedly in a certain town of Narbonnese Gaul, whilst he was at dinner and was as yet unrecognized by any, some corsairs of the Northmen came to ply their piracies in the very port. When their vessels were descried, they were supposed to be Jewish traders according to some, African according to others, and British in the opinions of others; but the gifted monarch, perceiving by the build and lightness of the craft, that they bore not merchandise, but foes, said to his own folks: ‘These vessels be not laden with merchandise, but manned with cruel foes.’ At these words all the Franks, in rivalry one with another, ran to their ships, but uselessly, for the Northmen... feared lest all their fleet should be taken or destroyed in the port, and they avoided, by a flight of inconceivable rapidity, not only the glaives, but even the eyes, of those who were pursuing them. 30. “Pious Charles, however, a prey to well-grounded fear, rose up from the table, stationed himself at a window looking eastward, and there remained a long while, and his eyes were filled with tears. As none durst question him, this warlike prince explained to the grandees who were about his person, the cause of his movement and of his tears: ‘Know ye, my lieges, wherefore I weep so bitterly? Of a surety I fear not lest these fellows should succeed in injuring me by their miserable piracies; but it grieveth me deeply that, whilst I live, they should have been nigh to touching at this shore; and I am a prey to violent sorrow when I foresee what evils they will heap upon my descendants and their people.’” 31. “The forecast and the dejection of Charles were not unreasonable. It will be found that there is special mention made, in the Chronicles of the ninth and tenth centuries, of forty-seven incursions into France, of Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, and Irish pirates, all comprised under the name of Northmen; and, doubtless, many other incursions of less gravity have left no trace in history.” — Guizot. F47 It was one of the greatest of these invasions, led by Rollo, or Rolf, that resulted in the raising of Eudes, count of Paris, to the kingship in 888. When questioned by a messenger of the Franks, as to their intentions, Rollo answered: “We be Danes; and all be equally masters amongst us. We be come to drive out the inhabitants of this land, and subject it as our own country.” F48 32. The contest between Eudes and Rollo was variable; but with the general gain in favor of the Normans. This because Rollo showed himself friendly to the people not found in arms, and treated gently those in the towns and country which he gained. Thus not only were the Franks kept from uniting solidly against the Normans, but some of the divisions were actually won to co-operation with them. In addition to this successful policy toward the people of France, Rollo held the lasting friendship of Alfred the Great, and his successor, Athel stane, of England. “He thus became, from day to day, more reputable as well as more formidable in France, insomuch that Eudes himself was obliged to have recourse, in dealing with him, to negotiations and presents.” F49 33. The provinces of southern France had not acknowledged Eudes as king. When he had quieted the Normans, Eudes ventured an attempt to compel the southern provinces to acknowledge him as king. Then the southern lords united with the disaffected parties in the northern provinces, held at Rheims in 893 “a great assembly,” and elected as rival king, Charles the Simple. He placed himself under the protection of the Emperor Arnulf, of whose house he was; and Arnulf “formally invested him with the kingdom of France, and sent soldiers to assert his claims.” In 898 Eudes died, and Charles the Simple was recognized sole king of France. 34. By this time, Rollo with his Normans had grown to be such a power in France “that the necessity of treating with him was clear. In 911 Charles, by advice of his councilors and, amongst them, of Robert, brother of the late king Eudes, who had himself become count of Paris and duke of France, sent to the chieftain of the Northmen Franco, archbishop of Rouen, with orders to offer him the cession of a considerable portion of Neustria and the hand of his young daughter Gisele, on condition that he become a Christian and acknowledge himself the king’s vassal. Rollo, by the advice of his comrades, received these overtures with a good grace; and agreed to a truce for three months, during which they might treat about peace.” — Guizot. F50 At the end of the three months the Normans had concluded to accept in general the king’s offer. A day was fixed for the formal settlement of the terms of the proposed arrangement. Rollo insisted on receiving much more territory than King Charles had originally offered.

This, with all other matters, was made satisfactory to him and his warriors; and then came the fulfillment of their part of the compact — their baptism, and Rollo’s swearing fealty as vassal of the king. Rollo and his warriors were formally baptized, Rollo receiving the name of Robert; and duly receiving in marriage the king’s daughter Gisele. 35. Then came the swearing of fealty. This was a ceremony which, in those times, was performed “whenever there was a change either of the overlord or of the underlord. The duke, count, or whatever he was, knelt down before the overlord; and, holding his hands, swore to follow him in war, and to be true to him always. The overlord, in his turn, swore to aid him and be a true and good lord to him in return, and kissed his brow. In return, the underlord — vassal, as he was called — was to kiss the foot of his superior. This was paying homage. Kings thus paid homage and swore allegiance to the emperor; dukes or counts, to kings; lesser counts or barons, to dukes; and for the lands they owned they were bound to serve their lord in council and in war, and not to fight against him. Lands so held were called fiefs; and the whole was called the feudal system.” — Yonge.

F51 The ceremony passed off all smoothly enough until it came to the point where Rollo should kiss the king’s foot. This Rollo omitted. The bishops told him that one “who received such a gift as the duchy of Normandy, was bound to kiss the king’s foot.” But Rollo bluntly answered: “Never will I bend the knee before the knees of any; and I will kiss the foot of none.” 36. However, at the special request of the Franks, and rather than to make a breach in the compact, Rollo consented that the king’s foot should be kissed; but only by one of his warriors, and so gave order to one standing by. The tall Northman, instead of kneeling and reverently performing the ceremony, simply stooped and seized the king’s foot, and, standing “bolt upright,” lifted it to his lips: with the result that the king, with his throne and all, was upset backward: “which caused great bursts of laughter and much disturbance amongst the throng. Then the king and all the grandees who were about him — prelates, abbots, dukes, and counts — swore, in the name of the Catholic faith, that they would protect the patrician Rollo in his life, his members, and his folk, and would guarantee to him the possession of the aforesaid land, to him and his descendants forever. After which the king, well-satisfied, returned to his domains; and Rollo departed with Duke Robert for the town of Rouen.” F52 37. Thus arose the duchy of Normandy, whose dukes and people played such a large part in the history of the later Middle Ages. There “the history of Normandy began. Hrolf becomes Duke Robert, his people become Frenchmen. The duchy soon grew into a compact and orderly state, prosperous and vigorous; Norman towns and churches sprang up on all hands; French manners and speech soon ruled supreme; and in all the arts of peace, in building, commerce, letters, the Normans forthwith took the lead. The noble Scandinavian race, destined to influence so large a portion of the world’s history, herein made worthy mark on the soil and institutions of France. 38. “Soon after this time the French lords, headed by Robert, duke of France, the ‘king of the barons,’ second son of Robert the Strong, rose against their Caroling king [A.D. 922], and shut him up in Laon, the last stronghold of his family; thence he fled into Lorraine. On the death of Robert, the barons made Rodolf of Burgundy their king, and continued the strife; and Charles, falling into the hands of Hubert of Vermandois, was held by him as a hostage till his death in 929. Rodolf then became undisturbed king till he, too, died in 936. The barons under the guidance of Hugh ‘the White’ or ‘the Great,’ son of Robert, the greatest man of his age, sent over to England for Louis the son of Charles, who had been carried thither by his mother for safety. This is that ‘Louis d’Outremer’ — ‘Louis from Over-sea’ — who now became king. After showing unusual vigor in a struggle with Otho the Great of Germany, who claimed the kingship over France, he was recognized by all in 941. 39. “His reign could be nothing but the miserable record of a struggle against the great lords, Hugh the Great and Richard of Normandy. In this perpetual and wearisome strife he spent his latter days, and died, still a young man, in 954. He was the only man of energy among all the later Carolings. His son Lothair succeeded. His was a long and inglorious reign, ending in 986. His son Louis followed, ruling for a single year. He died childless in 987; and the only heir to the throne — if the feudal lords chose to recognize an hereditary claim — was his uncle, Charles, duke of Lorraine. The barons did not choose to be so tied. They set the Caroling prince aside, and elected Hugh, duke of France, to be king. He was afterward solemnly crowned at Rheims by Archbishop Adalberon. Thus did Hugh Capet, founder of a great dynasty, come to the throne. With him begins the true history of the kingdom of France: we have reached the epoch of the feudal monarchy.” F53 40. “Hugh Capet, eldest son of Hugh the Great, duke of France, was but a Neustrian noble when he was elected king. The house of the Carolings was entirely set aside, its claims and rights denied, by the new force now growing up, the force of feudalism. The head of the barons should be one of themselves; he should stand clear of the imperial ideas and ambitions which had ruled the conduct of his predecessors; he should be a Frenchman in speech and birth and thought, and not a German; but above all, he must be strong enough to hold his own. And among the great lords of northern France, the representative of the house of Robert the Strong held the most central position, and united in himself most elements of strength.” F54 That the king should be strong enough to hold his own, was indeed the greatest need, if there were to be any king of France at all. We have seen that at the time of the deposition of Charles the Fat, exactly a hundred years before, France was broken up into twenty-nine petty states. But at the time of the election of Hugh Capet, 987, the number of petty states had increased to fifty-five. And the temper of their rulers is aptly indicated in the reply that one of them, Adalbert, count of Pergord, once made to Hugh Capet himself after he had been made king. In a tone of superiority, Hugh had asked: “Who made thee count?” Quick as a flash, Adalbert darted back the words: “Who made thee king?” 41. “It was a confederation of petty sovereigns, of petty despots, unequal amongst themselves, and having, one toward another, certain duties and rights; but invested in their own domains, over their personal and direct subjects, with arbitrary and absolute power. This is the essential element of the feudal system: therein it differs from every other aristocracy, every other form of government. There has been no scarcity, in this world, of aristocracies and despotisms. There have been peoples arbitrarily governed, nay, absolutely possessed, by a single man, by a college of priests, by a body of patricians. But none of these despotic governments was like the feudal system... 42. “Liberty, equality, and tranquillity were all alike wanting, from the tenth to the thirteenth century, to the inhabitants of each lord’s domains: their sovereign was at their very doors, and none of them was hidden from him or beyond the reach of his mighty arm. Of all tyrannies, the worst is that which can thus keep account of its subjects; and which sees from its seat, the limits of its empire. The caprices of the human will then show themselves in all their intolerable extravagance and, moreover, with irresistible promptness. It is then, too, that inequality of conditions makes itself more rudely felt: riches, might, independence, every advantage and every right present themselves every instant to the gaze of misery, weakness, and servitude. The inhabitants of fiefs could not find consolation in the bosom of tranquillity: incessantly mixed up in the quarrels of their lord, a prey to his neighbors’ devastations, they led a life still more precarious and still more restless than that of the lords themselves, and they had to put up at one and the same time with the presence of war, privilege, and absolute power.” — Guizot. F55 43. Politically, feudalism might be defined as the system which made the owner of a piece of land, whether large or small, the sovereign of those who dwelt thereon: an annexation of personal to territorial authority more familiar to Easter despotism than to the free races of primitive Europe. On this principle were founded, and by it are explained, feudal law and justice, feudal finance, feudal legislation, each tenant holding toward his lord the position which his own tenants held toward himself. And it is just because the relation was so uniform, the principle so comprehensive, the ruling class so firmly bound to its support, that feudalism has been able to lay upon society that grasp which the struggles of more than twenty generations have scarcely shaken off.” — Bryce. F56 44. From this point onward to the period of the Reformation, the history of France is so wrapped up in contentions with the papacy, with the Crusades, and with the “Hundred Years’ War” with England, that it is not necessary to treat it any further separately. The dynasty founded in the election of Hugh Capet continues even to-day, in certain claimants to the throne of France, if only that throne were restored.

CHAPTER 5.

THE ALEMANNI IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

THE Alemanni and their Suevic brethren who followed them in the invasion and division of the Roman Empire took possession of all of the Roman provinces of Rhaetia and Vindelicia, and the territory of Agri Decumates. “Thus the Alemanni filled up all that southwestern corner of Germany and Switzerland which is naturally bounded by the Rhine as it flows westward to Bale and then makes a sudden turn at right angles northward to Strasburg, Worms, and Maintz.” — Hodgkin. F57 They occupied the northern border of what is now Switzerland, as far south as Winterthur. To this territory to the eastward of the northern flow of the Rhine, they also added that part of Gaul which lay between the Rhine and Moselle, and the head waters of the Seine. Thus in all at the fall of the empire in 476 the Alemanni occupied the country which now comprises Alsace, Lorraine, Baden, Wurtemburg, greater part of Bavaria, and the southern of the large divisions of HesseDarmstadt. 2. When the Alemanni were defeated by Clovis, their Gallic possessions became the prize of the conqueror, but all the rest they were allowed to occupy, and were permitted by Clovis and his successors “to enjoy their peculiar manners and institutions, under the government of official, and at length of hereditary dukes.” — Gibbon. F58 These,as well as the other German conquests of Clovis, “soon became virtually free. They continued to acknowledge Frankish supremacy; but the acknowledgment was only formal. At the head of each confederation was its own herzog or duke.

These rulers were at first appointed by the Frankish kings, or received their sanction; but in course of time the office became hereditary in particular families.” F59 3. Of the Alemanni the two principal dukedoms were Swabia and Bavaria; and it is under these two names that their future history is found. But as Swabia is the original, and as it has exerted a greater influence in the affairs of Germany than has any other confederation, it is the one about which most must be said; for the history of it is, in a measure, the history of Germany, especially after the treaty of Verdun, A.D. 843. 4. Thassilo, duke of Bavaria, had been on ill terms with Pepin, the father of Charlemagne. When Charlemagne came to the throne, Thassilo rendered very indifferent service. His repeated acts of treachery caused Charlemagne to remove him, and Bavaria was placed under the authority of the margrave of Ostreich. The “margraves” were “lords of the marches.” The “marches” were formed of the border countries, by Charlemagne, over which he appointed “margraves” (markgrafen) “whose duty was to administer justice in his name, to collect tribute, and extend his conquests.”

Bavaria was ruled by margraves till about 900, when it again became a dukedom. The margraviate of Ostreich continued till 1156, when it, too, was made a duchy, and thus the march of Ostreich — East domain — formed by Charlemagne, was the origin of what is now the empire of Austria. 5. In the treaty of Verdun, it will be remembered, Louis the German received the whole of Germany east of the Rhine. And as he was the first sovereign who ruled over the Germans, and over no other western people, he is considered in history as the founder of the kingdom of Germany. At his death, his son Charles the Fat received from him Swabia — Alemannia; and, as before shown, by the death of his two brothers, Charles inherited all Germany, was made emperor, and by invitation assumed the sovereignty of France, but was deposed, and Arnulf, his nephew, was chosen king of Germany in his place. Arnulf. like Charles the Fat, went to Rome and was crowned emperor. He returned in 890 and inflicted such a defeat upon the Northmen that “they never again returned in such numbers as to be a national peril.” 6. Arnulf died in 899 and was succeeded by his son Louis the Child, six years old, who nominally reigned till 911. His reign was one of the darkest periods of German history. For, as soon as the Magyars — the modern Hungarians — heard that Arnulf had been succeeded by a child, “they swept into Germany in vast numbers, and fearful was the havoc they caused in every part of the kingdom.” “Where the Northmen had whipped with cords, these barbarians lashed with scorpions.” And there was no leader around whom the nation could rally. At this time and for about three hundred years, Germany consisted of five duchies, — Swabia, Bavaria Franconia, Saxony, and Lorraine. 7. Louis the Child died in 911. Even while he lived, the dukes were virtually kings in their duchies; and when he died, they could have been altogether kings, but that the dangers threatened by the Magyars, the Slavs, and the Northmen, obliged them to form a central government for the common defense. Accordingly, the nobles assembled at Forcheim, and upon the advice of Otto, the duke of Saxony, Conrad, duke of Franconia, was made king. But his election displeased the dukes of Bavaria, Swabia, and Lorraine. The duke of Lorraine rebelled outright. The dukes of Bavaria and Swabia yielded; but the bishops, jealous of their power, induced Conrad to force a quarrel with these as also with Henry, duke of Saxony.

This fairly created al1 an anarchy all the days of Conrad; but on his deathbed, 918, he recommended that Henry of Saxony be chosen king in his stead. 8. With Henry began the rule of the house of Saxony, which continued one hundred and six years, 918-1024, through Henry I, Otto I, Otto II, Otto III and Henry II. Henry I delivered Germany from the scourge of the Magyars; and so thoroughly restored peace and order throughout the dominion that when he died, in 936, “every land inhabited by German population formed part of the kingdom, and none of the duchies were at war with each other nor among themselves.” Before his death the nobles had, in national assembly, promised Henry that his son Otto should be recognized as his successor, and the promise was kept. Otto I the Great reigned from 936- 973. His half-brother, however, raised a rebellion, and was joined by the dukes of Franconia and Bavaria. But by the help of the duke of Swabia the rising was put down. A second rebellion was led by Otto’s brother helped by the dukes of Franconia and Lorraine. This, too, was quelled, to the immense advantage of Otto. 9. Having secured peace in Germany, and made himself master of the kingdom, as none of his immediate predecessors had been, Otto was by far the greatest sovereign in Europe. But not content with this, he decided to take a step that caused Germany ages of trouble — he put himself into the hands of the pope, and became the “protector of the Church.” The way in which it was brought about was this: Adelaide, the young widow of Lothair, the son of King Hugh of Provence, — Burgundy, — had refused to marry the son of Berengar, king of Lombardy. For this she was cast into prison and was cruelly treated. She appealed to Otto. Her appeal not only touched his sympathies, but aroused in him a strong ambition; for he saw the way thus opened to imperial authority. 10. At the head of a strong force Otto crossed the Alps in 951. He displaced Berengar, who, “in the extremity of his fortunes, made a formal cession of the Italian kingdom, in his own name and in that of his son Adalbert to the Saxon, as his overlord.” Upon this Otto assumed the title of king of Italy. Besides this, he was so fascinated by young Queen Adelaide that in a few weeks he married her. His son Ludolf thought his rights threatened by this marriage; returned sullenly to Germany; and with the archbishop of Mainz formed a conspiracy against his father. Otto, hearing of their plot, hastened home, leaving Duke Conrad of Lorraine to attend to affairs in Italy. But Conrad restored the crown to Berengar, and returned to Germany and joined the conspiracy of Ludolf and the archbishop. War broke out. The majority of the kingdom were indeed opposed to Otto: being displeased with his ambitious designs in Italy. But Conrad and Ludolf basely invited in the terrible Magyars; which so disgusted the Germans that the whole nation, with one consent, rallied to the support of Otto. At the battle of Lechfeld, 955. Conrad was slain, and the Magyars received such an overwhelming defeat that the deliverance of Germany was complete. From that time the Magyars began to settle, and “adapt themselves to the conditions of civilized life in the country which they now occupy.” and so arose the kingdom of Hungary. 11. Meantime, in Italy, Berengar and his son Adalbert had laid such exorbitant taxes, and had made themselves so tyrannical, that an embassy was sent by the most of the bishops and princes, as well as the pope, imploring Otto to come again and deliver them. The pope at this time was John XII. The legates of the pope “were enjoined to offer the imperial crown to the king of Germany, provided he drove out the tyrants, and delivered the mother of all churches from the miseries she groaned under and could no longer bear.” — Bower. F60 this Otto went a second time into Italy, in 962, deposed Berengar, and was crowned emperor by the pope. 12. “The emperor, at the request of the pope, promised upon oath to defend the Roman Church against all her enemies; to maintain her in the quiet possession of all the privileges she had enjoyed to that time; to restore to the holy see the lands and possessions that belonged to St. Peter, as soon as he recovered them; to assist the pope to the utmost of his power when assistance was wanted; and lastly to make no alteration of the government of Rome without his knowledge or approbation. At the same time the emperor confirmed all the grants of Pepin and Charlemagne; but obliged in his turn the pope and the Romans to swear obedience to him, and promise upon oath to lend no kind of assistance to Berengar or to his son Adalbert, from whose tyranny he was come to deliver them.” FT61 13. Thus in the year 962 was formed the “Holy Roman Empire,” that mightiest weapon of the papacy in the Middle Ages. After Otto, the sovereign crowned in Germany always claimed it as his right to be afterward crowned in Milan with the iron crown of Lombardy, and in Rome with the golden crown of the empire. In 964 Otto returned to Germany, increased the number of the duchies and nobles, and as he was now the protector of the Church, and was set for the promotion of her interests, he immensely increased the importance of the prelates. “They received great gifts of land, were endowed with jurisdiction in criminal as well as civil cases, and obtained several other valuable sovereign rights.” In 966 he went once more to Italy, where he remained till his death, May 7, 973. 14. Nothing of particular note occurred in the reigns of the three following emperors of the house of Saxony, except that the last one, Henry II, made a treaty with Rudolf III, king of Burgundy, by which at the death of Rudolf his kingdom was to be united to the empire; and showed himself so dutiful to the papacy that both he and his wife were made saints. 15. At Henry’s death, in 1024, the great nobles met at Oppenheim, and elected Conrad II, a count of Franconia, king. With him began the rule of the house of Franconia, which continued one hundred years, through Conrad II, Henry III, Henry IV, and Henry V. Through the reigns of all, there were plottings, counter-plottings, and wars, civil as well as foreign, which kept the nation in a constant turmoil. In accordance with the abovementioned treaty, Conrad, in 1032, received into the empire the kingdom of Burgundy; and in 1034 he received in Geneva the homage of its leading nobles. Conrad died in 1039, and was succeeded by his son Henry III, whom, as early as 1026, Conrad had caused to be elected king of Germany, and whom he had made duke of Bavaria in 1027, and duke of Swabia and king of Burgundy in 1038. 16. At this time the vices of the clergy all over Europe had become most scandalous: the popes setting the infamous example. Henry entered Rome with an army in 1046, summoned a council, deposed the pope who held the throne, and raised to the papal see, Clement II, who, in turn, crowned him emperor. In the succeeding ten years of his reign it devolved upon Henry to appoint three more popes in the succession; and as all of them were energetic administrators, and exerted themselves to carry out the policy of Henry, thus he did much to stay the tide of papal wickedness. 17. In 1056 Henry III died, and was succeeded by his son Henry, six years old, but who had already, at the age of four years, been crowned King Henry IV of Germany. He was under guardianship till he was fifteen years old, 1065, when he assumed the duties of government, and from that time till his death, forty-one years, between the fierce arrogance of the papacy and the ambitious jealousies of his own subject nobles, he never knew peace. During his reign was the first crusade, 1095; and he made Welf (or Guelf, or Guelph), of Altdorf in Swabia, duke of Bavaria. 18. Henry IV died in 1106, and was succeeded by his son Henry V. War with the papacy was renewed, in which Henry’s chief friends were two Swabian princes of the Hohenstaufen family, Frederick and Conrad.

Frederick had been made duke of Swabia by Henry IV; and now by Henry V, Conrad was made duke of Franconia, which had been directly attached to the crown since the time of Otto I. Henry V was succeeded in 1125 by Lothair, duke of Saxony, and when he received the imperial crown, Innocent II claimed that he did so as the vassal of the pope. Lothair was succeeded in 1137 by the above Conrad, the Swabian duke of Franconia, who became Conrad III. 19. With Conrad III began the reign of the house of Swabia, or Hohenstaufen, which continued one hundred and seventeen years, and was the most glorious age of the mediaeval history of Germany. In 1146 went forth the second crusade, headed by the Emperor Conrad, and Louis VII of France. Conrad died in 1152, when Germany passed under the rule of one of the greatest sovereigns she ever had, — Frederick Barbarossa, duke of Swabia, — who reigned thirty-eight years. 20. Here we must notice the rise of another Swabian family which has had a notable course in history, and which is inseparably connected with the reign of Frederick Barbarossa. Henry IV made Welf, or Guelf, of Swabia, duke of Bavaria. He was succeeded in the duchy of Bavaria by his son, Henry the Proud, who was invested with the duchy of Saxony. Henry the Proud rebelled against Conrad III, whereupon both his duchies were declared forfeited: Saxony was granted to Albert the Bear, a Saxon noble; and Bavaria fell to Leopold, margrave of Austria. Henry the Proud suddenly died, and his brother, duke Welf, continued the contest for his duchies. Welf, hoping to succeed Leopold in the margraviate, consented to a compromise by which Saxony, with the assent of Albert the Bear, was granted to Henry the Lion, the son of Henry the Proud. Instead, however, of the margraviate of Austria being given to Welf, it passed, in the end, to Henry Jasomirgott. F62 Welf for years contended with his rival, but without avail, for Henry the Lion finally, at the head of an army, laid claim to Bavaria as his, by right of inheritance from his father, Henry the Proud.

Frederick Barbarossa, through his mother, was allied to the Welfs; and he, having a personal regard for Henry the Lion, began his reign by promising to secure for Henry the duchy of Bavaria. The margrave Jasomirgott, however, persistently refused to give it up, till at last in 1156 Frederick detached the march of Austria from Bavaria, made it a duchy with special privileges, and bestowed it on the stubborn margrave. This honor contented Jasomirgott, and left Frederick free to fulfill his promise to Henry the Lion; and so Henry received his paternal duchy of Bavaria, in addition to the duchy of Saxony which he already held. And from this Swabian — Alemannian — house of Welf, or Guelph, is descended in direct line through Henry the Proud and Henry the Lion, the house of Hanover, which has ruled England from George I — Aug. 1, 1714 — to the present Edward VII, “Rex Dei gracia.” 21. Frederick Barbarossa received the German crown at Aix-la-Chapelle, March 9, 1152. In October, 1154, he descended to Italy and assumed the iron crown of Lombardy. Then, “after apprehending Arnold of Brescia, as an earnest of his purpose to support the papal cause,” he was crowned emperor by Pope Adrian IV, June 18, 1155. From this time onward till 1186 the reign of Frederick was little else than a long contest with the Lombard cities and with the popes. By his marriage with Beatrice, daughter of the count of Upper Burgundy, he added that province to the kingdom of Burgundy and to the empire. He thus reasserted the imperial authority in Burgundy and received the homage of the Burgundian nobles.

Having at last brought these struggles to an honorable close, he started in 1187 for Palestine at the head of the third crusade, but was drowned while crossing a small river in Pisidia, June 10, 1190. 22. Frederick was succeeded by his son, Henry VI, who was crowned emperor by Celestine III, March 31, 1191. Richard I of England, — Coeur de Lion, — as he was on his way home from the third crusade, had been arrested by the duke of Austria, Dec. 21, 1192, and in the following March was surrendered to the emperor Henry, who imprisoned him. With the money that was paid for Richard’s ransom, the emperor was enabled to fit out a fine army, with which he succeeded in conquering the Saracen kingdom of Sicily. So great was the authority which he acquired that it is supposed to be almost certain that had he lived a little longer he would have achieved his great ambition of having the crown declared hereditary in his family. But this aspiration was quenched by his death in 1197. In his reign, about 1195, began the fourth crusade. 23. Upon Henry’s death there was a double election. Philip, Henry’s son, was favored by a large majority of the princes; while his opponents urged the claims of Otto, son of Henry the Lion. There was no hope for Otto, however, had not Innocent III cast into the scale in his favor all the influence of the papacy, which at this time was absolute. Even with the help of the pope, Otto’s success was exceedingly doubtful until Philip was murdered, in 1208. This, of course, put a stop to the war, and Otto IV was crowned emperor. 24. As soon as Otto had been made emperor, he violated all the pledges he had made to the pope for the pontiff’s favor, and began to act as an independent sovereign. This was what no sovereign could be suffered to do while Innocent III was pope. He accordingly played off against Otto, Frederick, the son of Henry VI. Otto, thinking to injure Frederick’s chances by striking at the pope, went to the support of John, of England, against Philip Augustus, of France, but at the battle of Bouvines, July 27, 1214, he met a crushing defeat, and fled, a ruined emperor. He retired to his hereditary possession, the principality of Brunswick, and apart from that has no more place in history. 25. In the place of Otto IV, Frederick II “ascended the marble throne of Charlemagne at Aix-la-Chapelle, and received the silver crown” of Germany, July, 1215; and Nov. 22, 1220, received at Rome, from the hands of Pope Honorius IV, the golden crown of the empire. In the estimation of his contemporaries, Frederick II was “the wonder of the world.” Though perhaps not the strongest in all respects, he was the most brilliant of the German kings. In the beginning of his public career, in 1208, at the age of fifteen, he possessed but the crown of Sicily; and at his death, Dec. 13, 1250, the splendor of his position was such that it has never been surpassed in human history. For then he possessed in addition to his original and inherited crown of Sicily, the crown of Sardinia; the crown of Burgundy; the iron crown of Lombardy; the silver crown of Germany; the golden crown of the empire; and last, but in that age the most glorious of all, the crown of Jerusalem, with which he with his own hands had crowned himself, May 18, 1229, at the time of his recovery of the holy city from the Saracens and its restoration to the Church. 26. In A.D. 1245, July 17, Frederick was excommunicated by Pope Innocent IV. When he heard of it he laughed, and said: “‘Has the pope deposed me? Bring me my crowns that I may see of what I am deprived.’

Then seven crowns were brought him — the royal crown of Germany, the imperial diadem of Rome, the iron circlet of Lombardy, the crowns of Sicily, Burgundy, Sardinia, and Jerusalem. He put them on his head one after another, and said, ‘I have them still, and none shall rob me of them without hard battle.’” F63 But though Frederick feared not the excommunication of the pope, the effect of such a thing was always to turn loose the elements of violence among men, and especially in Germany. Of that time an old historian says: “After the emperor Frederick was put under the ban, the robbers rejoiced over their spoils. Then were the plowshares beaten into swords, and the reaping hooks into lances. No one went anywhere without steel and stone, to set in blaze whatever he could fire.” 27. During the reign of Frederick II the conquest of Prussia was begun A.D. 1230, under the leadership of the Knights of the Teutonic Order, who “after half a century of hard fighting, found themselves masters of the entire country.” Also, in the beginning of his reign the fifth crusade was proclaimed by Innocent III, 1198; and it went forth in 1201. 28. Frederick II died Feb. 13, 1250, and was succeeded by his son, Conrad IV, who reigned only four years: and such was the condition of the empire through the contending factions of Germany and the intrigues of the pope that he was never actually crowned emperor. He died in 1254 and with him ended the line of Hohenstaufen emperors, whose rule formed the age “ most interesting in the mediaeval history of Germany.” “Women never held a higher place, nor, on the whole, did they ever respond more nobly to the honors freely lavished upon them.” “The problems of government were seen in new lights, partly from the study of Roman law which passed from Italy to Germany, partly from the summaries of native custom in the ‘Sachsenspiegel’ [Saxon law] and. ‘Schwabenspiegel’ [Swabian — Alemannian — law]. Altogether, Germany has seen no more fascinating epoch, none more full of life, movement, and color.” F64 29. This age of glory was followed by one of misery, called the Great Interregnum, which lasted twenty years. “This was the saddest time that ever was in Germany. Every one did what he liked. The fist and the sword decided between right and wrong. The princes and the cities were in constant feud. The knights made themselves strong castles and lived in them on plunder and murder. From their fortresses they swooped down on the merchants traveling from town to town and robbed them, or levied on them heavy tolls. They went plundering over the level land; they robbed the farmers of their cattle, devastated their fields, and burned their houses.

Moreover, the neighboring nobles and knights quarreled with each other and fought, so that the country was one battlefield.” F65 30. This period of anarchy was turned to account by the papacy through Pope Urban IV. Up to this time the election of the emperor had always been, virtually, by the leading princes, although each election needed the sanction of the whole class of immediate nobles. Now, however, mainly by the influence of the pope, the electorate was definitely settled upon only the archbishop of Mainz, the archbishop of Cologne, the archbishop of Treves, the margrave of Brandenburg, the king of Bohemia, and the princes of the house of Wittelsbach (Bavaria), and of the house of Saxony. 31. At the beginning of the Great Interregnum, William of olland received a nominal allegiance for two years, when he died; then, about 1257, there was a double election, of Alphonso of Castile in Spain; and Richard, earl of Cornwall, brother of Henry III, of England. Richard was crowned, but he visited Germany only three times in the seventeen years; while Alphonso never visited it at all, although claiming all the time to be its sovereign. The influence of none of these tended in the least degree to check the disorder of the times. When Richard died, the princes showed no disposition to choose an emperor; for a condition of affairs that allowed every one to do as he pleased was exactly to their liking. But the northern revenues of the pope were seriously falling off, and this with troubles at home caused a papal longing for an emperor again who would be “the protector of the Church.” The pope, therefore, informed the electors that if they did not choose an emperor he himself would appoint one. 32. Accordingly the electors met in 1273 and raised to the throne Rudolf, count of Hapsburg, of Swabia. During the interregnum Ottocar, king of Bohemia, had acquired by marriage and conquest, a great territory beyond his native possessions; and his acquisitions included the duchy of Austria and its dependencies, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola. This made Ottocar the most powerful prince in Germany, and he expected to receive the German crown at the election. Therefore, when the crown was bestowed upon Rudolf, Ottocar refused to acknowledge him as sovereign. War followed, and in the battle of Marchfield, near Vienna, A.D. 1278, Ottocar was defeated and slain. Austria, Styria, and Carniola were then granted in fief to Rudolf’s son Albert. Thus Rudolf made himself memorable as the founder of the house of Hapsburg, which has ruled Austria from that time to this; which from his time has formed one of the most influential forces in the national life of Germany, and which gave sovereigns to Spain in the days of her greatest glory. 33. Rudolf of Swabia died in 1291, and was succeeded by Adolf of Nassau, who ruled till 1298, when he was succeeded by Duke Albert of Austria, Rudolf’s son. Albert reigned till 1308, and was succeeded by Count Henry of Luxembourg, who reigned, as Henry VII, till 1313. Upon the death of Henry VII the electors could not agree, and the result was a double election — Frederick the Fair, duke of Austria, son of Albert; and Louis, duke of Bavaria. War broke out and continued for nine years, when, at the battle of Muhlberg, A.D. 1322, Frederick’s army was entirely routed, and in 1325 the two rivals agreed to rule in common. Frederick died in 1330, and Louis IV reigned till 1347. 34. At the death of Louis, Gunther, count of Schwarzburg, was elected; but Charles, king of Bohemia, by liberal bribes, bought off his supporters, and Gunther resigned his claim, and Charles IV reigned. The working of the imperial electorate had proved to be unsatisfactory; and it was reformed by Charles IV in 1356 by what is known as the Golden Bull. By this new arrangement the electorate was allowed to include, as formerly, the three archbishops, the king of Bohemia, and the margrave of Brandenburg; but only the duke of Saxony, and the palsgrave, or count palatine, of the Rhine of the house of Wittelsbach.

Thus by Charles in the Golden Bull the electorate was confined to seven personages — three archbishops, three lay princes, and one king — and ever afterward the emperor was chosen by these officials, who are the ones so often referred to in the history of the Reformation, by the term “electors.” Luther’s protector, Frederick, was the “elector of Saxony in his day. 35. Charles IV added to the original possessions of his house of Luxembourg, Silesia, Lower Lusatia, and the margraviate of Brandenburg; and in his last days “he wore the crowns of Bohemia, of Germany of Burgundy, of Lombardy, and of the empire.” He died at Prague in 1378, and was succeeded by his son, Wenceslaus. Wenceslaus was deposed and the crown was given to Rupert, elector of the palatinats A.D. 1400, who reigned till 1410, when he died and Sigismund, brother of Wenceslaus, and king of Hungary, reigned. This was the emperor Sigismund who gave up John Huss and Jerome of Prague, to be burned by the Council of Constance; which brought on the Hussite wars. Sigismund was a spendthrift and never had enough money for his wants; and for 400,000 gulden he granted to Frederick, count of Hohenzollern, of Swabia, first as a pledge but afterward as a permanent fief, the march of Brandenburg.

With the death of Sigismund ended the Luxembourg dynasty, and the House of Hapsburg was restored. 36. Sigismund was succeeded by Albert II, duke of Austria, in 1438. Albert II was succeeded in 1440 by Frederick IV, and he, in 1493, by Maximilian I, and he, in 1519, by Charles V, before whom Luther stood for the faith of Christ; and before whom the German princes read the famousPROTEST. 37. Although the German crown remained elective from the time of Albert II forward, it was “always conferred on a member of the house of Hapsburg until the extinction of the male line;” and then it was taken up by the female in Maria Theresa, whose husband was elected emperor in 1745.

He was emperor only in name, however; Maria Theresa’s was the rule in fact. Maria Theresa’s husband was succeeded in 1765 by her son, Joseph II. And in her line of the house of Hapsburg the imperial office remained till both the “Holy Roman Empire” and the German kingdom came to an end in 1806; and in her line the imperial office of the empire of Austria- Hungary remains to the present day. 38. Reference was made above to the march of Brandenburg, and its sale by the emperor Sigismund, to Frederick of Hohenzollern, of Swabia.

Frederick thus became one of the electors of the empire. It will be remembered, too, that it was the Knights of the Teutonic Order who made the conquest of Prussia. At the time of the Reformation, Albert of Brandenburg happened to be Grand Master of the Teutonic Order. He became a Protestant, dissolved the Order, and received in fief, 1525, from the king of Poland, the duchy of Prussia. Albert left two granddaughters.

Joachim Frederick, Elector of Brandenburg, married Eleanor, the younger; his son, John Sigismund, married Anna, the elder; and thus the duchy of Prussia was secured to the family of the Elector of Brandenburg. Frederick William, called the Great Elector, was the grandson of John Sigismund and Anna. By the treaty of Wehlau, in 1657, the duchy of Prussia was declared independent of Poland. The Great Elector added largely to his territories, and in 1701 his son Frederick, who had succeeded him in 1688, having obtained the consent of the emperor, crowned himself king of Prussia. And thus, under the Alemannian house of Hohenzollern, arose the kingdom of Prussia, which, through Frederick I 1701-1713, Frederick William I 1713- 1740, Frederick II the Great 1740-1786, Frederick William II 1786-1797, Frederick William III 1797-1840, Frederick William IV 1840-1861, has come down in direct descent to William I, king of Prussia, 1861-1871, and German emperor from Jan. 18, 1871, till March 9, 1888; Frederick, till June 15, 1888; and William II, German emperor of the present day.

CHAPTER 6.

THE BURGUNDIANS IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

IT will be remembered — Chapter III, pars. 7-9 — that the conquest of the kingdom of the Burgundians was begun by Clovis, and was completed by his sons in 532; and that in the quadruple division of the Frankish dominion in 561 Burgundy with some additional counties in the north fell to Gontran, who fixed his capital there. When the Frankish dominions, having been united under Charles Martel, were again divided between Pepin the Short and Carloman, Burgundy fell to the share of Pepin. And when Carloman became a monk, and Pepin became king by the grace of Pope Zachary, of course Burgundy was but a province of his kingdom, as it was also of the empire of Charlemagne, the son of Pepin. In the division of the empire of Charlemagne, by the treaty of Verdun, 843, Burgundy was included in the portion of the emperor Lothair, which, it will be remembered, reached from the Mediterranean to the North Sea, and included the Italian territory. 2. In the time of Charles the Fat, 877, Burgundy became again independent, under Boso, or Boson, husband of Ermangarde, the daughter of Emperor Louis II. This kingdom was called Provence as well as Burgundy, and sometimes Cis-Jurane Burgundy, or, as the real title ran, regnum Provinciae seu Burgundiae. It “included Provence, Dauphine, the southern part of Savoy, and the country between the Saone and the Jura” Mountains. There was formed another kingdom of Burgundy on the other side of the Jura Mountains. This was called the kingdom of trans-Jurane Burgundy, or by title, regnum Iurense, Burgundia Transiurensis, and was founded by Count Rudolph in A.D. 888, and was recognized by the emperor Arnulf the same year. It included the northern part of Savoy and all Switzerland between the Jura Mountains and the River Reuss. 3. In 937 Rudolph’s son, Rudolph, traded for the Cis-Jurane Burgundy his rights to the Italian crown; and thus the two Burgundies — the Trans- Jurane and the Cis-Jurane — were united in the one kingdom of Burgundy or Arles, by title, regnum Burgundae, regnum Arelatense. This kingdom continued independent till A.D. 1032, when, in accordance with a treaty which had been made between the emperor Henry II and Rudolph II, its last king, the kingdom of Burgundy was received into the empire by Emperor Conrad II; Rudolph III confirming it by will, as his niece Gisela was Conrad was Conrad’s wife. The emperor thus assumed the Burgundian crown, and this “beautiful kingdom,” “full of prosperous cities,” became a part of the empire. 4. “The kingdom of Burgundy, or Arles, comprehended the whole mountainous region which we now call Switzerland. It was accordingly reunited to the Germanic empire by the bequest of Rodolph along with the rest of his dominions. A numerous and ancient nobility, vassals one to another, or to the empire, divided the possession with ecclesiastical lords hardly less powerful than themselves. Of the former we find the counts of Zahringen, Kyburg, Hapsburg, and Tokenburg, most conspicuous; of the latter the Bishop of Coire, the Abbot of St. Gall, and Abbess of Seckingen.

Every variety of feudal rights was early found and long preserved in Helvetia; nor is there any country whose history better illustrates that ambiguous relation — half property and half dominion — in which the territorial aristocracy under the feudal system stood with respect to their dependents. In the twelfth century the Swiss towns rise into some degree of importance. Zurich was eminent for commercial activity, and seems to have had no lord but the emperor; Basel, though subject to its bishop, possessed the usual privileges of municipal government. Berne and Friburg, founded only in that century, made a rapid progress, and the latter was raised, along with Zurich, by Frederick II, in 1218, to the rank of a free imperial city.” — Hallam. F66 5. In the northern part of what is now Switzerland, between Lake Constance and Lake Luzerne, and along the left bank of the Rhine, the Alemanni had settled when they first took the country from the Romans.

The castle of Hapsburg was possessed by Rudolf, the Alemannian nobleman who was made emperor in 1273. His ambitious descendants, the dukes of Austria, endeavored to enlarge their authority and possessions at the expense of the cantons. 6. “Several changes in the principal Helvetian families took place in the thirteenth century before the end of which the house of Hapsburg, under the politic and enterprising Rodolph and his son Albert, became possessed, through various titles, of a great ascendency in Switzerland. Of these titles none was more tempting to an ambitious chief than that of advocate to a convent. That specious name conveyed with it a kind of indefinite guardianship, and right of interference, which frequently ended in reversing the conditions of the ecclesiastical sovereign and its vassal... Among other advocacies, Albert obtained that of some convents which had estates in the valleys of the Schweitz and Underwald... The people of Schweitz had made Rodolph their advocate. They distrusted Albert, whose succession to his father’s inheritance spread alarm through Helvetia. It soon appeared that their suspicions were well founded. Besides the local rights which his ecclesiastical advocacies gave him over part of the forest cantons, he pretended, after his election to the empire, to send imperial bailiffs into their valleys as administrators of criminal justice.” F67 7. Some authorities make Frederick III the one who sent these bailiffs, but whether it was Frederick or Albert the facts are the same. One of these bailiffs was Gesler, whom William Tell resisted. “Their oppression of a people unused to control, whom it was plainly the design of Albert to reduce into servitude, excited those generous emotions of resentment which a brave and simple race have seldom the discretion to repress. Three men, Stauffacher of Schweitz, Furst of Uri, Melchthal of Underwald, each with ten chosen associates, met by night in a sequestered field, and swore to assert the common cause of their liberties, without bloodshed or injury to the rights of others. Their success was answerable to the justice of their undertaking; the three cantons unanimously took up arms, and expelled their oppressors without a contest. Albert’s assassination by his nephew which followed soon afterwards, fortunately gave them leisure to consolidate their union (A.D. 1308)... But Leopold, duke of Austria, resolved to humble the peasants who had rebelled against his father, led a considerable force into their country. The Swiss, commending themselves to Heaven, and determined rather to perish than undergo that yoke a second time, though ignorant of regular discipline, and unprovided with defensive armor, utterly discomfited the assailants at Morgarten (A.D. 1315). 8. “This great victory, the Marathon of Switzerland, confirmed the independence of the three original cantons. After some years, Lucerne, contiguous in situation and alike in interests, was incorporated into their confederacy. It was far more materially enlarged about the middle of the fourteenth century by the accession of Zurich, Glaris, Zug, and Berne, all of which took place within two years. The first and last of these cities had already been engaged in frequent wars with the Helvetian nobility, and their internal polity was altogether republican. They acquired, not independence, which they already enjoyed, but additional security, by this union with the Swiss, properly so-called, who in deference to their power and reputation ceded to them the first rank in the league... The eight already enumerated are called the ancient cantons, and continued, till the late reformation of the Helvetic system, to possess several distinctive privileges and even rights of sovereignty over subject territories in which the five cantons of Friburg, Soleure, Basel, Schaffhausen, and Appenzell did not participate. From this time the united cantons, but especially those of Berne and Zurich, began to extend their territories at the expense of the rural nobility... The Helvetic cities acted with policy and moderation towards the nobles whom they overcame, admitting them to the franchises of their community as coburghers (a privilege which virtually implied a defensive alliance against any assailant), and uniformly respecting the legal rights of property. Many feudal superiorities they obtained from the owners in a more peaceable manner, through purchases or mortgage. 9. “Thus the house of Austria, to which the extensive domains of the counts of Kyburg had devolved, abandoning, after repeated defeats, its hopes of subduing the forest cantons, alienated a great part of its possessions to Zurich and Berne. And the last remnant of their ancient Helvetic territories in Argovia was wrested, in 1417, from Frederick, count of Tyrol, who, imprudently supporting Pope John XXIII against the Council of Constance had been put to the ban of the empire. These conquests Berne could not be induced to restore, and thus completed the independence of the confederate republics. The other free cities, though not yet incorporated, and the few remaining nobles, whether lay or spiritual, of whom the abbot of St. Gall was the principal, entered into separate leagues with different cantons. Switzerland became, therefore, in the first part of the fifteenth century, a free country, acknowledged as such by neighboring states, and subject to no external control, though still comprehended within the nominal sovereignty of the empire... 10. “The affairs of Switzerland occupy a very small space in the great chart of European history. But in some respects they are more interesting than the revolutions of mighty kingdoms... Other nations displayed an insuperable resolution in the defense of walled towns; but the steadiness of the Swiss in the field of battle was without a parallel, unless we recall the memory of Lacedaemon. It was even established as a law that whoever returned from battle after a defeat, should forfeit his life by the hands of the executioner. Sixteen hundred men, who had been sent to oppose a predatory invasion of the French in 1444, though they might have retreated without loss,determined rather to perish on the spot, and fell amid a far greater heap of the hostile slain. At the famous battle of Sempach in 1385, the last which Austria proceeded to try against the forest cantons, the enemy’s knights, dismounted from their horses, presented an impregnable barrier of lances which disconcerted the Swiss; till Winkelried, a gentleman of Underwald, commending his wife and children to his countrymen, threw himself upon the opposing ranks, and, collecting as many lances as he could grasp, forced a passage for his followers by burying them in his bosom. 11. “Though the house of Austria had ceased to menace the liberties of Helvetia, and had even been for many years its ally, the emperor Maximilian... endeavored to revive the unextinguished supremacy of the empire. That supremacy had just been restored in Germany by the establishment of the Imperial Chamber, and of a regular pecuniary contribution for its support, as well as for other purposes, in the Diet of Worms [1495]. The Helvetic cantons were summoned to yield obedience to these imperial laws... Their refusal to comply brought on a war, wherein the Tyrolese subjects of Maximilian, and the Suabian league, a confederacy of cities in that province lately formed under the emperor’s auspices, were principally engaged against the Swiss. But the success of the latter was decisive; and after a terrible devastation of the frontiers of Germany,peace was concluded [1499] upon terms very honorable for Switzerland. The cantons were declared free from the jurisdiction of the Imperial Chamber, and from all contributions imposed by the Diet... Though, perhaps, in the strictest letter of public law, the Swiss cantons were not absolutely released from their subjection to the empire until the treaty of Westphalia, their real sovereignty must be dated by a historian from the year when every prerogative which a government can exercise was finally abandoned.” F68 12. And thus the kingdom of the Burgundians of A.D. 407 is represented in the independent confederacy of the Switzerland of to-day.

CHAPTER 7.

THE ANGLES AND SAXONS IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

FROM the time of the first permanent hold of the Jutes, the Saxons, and the Angles, on British soil until they really possessed the land, was about a hundred and fifty years. 2. The Jutes possessed Kent. These were the fewest of the three peoples; and therefore occupied the smallest portion of the land. “Their dominions took in only Kent, with perhaps for a while Surrey, and [the Isle of] Wight, with a small part of the neighboring mainland of Hampshire:” and the kingdom of the Jutes “never permanently outgrew the bounds of their earliest conquests.” 3. On all sides of the Jutes landward, dwelt the Saxons: South and West were the South Saxons, from whom the land held by them derived the abbreviated name Sou’-Sax’, and from that Sussex, which it has ever since borne; west of these, but more inland, dwelt the West Saxons, whose kingdom was called Wessex;north of Kent dwelt the East Saxons, their kingdom and land called forever, Essex; and between the East Saxons and the West Saxons — between Essex and Wessex — dwelt the Middle Saxons, their kingdom and land called forever Middlesex. 4. The Angles held all the land north of Essex, Middlesex, and Wessex, to the Firth of Forth. In the peninsula immediately north of Essex, dwelt the East Angles, their kingdom and country called East Anglia: those in the northern part of the peninsula were called Northfolk, and those in the southern part, South-folk, from which the descent through Nor’-Folk and Sou’-Folk, come the names that still remain — Norfolk and Suffolk. West of these dwelt the South Angles; immediately north of these the Mid Angles, reaching to the River Humber. From the Humber to the Firth of Forth the land was divided by the Angles into two almost equal portions, the southern of which was the kingdom of Deira; and the northern, the kingdom of Bernicia. The territory between Wales and Mid and South Anglia, being the border, was at first a mark, or march; from which it became Marcia and Mercia. Its Anglican inhabitants were called Mercians, and their kingdom Mercia, which also included the Mid and South Angles. 5. The kingdom of the Jutes was established in Kent in A.D. 475; that of the South Saxons in 491; that of the West Saxons in 519; that of the East Saxons about 525; and by 552 the Angles had made the conquest of their part of Middle Britain to the march or border. This pressure of the Angles in Mid Britain enabled the South Saxons to push their conquests farther inland. “In 552 their capture of the hill-fort of Old Sarum threw open the reaches of the Wiltshire downs, and a march of King Cuthwulf on the Thames made them masters in 571 of the districts which now form Oxfordshire and Berkshire. Pushing along the upper valley of Avon to a new battle of Barbury Hill, they swooped at last from their uplands on the rich prey that lay along the Severn. Gloucester, Cirencester, and Bath, cities which had leagued under their British kings to resist this onset, became in 577 the spoil of an English victory at Deorham, and the line of the great western river lay open to the arms of the conquerors.... 6. “With the victory of Deorum the conquest of the bulk of Britain was complete. Eastward of a line which may be roughly drawn along the moorlands of Northumberland and Yorkshire, through Derbyshire and the Forest of Arden to the lower Severn, and thence by Mendip to the sea, the island had passed into English hands. Britain had in the main become England. And within this new England a Teutonic society was settled on the wreck of Rome. So far as the conquest had yet gone it had been complete. Not a Briton remained as subject or slave on English ground.

Sullenly, inch by inch, the beaten men drew back from the land which their conquerors had won; and eastward of a border-line which the English sword had drawn, all was now purely English. 7. “It is this which distinguishes the conquest of Britain from that of the other provinces of Rome. The conquest of Gaul by the Franks, or of Italy by the Lombards, proved little more than a forcible settlement of the one or the other among tributary subjects who were destined in the long course of ages to absorb their conquerors. French is the tongue, not of the Frank, but of the Gaul whom he overcame: and the fair hair of the Lombard is all but unknown in Lombardy. But the English conquest of Britain up to the point which we have reached, was a sheer dispossession of the people whom the English conquered. It was not that Englishmen, fierce and cruel as at times they seem to have been, were more fierce or more cruel than other Germans who attacked the empire:.... what really made the difference between the fate of Britain and that of the rest of the Roman world, was the stubborn courage of the British themselves. In all the world-wide struggles between Rome and the German peoples, no land was so stubbornly fought for or so hardly won. In Gaul no native resistance met Frank or Visigoth save from the brave peasants of Brittany and Auvergne.

No popular revolt broke out against the rule of Odoacer or Theodoric in Italy. But in Britain the invader was met by a courage almost equal to his own. Instead of quartering themselves quietly, like their fellows abroad, on subjects who were glad to buy peace by obedience and tribute, the English had to make every inch of Britain their own by hard fighting.... 8. “What strikes us at once in the new England is this: that it was the one purely German nation that rose upon the wreck of Rome. In other lands, in Spain or Gaul or Italy, though they were equally conquered by German peoples, religion, social life, administrative order, still remained Roman.

Britain was almost the only province of the empire where Rome died into a vague tradition of the past. The whole organization of government and society disappeared with the people who used it... The settlement of the English in the conquered land was nothing less than an absolute transfer of English society in its completest form to the soil of Britain. The slowness of their advance, the small numbers of each separate band in its descent upon the coast, made it possible for the settlers to bring with them,or to call to them when their work was done, the wives and children, the laet and slave, even the cattle they had left behind them. The first wave of conquest was but the prelude to the gradual migration of a whole people. It was England which settled down on British soil, England with its own language, its own laws, its complete social fabric, its system of village life and village culture, its township and its hundred, its principle of kinship its principle of representation. It was not as mere pirates or stray war bands, but as peoples already made, and fitted by a common temper and common customs to draw together into our English nation in the days to come, that our fathers left their home-land.” — Green. F69 9. Of the three peoples — the Jutes, the Saxons, and the Angles — the Angles “occupied a much larger portion of the land” than did both the others; and so their name gave a new name to the land to which they had come — Angle-land, Engel-land, England: while as to the kingdom itself, it was Wessex that “grew into England,” and her “house of Cerdic” that “became the royal house over the whole land.” F70 However, this matter of one royal house over the whole land is another long story in addition to that of these three peoples taking possession of the land. For “though all spoke the same language and used the same laws, and though all were bent on winning the same land, each band and each leader preferred their own separate course of action to any collective enterprise.” — Green. F71 This spirit caused them, though only three distinct peoples, to form themselves, in the occupancy of the land, into no less than eight distinct kingdoms. And no sooner were ended their wars with the Britons, that they might in quietness inhabit the land, than they began as desperate a struggle among themselves for the supremacy and the sole kingship of all England. 10. Thus in A.D. 597 there were in England the eight distinct kingdoms of Wessex, Sussex, Kent, Essex, Mercia, East Anglia, Deira, and Bernicia.

Each kingdom was the result of the union of smaller divisions called shires, their chiefs “bearing the title of Ealdorman or Alderman, in peace, of Heretoga or Herzog, in time of war.” The union of shires “formed a rice or kingdom; the chief of the group thus formed was a cyning or king. What, it may be asked, was the difference between king and ealdorman?... The ealdorman was a ruler in peace and a captain in war. The king was more.

Among the English, at least, the kingly houses all claimed descent from the blood of the gods. F72 Every king was a son of Woden. A vague religious reverence thus gathered round the king, in which the ealdorman had no share. He was also the head of the highest political aggregate which the ideas of those days had reached. He was, as the name implies, the head of the kin, the nation. The rule of the ealdorman was tribal, and merely earthly; the rule of the king was national, and in some sort divine.” F73 Of the community there were three classes: earls, churls, and thralls. The earls were a class who by distinction of birth were held to be entitled to special respect and honor; and who, because of this, possessed certain political privileges. The churls were freemen, but had no honors or privileges above those of the general community. The thralls were slaves held in bondage or thraldom. “The earl, the churl, and the thrall are found everywhere. They are taken for granted; and legend represented the three classes as called into being by separate acts of the creative power of the gods.” F74 11. In A.D. 605 Ethelfrith, king of Bernicia, seized the kingdom of Deira; and as this gave them to all East Britain north of the River Humber, the enlarged kingdom thus formed was called Northumbria. Ethelfrith also made the complete conquest of the greater part of the land that was yet held by the Britons westward to the Irish Sea between the Firth of Clyde and the mouths of the Mersey and the Dee. This reduced the number of the English kingdoms to seven; and it is this that is the ground upon which writers treat the history of that time under the title of “The Saxon Heptarchy.” When Ethelfrith seized Deira, Edwin, its rightful king, being but a child, fled to East Anglia, where he was protected by King Raedwald.

This served Ethelfrith as a pretext for an attempt to subdue that kingdom.

He was vigorously resisted; and at the “River Idle, by Retford,” he was defeated and slain. 12. Upon the death of Ethelfrith, the people of Deira were glad to have Eadwine return to his kingdom. By the conquest of Bernicia, Eadwine reestablished and made permanent the union of Bernicia and Deira that Ethelfrith had formed. “The greatness of Northumbria now reached its height. Within his own dominions, Eadwine displayed a genius for civil government, which shows how utterly the mere age of conquest had passed away. With him began the English proverb so often applied to after kings: ‘A woman with her babe might walk scathless from sea to sea in Eadwine’s day.’ Peaceful communication revived along the deserted highways; the springs by the roadside were marked with stakes, and a cup of brass was set beside each for the traveler’s refreshment... The Northumbrian king became, in fact, supreme over Britain as no king of English blood had been before. Northward his kingdom reached to the Firth of Forth; and here, if we may trust tradition, Eadwine formed a city which bore his name, Edinburgh — Eadwine’s burg. To the west, his arms crushed the long resistance of Elmet, the district about Leeds: he was master of Chester, and the fleet he equipped there subdued the isles of Anglesea and Man. South of the Humbria, he was owned as overlord by the five English States of Mid Britain. The West Saxons remained for a while independent;” but they, too, were at last obliged to acknowledge “the overlordship of Northumbria.” And “Kent had bound itself to him by giving him its king’s daughter as a wife, a step which probably marked political subordination.” — Green. F75 13. At this time Penda was king of Mercia; and the other kingdoms of Mid Britain recognized his overlordship, as he in turn recognized the overlordship of Eadwine. In 633 Penda formed an alliance with a Welsh king, Cadwallon, to break the power of Eadwine. “The armies met in at a place called Haethfeld, and in the fight, Eadwine was defeated and slain.” Bernicia at once “seized on the fall of Eadwine to recall the line of Ethelfrith to its throne; and after a year of anarchy, his second son, Oswald, became its king. The Welsh had remained encamped in the heart of the north, and Oswald’s first fight was with Cadwallon.” The forces met in 635 “near the Roman Wall. Cadwallon fell fighting on the ‘Heaven’s Field,’ as after times called the field of battle; the submission of the kingdom of Deira to the conqueror, restored the kingdom of Northumbria; and for nine years the power of Oswald equaled that of Eadwine.” 14. “Oswald’s lordship stretched as widely over Britain as that of his predecessor Eadwine. In him, even more than in Eadwine, men saw some faint likeness of the older emperors: once, indeed, a writer from the land of the Picts calls Oswald ‘emperor of the whole of Britain.’” In 642 Oswald led his army into East Anglia to deliver that kingdom from the terrible rule of Penda, king of Mercia. The battle was fought at Maserfeld; Oswald was defeated and slain; and for thirteen years Penda stood supreme in Britain.

Oswiu, younger brother of Oswald, succeeded to the kingship of Northumbria. In 655 the Northumbrians again met Penda “in the field of Winward by Leeds,” Penda was slain, and because of a great rain which swelled the river over which the Mercians must flee, only a remnant of them escaped; and Northumbria under Oswiu stood to England as it had under Eadwin and Oswald. It so continued under Ecgfrith who succeeded Oswiu in 670; and whose “reign marks the highest pitch of Northumbrian power.” 15. Ecgfrith in 685 carried an expedition against the Picts, but was slain, and his army was annihilated in a battle at Fife. The delivered the central and southern kingdoms from the domination of Northumbria. Mercia immediately regained her full power over all Mid Britain, while Wessex, under Ine from 688 to 714, gained full power over “all Britain south of the Thames;” and Ine’s “repulse of a new Mercian king, in a bloody encounter at Wodnesburh in 714, seemed to establish the threefold division of the English race between three realms of almost equal power” — Northumbria, Mercia, and Wessex. However, Ine, in 726, made a pilgrimage to Rome. In his absence anarchy reigned in Wessex. In this Ethelbald, the Mercian king, was his opportunity: he penetrated to the very heart of the West Saxon kingdom, and his siege and capture of the royal town of Somerton in 733 ended the war. For twenty years the overlordship of “Mercia was recognized by all Britain south of the Humber.” And since at this time anarchy reigned in Northumbria, the kingdom of Mercia became fairly the kingdom of England. This, however, was for only a short time; for in a desperate battle at Burford in 753, “a decided victory freed Wessex from the Mercian yoke. Four years later, in 757, its freedom was maintained by a new victory at Secandum.” 16. Wessex had regained independence; but that was all. For Ethelbald, who was slain in the battle of Secandum, was immediately succeeded by Offa under whose long reign, 757-796, Mercia “rose again to all but its old dominion.” Offa’s “is the greatest name in Mercian history;” and his position “was as great as that of any English king before the final union of the kingdoms. In one way it was higher than that of any of them. Offa held not only a British, but a European position.” This because the mighty Charlemagne corresponded with him as with an equal. This was before Charlemagne was made emperor by the pope: and when he manifested a disposition to treat the king of Mercia as less than an equal, war was threatened between them. And after Charlemagne became emperor of Rome, Cenwulf, Offa’s successor, 797-819, “put it clearly on record that neither the bishop of Rome nor the emperor of Rome had any jurisdiction in his realm of Mercia.” F76 17. By this time Wessex had so well employed her independence as not only to have regained, but enlarged and firmly established her power over “all Britain south of the Thames.” This, Mercia was compelled to recognize; and Cenwulf could only preserve the immediate realm of Mercia as he received it. Thus, “at the close of the eighth century the drift of the English peoples toward a national unity was in fact utterly arrested. The work of Northumbria had been foiled by the resistance of Mercia; the effort of Mercia had broken down before the resistance of Wessex. A threefold division seemed to have stamped itself upon the land; and so complete was the balance of power between the three realms which parted it, that no subjection of one to the other seemed likely to fuse the English tribes into an English people.” — Green. F77 18. Yet at this very time there were taking shape in Wessex the elements which presently developed a mighty impulse toward a national unity; and which in the former part of the tenth century, with but slight checks meanwhile, culminated in the actual union of all England under only one king. Among the rival claimants of the kingship of Wessex, after the regaining of her independence in 757, was a certain Ecgberht, or Egbert.

The king who was elected in 786 sought to kill him, and he was compelled to flee the kingdom entirely. He first took refuge with Offa. The king of Wessex demanded that he be surrendered. Offa refused; but as he could no longer harbor Ecgberht without bringing into his own affairs continual trouble, he declined to assure him further protection. Then Ecgberht escaped to the Continent, and in 787 found refuge at the court of Charlemagne. There he went to Charlemagne’s school in more senses of the word than one. In the year 800 Edburga, the wife of the king of Wessex, prepared a poisoned drink for a young friend of her husband’s; but both he and her husband drank of it, and both died. Then Edburga, being obliged to flee, likewise took refuge at the court of Charlemagne. Her coming there brought to Ecgberht the information that the throne of Wessex was vacant. He immediately returned to Wessex, and was promptly chosen to the kingship. “The day of Northumberland and the day of Mercia had passed: the day of Wessex had come. The single reign of Ecgberht (802-837) placed her forever at the head of the powers of Britain.” F78 19. Ecgberht’s first exploit as king was the conquest of Cornwall, “the last fragment of the British kingdom in the southwest.” In 825 the king of Mercia invaded Ecgberht’s territory, but at the battle which was fought at Ellandum the West Saxons were victorious. This victory confirmed to Ecgberht all of England south of the Thames; and also encouraged the East Anglians to revolt against the king of Mercia. The East Anglians were victorious in two great battles; and this, in turn, so weakened the king of Mercia as to encourage Ecgberht to venture even across the Thames in an invasion of Mercia. This he did “in 827, and the realm of Penda and Offa bowed without a struggle to its conqueror.” But Ecgberht did not stop with the conquest of Mercia: he marched on toward the north.

Northumbria had but lately been terrorized by an invasion of Danes, and unable to resist them alone, “its thegns met Ecgberht in Derbyshire and owned the supremacy of Wessex;” and, “with the submission of Northumbria, the work which Oswiu and AEthelred had failed to do was done, and the whole English race was for the first time knit together under a single rule.” — Green. F79 20. This Danish invasion of Northumbria was but a part of that great movement of the Danes in this century, which reached even to France, and created Normandy; and it continued in Britain until it had covered practically the whole of the land occupied by the English. Ecgberht defeated one host of them which invaded the land from Ireland, which gave them a check until after his death in 839. He was succeeded immediately by his son, AEthelwulf. The Danes came again and were “beaten off only by years of hard fighting.” But, a final victory at Aclea in 851 “won peace for the land through the short and uneventful reigns of his sons, AEthelbald and AEthelberht. But the northern storm burst in full force upon England when a third son, AEthelred, followed his brothers on the throne. “The Northmen were now settled on the coast of Ireland and the coast of Gaul; they were masters of the sea; and from west and east alike they closed upon Britain. While one host from Ireland fell on the Scot kingdom north of the Firth of Forth, another from Scandinavia landed in 866 on the coast of East Anglia under Hubba, and marched the next year upon York. A victory over two claimants of the crown gave the pirates Northumbria; and their two armies united at Nottingham in 868 for an attack on the Mercian realm. Mercia was saved by a march of King AEthelred to Nottingham; but the peace which he made there with the Northmen left them leisure to prepare for an invasion of East Anglia, whose undertaking Eadmund, brought prisoner before their leaders, was bound to a tree and shot to death with arrows.... With him ended the line of East Anglian underkings; for his kingdom was not only conquered, but divided among the soldiers of the pirate host, and their leader, Guthrum, assumed its crown.” F80 21. By these victories of the Dance the power of Wessex north of the Thames was again absolutely destroyed. And “the loss of the subject kingdoms left Wessex face to face with the invaders. The time had now come for it to fight, not for supremacy, but for life. As yet the land seemed paralyzed by terror. With the exception of his one march on Nottingham, King Aethelred had done nothing to save his underkingdomsfrom the wreck. But the pirates no sooner pushed up the Thames to Reading in than the West Saxons, attacked on their own soil, turned fiercely at bay. A desperate attack drove the Northmen from Ashdown on the heights that overlooked the vale of White Horse, but their camp in the tongue of land between the Kennet and Thames proved impregnable. AEthelred died in the midst of the struggle, and his brother AElfred [Alfred], who now became king, bought the withdrawal of the pirates and a few years’ breathing-space for his realm. It was easy for the quick eye of AElfred to see that the Northmen had withdrawn simply with the view of gaining firmer footing for a new attack: three years indeed had hardly passed before Mercia was invaded and its underking driven over-sea to make place for a tributary of the invaders. From Repton half their host marched northward to the Tyne, while Guthrum led the rest into his kingdom of East Anglia to prepare for the next year’s attack on Wessex.” F81 22. From 874 and onward Northumbria and Mercia had been brought wholly under the power of the Danes. In 877 AElfred defeated one main portion of their host in his region and forced the surrender of another. In their surrender they bound themselves by an oath to leave Wessex, which they did. But, the arrival of a new horde of their kinsmen caused them to forget their oath; and, at the beginning of 878, the whole double host again “marched ravaging over the land. The surprise of Wessex was complete, and for a month or two the general panic left no hope of resistance.

AElfred, with his small band of followers, could only throw himself into a fort raised hastily in the isle of Athelney among the marshes of Parret, a position from which he could watch closely the position of his foes. But with the first burst of spring he called the thegns of Somerset to his standard; and, still gathering troops as he moved, marched through Wiltshire on the Northmen. He found their host at Edington, defeated it in a great battle, and after a siege of fourteen days forced them to surrender and to bind themselves by a solemn peace or ‘frith’ at Wedmore in Somerset. 23. “In form the peace of Wedmore seemed a surrender of the bulk of Britain to its invaders. All Northumbria, all East Anglia, all central England east of a line which stretched from the Thames’s mouth along the Lea to Bedford, thence along the Ouse to Watling Street, and by Watling Street to Chester, was left subject to the Northmen. Throughout this ‘Danelagh’ — as it was called — the conquerors settled down among the conquered population as lords of the soil, thickly in northern Britain, more thinly in its central districts; but everywhere guarding jealously their old isolation, and gathering in separate ‘heres’ or armies round towns which were only linked in close confederacies. The peace had, in fact, saved little more than Wessex itself. But in saving Wessex, it saved England. The spell of terror was broken. The tide of invasion turned. From an attitude of attack the Northmen were thrown back on an attitude of defense. The whole reign of AElfred was a preparation for a fresh struggle that was to wrest back from the pirates the land they had won.” F82 24. This peace continued till 893, during which time AElfred continually strengthened the defenses of his kingdom. He built a strong fleet; and gathered all the freemen of his realm into an organized force. He had a son and a daughter, Eadward and AEthelflaed, who both grew up to be efficient warriors. AEthelflaed was married to AEthelred, “an ealdorman of the old royal stock,” who also was an able warrior. This gave to AElfred three strong supporters in the building up of his power of defense against the Danes. AEthelflaed and AEthelred, her husband, were made lord and lady of AElfred’s portion of Mercia. When in 893 there was a new invasion of the land by the Danes, both by land any by sea, AElfred met their fleet and held it at bay, while “Eadward and AEthelred caught their army near the Severn and overthrew it with a vast slaughter at Buttington.” And AElfred was able so well to hold his own that in 897 the latest invaders withdrew, and the Danes, who had dwelt in the land,renewed the peace,which continued for thirteen years. 25. AElfred died in 901, and was succeeded by his son Eadward. In there was a new outbreak of the Danes inhabiting England. AEthelred, the lord of Mercia, was also now dead, which left AEthelflaed the ruler of Mercia. She took the field and was so successful everywhere that she won back all that had composed the full kingdom of Mercia. Eadward, on his part, repulsed an inroad of another new band of Danes, and brought East Anglia under his power. AEthelflaed died in 918. Eadward immediately annexed Mercia to his dominion and carried his arms triumphantly to the Humber; and “in 924 the whole of the north suddenly laid itself at his feet.

Not merely Northumbria, but the Scots and the Britons of Strathclyde ‘chose him to father and lord.’” 26. Eadward the Unconquered died in 925, and was succeeded by his son AEthelstan till 940, when he died and was succeeded by his son Eadmund till 946, when he was killed by a robber, and was succeeded by his brother Eadred. “Under AEthelstan Northumberland was incorporated, and the immediate realm of the one king of England reached to the Forth. Still both he and his two successors had to fight against endless revolts and rival kings in Northumberland. The Danish land was won and lost, and won back, over and over again, till at last under Eadred Northumberland was finally incorporated, and ruled, sometimes by a single earl, sometimes by two, of the king’s appointment. F83 With its submission in 954 the work of conquest was done. Dogged as his fight had been, the Northman at last owned himself beaten. From the moment of Eadred’s final triumph all resistance came to an end.” 27. “The kingdom of England was now formed. The first half of the tenth century thus gave the West Saxon kings a position in Britain such as no English kings of any kingdom had ever held before them. Dominant in their own island, claiming and, whenever they could, exercising, a supremacy over the other princes of the island, their position in the island-world of Britain was analogous to the position of the western emperors in continental Europe. It was, in fact, an imperial position. As such, it was marked by the assumption of the imperial title, monarcha, imperator, basileus, Augusius, and even Caesar. These titles were meant at once to assert the imperial supremacy of the English kings within their own world, and to deny any supremacy over Britain on the part of either of the lords of the continental world. F84 ... But one and strong and glorious as England stood in the central years of the tenth century, her unity and strength and glory were bought in no small degree by the loss of the ancient freedom of her people.” F85 28. In 955 Eadred died, and was succeeded by the two sons of his brother and predecessor, Eadmund. The elder son, Eadwig, received Wessex as king of England by right, while the younger, Eadgar, received Northumberland and Mercia as underking to Eadwig. But in 957 the kingdom was actually divided into these two parts by the Mercians and Northumbrians declaring Eadgar full king in his own right. However, in 959 Eadwig died and Eadgar succeeded to the whole dominion in his own right; and “under Eadgar’s rule the land enjoyed sixteen years of unparalleled peace and of unparalleled prosperity. During his reign no word of foreign invasion was breathed, and the two or three disturbances within the island were of slight consequence.... At no time in our early history did England hold a higher position in the world in general. And when Old- Saxon Otto wore the crown of Rome, and West Saxon Eadgar, in some sort his nephew, reigned over the island-empire of Britain, the Saxon name had reached the highest point of its glory.” F86 29. Eadgar was succeeded by his son Eadward in 975, but he was allowed to reign only four years, for at the instigation of his step-mother AElfthryth, he was murdered in 979, and AElfthryth’s son AEthelred II was put upon the throne, and thus “entered on the saddest and most shameful reign” in English annals, which continued for thirty-seven years.

In the second year of his reign, 980, another invasion of the Danes flooded the land, and the flood never really ceased until all England was held by the Danes, and a Dane sat upon the throne of all England. “The unready king — that is, the king without rede or counsel — seems to have been incapable of any settled or vigorous plan of action. He showed energy now and then in needless and fruitless enterprises; but under him the kingdom never showed a united front toward the common enemy. His only policy, only policy of his cowardly or traitorous advisers, was the self-destroying policy of buying off the invaders with money. 30. “The invaders are met at London, at Maldon, at Exeter, with the highest valor and conduct on the part of the leaders and people of particular cities and districts; but it is always isolated cities and districts which resist. Such local efforts were naturally fruitless; the local force is either defeated by superior numbers, or, if victorious, it has, through want of concert with other parts of the kingdom, no means of following up its victory. Through a warfare like this, carried on year after year, the nation at last lost heart as well as its king. Local jealousies, hushed under the vigorous rule of earlier kings, now rose again. It is emphatically said that ‘one shire would not help other.’ Under such a reign the efforts of the best men in the land were thwarted, and the places of highest power fell to the worst men. The successive advisers of AEthelred appear as a succession of traitors, who sold him and his kingdom to the enemy.” “It was for the Witan to pass decrees, but it was for the king to put them in force: and under AEthelred nothing good was ever put in force.” F87 31. In 991 a new wave of the Danish flood swept upon the land. However, by this time, they were more than Danes who came. Even the Norwegian King, Olaf Tryggvesson, was amongst them. In 994 another wave swept upon the devoted land. In this the Northmen hosts were led by King Olaf of Norway and King Swegen of Denmark. The forces of London defeated those that invaded that part of the land; but AEthelred obtained peace from them by purchase with money. Yet the peace was not kept, except by a portion of them; and for eight years the war went on by new invasions on the part of the Danes, and new payments on the part of the king, until when an attempt was made to rid England of the Danes, by a general massacre on St. Brice’s day, the thirteenth of November. 32. AEthelred had also quarreled with Duke Richard of Normandy; but in this same year, 1002, he sealed a peace with Richard, and also hoped to strengthen his kingdom by receiving in marriage Emma, the daughter of Duke Richard of Normandy. “Wedding and murder, however, proved feeble defenses against Swegen. His fleet reached the coast in 1003, and for four years he marched through the length and breadth of southern and eastern England, ‘lighting his war-beacons as he went’ in blazing homestead and town. Then for a heavy bribe he withdrew, to prepare for a later and more terrible onset. But there was no rest for the realm. The fiercest of the Norwegian jarls took his place, and from Wessex the war extended over Mercia and East Anglia ... Swegen returned in 1013. The war was terrible but short. Everywhere the country was pitilessly harried, churches plundered, men slaughtered. With the one exception of London, there was no attempt at resistance. Oxford and Winchester flung open their gates. The thegns of Wessex submitted to the Northmen at Bath. Even London was forced at last to give way, and AEthelred fled over-sea to a refuge in Normandy.” — Green. F88 “The Danish king was acknowledged as king — though native writers choose rather to call him tyrant — over all England.” F89 33. Swegen died in 1014, and was succeeded by his son Cnut, or Knut, — Canute, — a young man of nineteen. The English Council, or Witan, however, called for the restoration of AEthelred. AEthelred returned, which caused a war between the two kings. In 1016 AEthelred died, and was succeeded by his son Eadmund, surnamed “Ironside,” an able general, who was successful against Cnut until Ealdorman Eadric of Mercia’s deserting him in the midst of a great battle at Assandun caused his complete overthrow. The kingdom was then divided between Eadmund and Cnut, Eadmund taking the south, and Cnut the north. But Eadmund died shortly afterward, and Cnut, both by his power and by formal election, became king of all England, was regularly crowned as such, and ruled even “as a native king.” “England was neither oppressed nor degraded under his rule. His government, his laws, were framed after the pattern of those of the ancient kings. He sent home his Danish army, keeping only a body of chosen guards, the famous house-carls. These were the first standing army known in England, a body of picked men, Danes, Englishmen, or brave men from any quarter. Cnut gradually displaced the Danes whom he had at first placed in high offices, and gave them English successors. He raised an Englishman, the renowned Godwine, to a place second only to kingship, with the new title of Earl of the West Saxons. 34. “In her foreign relations, England, under her Danish king, was in no sense a dependency of Denmark. England was the center, Winchester was the imperial city, of a northern empire, which rivaled those of the East and the West. Canute, it must be remembered, was chosen to the crown of England first of all, while still very young. To that crown he added the crown of Denmark, on the death or deposition of his brother Harold. He won Norway, which had revolted against his father, from its king Olaf; and he seems to have established his power over part of Sweden and other parts of the Baltic lands. But all these were acquisitions made by one who was already ‘king of all England:’ they were largely won by English valor, and the complaint in Denmark and elsewhere was that Canute made his northern kingdom subordinate to England, and preferred Englishmen rather than natives to high offices in them. 35. “At home, after the first years of his reign, his rule was one of perfect peace.” F90 “In 1028 he wrote: ‘I have vowed to God to lead a right life in all things, to rule justly and piously my realms and subjects, and to administer just judgment to all. If heretofore I have done aught beyond what was just, through headiness or negligence of youth, I am ready, with God’s help, to amend it utterly. No royal officer, either for fear of the king or for favor of any, is to consent to injustice, none is to do wrong to rich or poor as they would value my friendship and their own well-being. I have no need that money be heaped together for me by unjust demands. I have sent this letter before me that all the people of my realm may rejoice in my welldoing; for as you yourselves know, never have I spared, nor will I spare, to spend myself and my toil in what is needful and good for my people.” In 1031 Canute’s reign over all the north was made complete by the Scotch king’s doing “full homage to the king of all England.” 36. Canute died in 1035. He had named as his successor in England Harthacnut, or Hardicanute, his son by Emma, the widow of AEthelred, whom, early in his reign, he had married, though she must have been nearly twice as old as he. But there was another son named Harold, who was supported in his claims to the kingdom by Mercia and Northumberland.

The West Saxons, with Godwine and Emma, in accordance with Canute’s will, accepted Harthacnut. War was prevented by a decree of the national council, dividing the kingdom between the two. Harthacnut remained in Denmark, and the West Saxons deposed him and acknowledged Harold.

There came also over from Normandy AElfred, the elder son of AEthelred, who, in 1016 had been obliged to flee the kingdom from the jealous hate of Canute. But his attempt was a complete failure. He and his companions fell into the hands of Harold. His companions were all put to death, he himself was blinded; and soon afterward he died. 37. In 1040 Harold himself died; and Harthacnut, by right and by national choice, became again king, this time, king of the whole realm. But his reign was now short, for he died in 1042. The English nation then chose Eadward, the second son of AEthelred, who had fled to Normandy. “His monastic virtues won him the reputation of a saint and the title of ‘the Confessor;’ but no man could have been less fitted to wear the crown of England in such an age.” It was chiefly by the influence of Godwine that Eadward had been chosen to the kingship, and Eadward now married Godwine’s daughter, and did him further honor by appointing his sons to earldoms. 38. Eadward greatly offended the English people by bringing with him from Normandy, and putting into every place that he could, a great number of Norman favorites. His chief favorite was a Norman monk whom he made, first, bishop of London, and, presently archbishop of Canterbury.

These Norman favorites soon made themselves so insolent and unbearable that Godwine and his sons, in behalf of the nation, took up arms against them. But Godwine was induced to submit his cause to the National Council, which decided against him, and he and his sons were banished.

But within a year, 1050, they returned, with an army. The English were now so utterly wearied with the arrogance of the king’s Norman favorites that they gladly welcomed Godwine. The king mustered an army to meet him, but the army refused to fight. The national assembly again considered Godwine’s cause, and banished the Norman archbishop of Canterbury, with a great company of other Normans. 39. In 1053 the great earl Godwine died, and was succeeded in his high place in the kingdom by his son Harold. In the beginning of 1066 King Eadward died while the national assembly was in session. Eadward had no children, and on his deathbed he had recommended Harold as his successor. The national assembly accepted the recommendation, and Harold was regularly chosen and crowned king of England, and reigned as Harold II. 40. In 1035 the death of Duke Robert of Normandy had left his son William, his successor, a child of but seven or eight years old. He was the sixth duke of Normandy, and by relationship was the fifth in direct descent from Rolf, or Rollo, the Danish chief who received from Charles the Simple the duchy of Normandy. By the time that he attained to the age of twenty, he had firmly fixed his authority in Normandy; and by the time he was thirty-six he had obtained possession of the counties of Maine and Brittany, and “stood first among the princes of France.” In 1051 he had made a visit to King Eadward of England, and ever afterward claimed that at that time Eadward had promised to him the crown of England at Eadward’s death. He further claimed that while Eadward was a child in banishment in Normandy, he had said to William that if ever he became king of England, William should be his successor. Further, about 1065, when Harold was the foremost subject in England, he had made a journey to Normandy, but by a storm was driven out of his direct course, and was shipwrecked near the mouth of the Somme, in the territory of the count of Ponthieu, who would not let him go without a ransom, and William paid the ransom; and so Harold came safely to William’s court. William told him of the promise that Eadward had made, and asked Harold whether he would support him in his claims under the promise. Harold assented; but William asked for an oath. This, too, Harold gave. 41. And now, in 1066, when William learned that Harold himself had received the crown of England, without any recognition or even mention of any of his claims, he determined that he would have the kingdom anyhow.

He first sent an envoy to Rome, to obtain the sanction of the pope. When William had taken the oath of Harold to support him in his claims to the kingship of England under the promises of Eadward. by a trick he had secured Harold’s oath upon the relics of the saints. And now, when he desired the pope’s sanction of his enterprise, he urged the perjury and the awful blasphemy of Harold’s course in disregarding an oath given upon the holy relics. He asked the pope even to put all England under an interdict because of her having chosen such a man as this for king, and also because the nation had expelled the archbishop of Canterbury, who had borne the consecration of Rome. Hildebrand was at that time archdeacon at the papal court. He approved William’s claims, and, by his influence, the pope also was brought to William’s support. William “was thus able to cloak his schemes under the guide of a crusade and to attack England alike with temporal and spiritual weapons.” Feeling thus sure of his ground in the support of the papacy, William issued “a proclamation that, supported by the holy father of Christendom, who had sent to him a consecrated banner, William, duke of Normandy, was about to demand, by force of arms, his rightful inheritance of England; and that all who would serve him with spear, sword, or cross-bow, should be amply rewarded. At this call, gathered together all the adventurers of Western Europe. They came in crowds from Maine and Anjou, from Poitou and Brittany, from Aquitaine and Burgundy, from France and Flanders. They should have land; they should have money; they should wed Saxon heiresses; the humblest foot soldier should be a gentleman. The summer of 1066 was almost past before the preparations were complete. A large fleet had assembled at the beginning of September at the mouth of the Dive.” — Knight. F91 42. At this same time there was hanging over England another invasion from Norway. The king of Norway in this same month of September landed with a host in what is now Yorkshire, defeated the local forces, and September 24 received the submission of the territory immediately north of the Humber. Harold, marching to meet the invaders, found them September 25, and routed them at Stamford Bridge, near the city of York.

In the afternoon of September 27, William, at the head of his fleet, started across the Channel, and, early in the day, September 28, landed at Pevensey,on the coast of Sussex. Harold, learning of this, brought his army as rapidly as possible again to the south; and, October 14, with his forces of Wessex, East Anglia, and Mercia, “met William and his host on the hill of Senlac,” near the city of Hastings, and not a great distance from the place of his landing. “At nine o’ clock the Normans moved across the little valley, with the papal banner carried in advance of the Duke.” The camp of the English was fortified by a trench and a stockade, and at first the English were successful. They repulsed both the Norman horsemen and footmen, and at one times there was such danger of a panic amongst the Normans that William was obliged to tear off his helmet, so that he could be readily recognized, and by voice rally his troops. “After a fight of six hours, William commanded his men to turn their backs. The English raised a cry of triumph, and, breaking their ranks, rushed from their commanding position into the plain. Then the Norman cavalry wheeled around and a terrible slaughter took place. Harold fell a little before sunset,” pierced by an arrow, in his right eye. Under cover of the night the remnant of the English army fled, and William’s victory was complete. 43. All of Harold’s brothers had fallen with him in the battle; and of the regular royal line there was remaining but one male, a boy named Eadgar, about ten years old, the grandson of Eadmund Ironside. This boy the national council chose to the kingship. But the boy had sufficient sense to keep him from offering resistance to the greatest warrior of the age, and he himself was at the head of the deputation sent by the national assembly to offer the crown to William. The widow of the late king Eadward yielded to William and surrendered Winchester. By the national assembly “he was now chosen king and crowned at Westminster on Christmas day. He was thus king by the submission of the chief men, by the right of coronation, and by the absence of any other claimant.” Yet he had practically the whole of the territory of his kingdom still to conquer. This, however, he accomplished with ease, never, after Senlac, being required to fight a single pitched battle. 44. Yet, though so much of the realm was still unconquered, William felt so secure in his kingdom that in the month of March, the next year, 1067, he went back to Normandy to attend to the affairs of his dominions on the Continent. His lieutenants whom he left in charge in England, made themselves so obnoxious that before the end of the year, revolts recalled William to England; and within two years he secured the recognition of his power throughout the whole kingdom. “Early in 1070 William reviewed and dismissed his army at Salisbury. At the Easter feast of the same year, being now full king over all England, he was again solemnly crowned by legates from Rome.” In 1072 he “entered Scotland and received the homage of Malcolm at Abernethy. He had thus succeeded to the empire, as well as to the immediate kingdom, of his West Saxon predecessors. In the next year he employed English troops on the Continent in winning back the revolted county of Maine. In 1074 he could afford to admit Eadgar, the rival king of a moment, to his favor.” F92 45. As before stated, William laid the basis of his claim to the kingdom of England in his asserted promise of Eadward that William should be his successor. And now that he had actually obtained possession of the kingdom, he held that the kingdom had been his, by full right, ever since the death of Eadward. By this assertion he made it to follow that all that had been done in the kingdom since the death of Eadward, had been illegal; that all who had fought against him were guilty of treason; that all who had sustained Harold, had fought against him; and that as the general assembly of the kingdom had sustained Harold, and had even crowned a new king after the death of Harold, the whole nation was thus involved in the crime of treason. Whoever was guilty of treason, all his lands and goods were forfeit to the crown. And, since the whole kingdom was guilty of treason, all the lands and goods of all the people in the whole realm were forfeit to him, and he actually claimed all as his own. He did not remove the original owners from their land indiscriminately and everywhere. Much of the land he turned over to new owners, some he left in the possession of the original owners. But, whether given to new owners or left in the possession of the original owners, every one was obliged to receive it as the direct gift of the king, and to hold it continually subject to the king’s pleasure, and as the king’s “man.” “The only proof of lawful ownership was either the king’s written grant, or else evidence that the owner had been put in possession by the king’s order.” 46. In order to make this system thorough, William had a survey made of all the lands of the whole realm, and a census of all property and of the owners thereof. All this was recorded in a book — the value of the lands at the time the survey was made, the value of it in the time of Eadward, and the value of it at the date when it was bestowed upon its latest owner by the grant of the king. In the book were recorded the numbers dwelling upon the land, whether as tenants, or dependents; the amount of live stock, etc., etc. And, because the record in this book was the standard of decision upon every question or dispute as to property, and because its testimony was final in every case, that book was called Domesdeie Book — Domesday Book — Doomsday Book, from dom, doom, decree, law, judgment, or decision. This record was finished in 1086; and then “William gathered all the land-owners of his kingdom, great and small, whether his tenants in chief or the tenants of an intermediate lord, and made them all become his men.” And thus the Norman king was not only the head of the State, but “also the personal lord of every man in his kingdom.” This thoroughness with respect to persons and property caused the king’s authority to be respected everywhere throughout the realm; and “the good peace that he made in the land” was such “that a man might fare over his realm with a bosom full of gold.” 47. In January, 1087, William went again to Normandy especially for the purpose of setting a dispute concerning some Norman territory which the king of France had seized. In the month of August his forces had taken the town of Mantes; and, as William rode amongst the smoldering ruins, his horse stumbled and fell, by which William received an injury from which he died September 9. He left three sons. The eldest, Robert, was at the court of France; the other two, William and Henry, were with him at the time of his death. To the eldest he left the inheritance of Normandy; to William he gave his ring, and advised him to go at once to England and assume the crown; to Henry,the youngest, he bequeathed five thousand pounds of silver. William arrived safely in England and was crowned at Westminster, Sept. 26, 1087. He is known in history as William Rufus — “the Red.” The Norman element of England was so opposed to him that they actually revolted; but it was in vain, for his English subjects stood so loyally by him as to render him successful against all opposition. In 1096 his brother of Normandy, desiring to go on the first crusade, and not having sufficient funds, borrowed the needed sum from William of England, and gave Normandy as the mortgage for the repayment of the money. A part of the duchy rebelled. William went over and put down the rebellion. In 1098-99 he also conquered Maine. Shortly afterward he returned to England, and Aug. 2, 1100, he was found dead in the New Forest, with an arrow in his breast; whether shot by an assassin, or in accident by a hunter, was never discovered. 48. The kingdom was instantly seized by his brother Henry, surnamed Beauclerc. The Norman element of the kingdom opposed him, as they had opposed William Rufus; but the national assembly unanimously elected him, and promptly crowned him. Further, to hold the affections of his English subjects, he married a lady of English blood — Edith, the daughter of the king of Scotland, whose mother was the sister of the last king Eadgar, and granddaughter of King Eadmund Ironside. She changed her name to Maud, or Matilda; “and the shout of the English multitude when he set the crown on Matilda’s brow drowned the murmur of churchman and of baron. The mockery of the Norman nobles who nicknamed the king and his spouse Godric and Godgifu, was lost in the joy of the people at large. For the first time since the conquest an English sovereign sat on the English throne. The blood of Cerdic and AElfred was to blend itself with that of Rolf and the Conqueror. Henceforth it was impossible that the two peoples should remain parted from each other: so quick, indeed, was their union that the very name of Norman had passed away in half a century, and at the accession of Henry’s grandson it was impossible to distinguish between the descendants of the conquerors and those of the conquered at Senlac.” — Green. F93 49. Shortly after this, Robert returned from the Crusades, and the Norman nobles in England conspired to bring him over to contend in England for that kingdom. He did come with an army, landing at Portsmouth; but Henry was able to make with him such terms that without fighting, a peace was settled, by which Robert recognized Henry as king of England, and returned to his proper dominions on the Continent. There, however, he so misgoverned his territories that they called on Henry to come over and be their king. In 1106 he went to Normandy with an army. The dispute culminated in the battle of Tenchebrai, in which Robert was defeated and captured, and was held in captivity until his death in 1134. Thus Normandy was conquered and possessed by the king of England, as, forty years before, England had been conquered and possessed by William of Normandy.”During the rest of Henry’s reign there was perfect peace in England; but nearly the whole time was filled with continental wars. The warfare between France and England, of which there had been only a glimpse in the days of Rufus, now began in earnest.” And, from the entanglements, intrigues, and war in France, which was now begun by Henry, England never found herself free for three hundred and forty-seven years. 50. In 1120, as Henry was returning with his forces from Normandy to England, his only son, William, “full of merriment and wine,” and “with rowers and steersman mad with drink,” had barely left harbor when his ship struck a rock, and instantly sank. “One terrible cry, ringing through the silence of the night, was heard by the royal fleet, but it was not till the morning that the fatal news reached the king. Stern as he was, Henry fell senseless to the ground, and rose never to smile again.” — Green. F94 This left the son of his captive brother Robert as the true heir to Henry’s dominions, alike of England and Normandy. But Henry determined not to allow him to be his successor. Henry had a daughter, Maud, or Matilda, who had been married to the emperor Henry V, but who, on his death, had returned to England and her father’s house. And although, so far, in English history the reign of a woman had been unknown, yet Henry decided that Maud should succeed him upon the throne of England.

Accordingly, while he lived, he “forced priests and nobles to swear allegiance to Maud as their future mistress;” and chose for her husband Geoffry, the son of the count of Anjou in France. 51. In 1135 Henry died. But the arrangement which he had made for the succession of Maud to the throne was disregarded by the national assembly, and Stephen was chosen king of England. Stephen was the grandson of William the Conqueror, and, with the rest of the chief men of England, had done homage, and sworn allegiance, to Maud as the successor of Henry. All this, however, was disregarded, and without opposition Stephen became king of England. One great reason why the agreement with Maud was not carried into effect, was that for her to be queen would cause that Geoffry of Anjou would practically be ruler — and he an utter foreigner: and this neither English nor Normans would have. At the time all this occurred, Maud was not in England, but was with her husband in Anjou; and, when they heard of these proceedings in England, Geoffry seized Normandy. With this added prestige, and with an army, Maud invaded England in 1139. Stephen was defeated and captured, at Lincoln, in 1141, and Maud “was received throughout the land as its lady” — they would not use the word queen. However, she was not crowned.

She offended the city of London, which rose in arms against her. In an exchange of prisoners, Stephen had been released. For eleven years there was civil war, “a time of utter anarchy and havoc,” a “chaos of pillage and bloodshed.” Then, in 1153 an agreement was made between King Stephen and Maud’s son Henry, who was now duke of Normandy. By this agreement Stephen was to reign as long as he lived, and then Henry should have the kingdom. Stephen died the next year, and the agreement was fully carried out, as to Henry; and so he came to his kingdom without any opposition or any further confusion. 52. Henry II was now, by right from his grandfather, Henry I, king of England, and duke of Normandy; in France, as the heir of his father, Geoffry, he was lord of the counties of Anjou, Maine, and Touraine, and, through his brother, also of Brittany; and now, by marriage to Eleanor, the duchess of Poitou, Aquitaine, and Gascony, he received, with her, these three counties, the principal portion of southern Gaul. Besides all this, one of the first events of his reign was the granting of a bull by the pope, giving to him Ireland. Thus, in the reign of Henry II, the British empire embraced Ireland, all of England and Wales south of the Forth, and all of western and central France, from the English Channel to the border of Spain. “In ruling over a vast number of distinct states, widely differing in blood, language, and everything else, ruling over all without exclusively belonging to any, Henry II, king, duke; and count of all the lands from the Pyrenees to the Scottish border, was the forerunner of the emperor Charles V.” His father, Geoffry, count of Anjou, habitually wore in his helmet a sprig of broomcorn, called in the native tongue planta genista, from which he received the nickname of Plantagenet, which clung to his house. And so Henry — II of England — became the first of the Plantagenets, who ruled England for three hundred and thirty-one years — 1154-1485. 53. Henry II died in 1189, and was succeeded by his son Richard, surnamed Coeur de Lion — heart of lion. At his accession, Richard was absent from England, in his mother’s possession in southern Gaul, and during his whole reign of ten years he was in England but twice, both times merely for the purpose of being crowned: first, immediately on his accession, in the autumn of 1189; second, in 1194, on his return from the Crusades. In 1190 Richard went on his crusade; and to obtain the money for his expenses he sold everything that he could sell, short of the very kingdom itself. “He put up the crown demesnes; he sold the public offices; he sold earldoms; he sold the claim which [his father] Henry had asserted to the right of homage for the crown of Scotland. ‘I would sell London, if I could find a chapman,’ he exclaimed. ‘Richard’s presence chamber was a market overt, in which all that the king could bestow — all that could be derived from the bounty of the crown, or imparted by the royal prerogative — was disposed of to the best chapman.’” — Knight. F95 54. Though on his crusade Richard was four years absent from his dominions, he was in Palestine only about sixteen months — June 8, 1191, to Oct. 9, 1192. While there he had dealt a kick to the duke of Austria for his refusing to work on the walls of Ascalon. And now on his return, as he was trying to make his way in disguise through Austria, he was detected when near Vienna, and was made prisoner by the duke of Austria, Dec. 21, 1192, who sold him to the emperor, who was also ready to sell him, but there was no buyer. In hope of release Richard agreed to pay an annual tribute to the emperor, resigned his crown to the emperor, and received it back as vassal to the “overlord of Christendom.” Yet he was kept prisoner till March 8, 1194, when he was released on a ransom of what would be now about a million dollars. He went at once to England, landing March 12: and notwithstanding the heavy drain upon the people to pay his ransom, without any recompense whatever he “forcibly resumed the lands which he had sold, and turned out the officers who had purchased their places,” to enable him to make his crusade. His stay in England was brief.

He sailed away May 11, 1194, and never saw England again. He was mortally wounded by an arrow while besieging Chaluz, in a war with King Philip II of France, and died twelve days afterward, April 6, 1199. He was immediately succeeded by his brother John. 55. John, surnamed Lackland because his father, with all his vast possessions, left him no land, was crowned king of England on Ascension Day, May 27, 1199. There was a nearer heir in the person of Arthur, the grandson of Henry II, through his third son Geoffry, while John was so far removed as to be the fifth son of Henry. But Arthur, being a boy of only twelve years, while John was a man of thirty-two years, John was chosen as the one better able to discharge the responsibilities of kingship at that time. All the continental possessions of England likewise recognized John, except the three counties of Maine, Touraine, and Anjou. These openly espoused the claims of Arthur. King Philip of France stood with these in supporting Arthur: this, however, to promote his own designs in excluding, if possible, England from any possessions within the limits of what should be France. This brought on a war. John went at once to Normandy to defend his interests on the Continent: Philip invaded Normandy, besides putting garrisons in the three counties of Maine, Touraine, and Anjou. 56. When the war had continued eight months, a truce was arranged, about the first of March, 1200. John spent the months of March and April in England; and the first of May he returned to Normandy. The war was taken up again; but on May 23 a peace was concluded. Philip abandoned the interests of Arthur with respect to Maine, Touraine, and Anjou; but in the peace it was arranged that Arthur should receive Brittany as a fief from John; and that Philip’s son Louis should marry john’s niece, Blanche of Castile. While passing through his province of Aquitaine, John saw a beautiful woman, already betrothed to a noble, and he secured a divorce from his own wife, and persuaded this lady to marry him. This stirred up to vengeance against John, the noble — Hugh, count of La Marche. He incited an insurrection in John’s possessions on the Continent: he was secretly supported by Philip, and in two years and a half, Normandy, Anjou, Maine, and Touraine were lost to England. Arthur had joined in the insurrection, had been captured, and was assassinated at the direction of John, if not by the very hand of John himself. 57. In 1203 the estates of Brittany sent a deputation to Philip to demand justice against John. John, as duke of Normandy, was summoned to appear before a court of his peers in France, and as a vassal of the king of France.

John’s envoy asked for a safe conduct. Philip answered that he should come unmolested. Then John’s envoy wanted to know whether he could be assured of a safe return. Philip replied that he should have safe return “if the judgment of his peers acquitted him.” John’s envoy then remarked that, since John was king of England as well as duke of Normandy, the duke of Normandy could not come without the king of England’s coming, and declared that “the barons of England would not permit their king to run the risk of death or imprisonment.” Philip, however, insisted that the duke of Normandy should come, because, as such, he was truly the vassal of the king of France. 58. John did not go; and, for his “contumacy,” the court decreed that “whereas, John, duke of Normandy, in violation of his oath to Philip, his lord, has murdered the son of his elder brother, a homager of the crown of France, and near kinsman to the king, and has perpetrated the crime within the seigniory of France, he is found guilty of felony and treason, and is therefore adjudged to forfeit all the lands he has held by homage.” This allowed Philip to assert legal claim to all the English possessions in France; and he at once entered Normandy and occupied the strongholds with his troops. But this the Normans did not like, and they appealed to John to come to their rescue. But, against this England protested, because she “thought the time was come when her wealth should no longer be dissipated in Normandy; when her language should be spoken by those who ruled over her; when her laws should be administered by those who abided among her people; and when her Church should be upheld by those who had no foreign bishoprics and abbeys.” As a consequence, all the continental possessions of England, except Aquitaine, were now lost, “and from the lordship of a vast empire that stretched from the Tyne to the Pyrenees John saw himself reduced at a blow to the realm of England.” 59. Next, in 1207 John fell into a quarrel with Rome. March 24, 1208, England was placed under an interdict, which John resisted for five years, when in 1213 to the interdict, the excommunication of John was added; and England was given by the pope to Philip of France. Philip gathered a fleet and an army with which to go and take possession of England. John surrendered to the pope, and took an oath of fealty as the vassal of Rome.

Then the pope forbade Philip any further designs upon England. Philip determined to take England anyhow; but his vassal, the count of Flanders, refused to support him. This caused war; John supported Flanders, and Philip’s fleet was destroyed. Next, supported by the pope and the emperor, the count of Flanders and the Earl of Boulogne, John went with an army to punish Philip further. A great battle was fought at Bouvines. John and his allies were completely overthrown, and “concluded an ignominious truce with Philip,” and returned to England, October, 1214. 60. The people of England had long borne with the numberless wickednesses of John; but, when he made the realm of England a fief, and the king of England a vassal, of the pope, they could bear with him no longer. John himself wrote to the pope that “whereas, before we were disposed to subject ourselves and our realm to your dominion, the earls and barons of England never failed in their devotion to us; since then, however, and as they publicly avow for that reason, they have been in continual and violent rebellion against us.” Because of this attitude of his nobles, when John returned now from France, he came with an army of mercenaries, with the avowed intent that by this power he would be “for the first time king and lord of England.” 61. But “there were now two eminent persons among many other bold and earnest churchmen and laity who saw that the time was come when no man should be ‘king and lord in England’ with a total disregard of the rights of other men; a time when a king should rule in England by law instead of by force, or rule not at all. Stephen Langton, the archbishop, and William, earl of Pembroke, were the leaders and at the same time moderators, in the greatest enterprise that the nation had yet undertaken. It was an enterprise of enormous difficulty. The pope was now in friendship with the king, and this might influence the great body of ecclesiastics. The royal castles were in possession of the mercenary soldiers. The craft of John was as much to be dreaded as his violence. But there was no shrinking from the duty that was before these patriots. They moved on steadily in the formation of a league that would be strong enough to enforce their just demands, even if the issue were war between the crown and the people. The bishops and barons were the great council of the nation. Parliament, including the Commons, was not, as yet, though not far distant. The doctrine of divine right was the invention of an age that sought to overthrow the ancient principle of an elective monarchy, in which hereditary claims had indeed a preference, but in which the sovereign ‘is appointed to protect his subjects in their lives, properties, and laws, and for this very end and purpose has the delegation of power from the people.’” — Knight. F96 62. The nobles met at Saint Edmundsbury; and after duly considering the situation, Nov. 20, 1214, they “solemnly swore to withdraw their allegiance from John, if he should resist their claims to just government.

They had not only public wrongs to redress, but the private outrages of the king’s licentiousness were not to be endured by the class of high-born knights whom he insulted through their wives and daughters. From Saint Edmundsbury they marched to London, where the king had shut himself up in the temple. When their deputies came into his presence, he first despised their claims and then asked for delay.

The archbishop of Canterbury, the earl of Pembroke, and the bishop of Ely guaranteed that a satisfactory answer should be given before Easter. The king employed the time in the endeavor to propitiate the church by promising a free election of bishops. He took the cross, and engaged to wage war with the infidels. He sent to Rome, to implore the aid of the pope in his quarrel. And the pope came to his aid; and commanded Langton to exercise his authority to bring back the king’s vassals to their allegiance. 63. “At Easter, the barons, with a large force, assembled at Stamford. John was at Oxford, and Langton and Pembroke were with him. They were sent by the king to ascertain the demands of their peers; and these messengers, or mediators, brought back” Magna Charta. This “was a code of laws, expressed in simple language, embodying two principles — the first, such limitations of the feudal claims of the king as would prevent their abuse; the second, such specifications of the general rights of all freemen as were derived from the ancient laws of the realm, however these rights had been neglected or perverted... It demanded no limitation of the regal power which had not been acknowledged, in theory, by every king who had taken a coronation oath. It made that oath, which had been regarded as a mere form of words, a binding reality. It defined, in broad terms of practical application, the essential difference between a limited and a despotic monarchy. It preserved all the proper attributes of the kingly power, while it guarded against the king being a tyrant.” In it the king was required to declare the great principle of the supremacy of the law of the realm in the words: “No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or banished, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor send upon him, unless by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no man will we sell, to no man will we deny or delay, right or justice.” — Knight. F97 64. The Charter was a long document. The archbishop read it to the king slowly and solemnly, item by item. “John went into a furious passion,” exclaiming, “Why do they not ask for my kingdom? I will never grant such liberties as will make me a slave.” Langton and Pembroke took back to the nobles this the king’s answer. The barons proclaimed themselves “the army of God and holy Church,” and marched upon London, which they entered May 22, 1215, the citizens of London having already agreed to make common cause with them. There were further negotiations: the barons were immovable, and John yielded and agreed to a meeting. The meeting was appointed to be held June 15 “on an island in the Thames, between Windsor and Staines, near a marshy meadow by the riverside, the meadow of Runnymede” — Runemed, the mead or meadow of council. “The king encamped on one bank of the river, the barons covered the flat of Runnymede on the other. Their delegates met on the island between them, but the negotiations were a mere cloak to cover John’s purpose of unconditional submission. The Great Charter was discussed and agreed to in a single day.” — Green. F98 65. However, this was not all. The barons had not yet finished with John.

They next required that he should agree to articles by which there should be assured the means of carrying into effect the provisions of the charter. “Twenty-five barons were to be chosen by the barons assembled, to maintain the observance of the peace and liberties granted and confirmed; so that if the king or his officers violated any of the conditions, four out of the twenty-five barons so chosen might petition for redress of the grievance; and if not redressed within forty days, the cause being laid before the rest of the twenty-five, they, ‘together with the community of the whole kingdom shall distrain and distress us all the ways possible; namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other manner they can, till the grievance is redressed according to their pleasure, saving harmless our own person, and those of our queen and children; and when it is redressed, they shall obey us as before.’” It was further required “that the Charter should not only be published throughout the whole country, but sworn to at every hundred-mote and town-mote by order from the king.” 66. When these new demands were made, John was more angry than ever.

He cried out: “They have given me four-and-twenty overkings:” and flung himself on the floor “gnawing sticks and straw in his impotent rage.” But it was all in vain; the nobles were inflexible, and john was obliged to sign all that they required. No sooner was it all over, however, and the respective parties had separated and the forces dispersed, than John let himself loose to take vengeance on the whole kingdom, in all of which he was still zealously supported by the pope, who issued a bull excommunicating the barons and annulling the Charter. England rejected the excommunication and maintained the Charter. But, by the bull, John counted himself free from his oaths to the nobles, with full right to punish the whole people. “Wherever he marches, his force is to be tracked by fire and blood. The country was overrun by his fierce mercenaries. He marched to the north with the determination to recover his authority by the terrors of a widespread desolation, without one passing thought of justice or mercy. As he entered Scotland, in revenge for the alliance which its king, Alexander II, had formed with the barons, he burned the abbeys without distinction, and having rested at a village, set fire with his own hand, when he departed in the morning, to the house in which he had slept the previous night. In the South the same work of terror went forward, under the command of John’s illegitimate brother, the earl of Salisbury. The barons despaired of their cause, for the people fled before these hell-hounds, abandoning home and property rather than perish under the hands of relentless torturers.

Their leaders came at last to a desperate resolution. They offered the crown to Louis, the eldest son of the king of France.” — Knight. F99 67. This desperate step, of course, was fraught with more war; yet it was certain that no war could be worse than were the miseries which John was inflicting upon the kingdom without war. Louis of France landed in England, May 30, 1216. Many of John’s mercenaries were Frenchmen, and when their own prince came into England, they not only refused to fight against him, but actually went over to him in such numbers that John dared not meet him. Louis soon reached London, where he was welcomed: the barons and citizens paid him homage, “he swearing to govern justly, to defend them against their enemies, and to restore them to their rights and possessions.” Everything was in his favor; but he destroyed all his good prospects by bestowing upon Frenchmen, English honors and possessions.

But the whole situation was presently relieved by the death of John. He was attacked with a fever, in addition to which he gorged himself with a “surfeit of peaches and new cider,” and as a consequence died Oct. 18, 1216. 68. Though the nobles had invited Louis of France to be king of England, he had so offended that they now rejected him, and chose, to be king, John’s son Henry, a boy of ten years, who was crowned King Henry III, at Gloucester, Oct. 28, 1216. Louis, however, defended his claims to the crown. There was war for two years, in which he was defeated, on both land and sea. He then willingly agreed to resign his claims and withdraw to France, upon the payment to him of “five thousand pounds to meet his necessities.” While Henry III was so young, the kingdom was governed by a regency till 1227, when he declared himself of age, and began immediately to imitate his father John. He rejected the Charter and its appendices, which John had signed, and, instead of all that, declared: “Whensoever, and wheresoever, and as often as it may be our pleasure, we may declare, interpret, enlarge, or diminish, the aforesaid statutes, and their several parts, by our own free will, and as to us shall seem expedient for the security of us and our land.” But he, as John, was firmly met by the kingdom’s insistence upon the right of the people and the supremacy of the law. 69. In answer to Henry’s pronunciamento, an English judge, Bracton, set the voice of English law, in words worthy of everlasting remembrance: “The king must not be subject to any man, but to God and the law, for the law makes him king. Let the king, therefore, give to the law what the law gives to him, dominion and power for there is no king where will, and not law, bears rule.” Again: “The king can do nothing on earth, being the minister of God, but what he can do by law.” And yet again, he “reckons as superior to the king, ‘not only God and the law by which he is made king, but his court of earls and barons; for the former (comites) are so styled as associates of the king, and whoever has an associate has a master: so that, if the king were without a bridle that is, the law they ought to put a bridle upon him.’” F100 Upon this it has been well observed: “Let no Englishman, who lives under the rule of law, and not of will, forget that this privilege has been derived from a long line of forefathers; and that, although the eternal principles of justice depend not upon the precedence of ages, but may be asserted some day by any community with whom a continued despotism has made them ‘native, and to the manner born,’ we have the security that the old tree of liberty stands in the old earth, and that a shortlived trunk has not been thrust into a new soil, to bear a green leaf or two and then to die.” — Knight. F101 70. Henry III reigned fifty-three years, and the whole reign is remarkable for the constitutional contest between the king and the people, upon the great question as to whether just government is by law, or by arbitrary and despotic will. His reign is also remarkable for the fact that “history presents him in scarcely any other light than that of an extortioner or a beggar.

There were no contrivances for obtaining money so mean or unjust that he disdained to practice them;” and the pope sustained him in it all, and “had more than an equal share of the spoil.” Thus, both he and the pope incurred not only the antagonism of the nobles, but the disrespect of the common people everywhere. Says a writer of the time, in 1252: “During all this time angry feelings were aroused, and hatred increased against the pope and the king, who favored and abetted each other in their mutual tyranny; and all, being in ill-humor, called them the disturbers of mankind.” Matters reached such a pass in 1257 that the nobles took another step in constitutional government. The Parliament met at Westminster, May 2, the barons clad “each in complete armor. As the king entered, there was a clatter of swords; and Henry, looking around in alarm, said, ‘Am I a prisoner?’ ‘No, sir,’ said Roger Bigod, ‘but your foreign favorites and your prodigality have brought misery upon the realm; wherefore we demand that the powers of government be delegated to a committee of bishops and barons, who may correct abuses, and enact good laws.” 71. To this demand the king was obliged to submit; and, on June 11, Parliament met at Oxford, to formulate what had been demanded. “It was enacted that four knights should be chosen by the votes of the freeholders in each county, who should submit all breaches of law and justice to a parliament, to be called together regularly thrice in each year; that the sheriffs of the counties should be chosen by the freeholders; and that the great officers of State should be reappointed.” This was but carrying into effect the provisions of Magna Charta, and its securities, which John had signed at Runnymede. And Henry, like John, after having sworn to it all, obtained a dispensation from the pope to violate it, and “told the committee of council, in 1261, that he should rule without them.”

However, in 1262, after making a blustering show of war, he yielded, and again agreed to observe the law. In 1264, however, he broke loose again, and the difference this time did bring on a war. Henry was defeated; a parliament was assembled “on a more democratic basis than any which had been ever summoned since the foundation of the monarchy,” to whose laws Henry was again required to submit. 72. Henry III died Nov. 16, 1272, and was succeeded by his son Edward, who, at the time, was absent in the Crusades. And it was not till 1274 that he arrived in England, August 3; and on August 19 he and his queen were crowned at Westminster. In 1282 Wales revolted, and Edward was obliged to make war there for two years before it was subdued. There, April 25, 1284, his first son was born, who was named Edward, and was given the title Prince of Wales, which is the origin of the title in the royal family of England. Edward I also resisted constitutional government, especially in the matter of raising taxes. But under the leadership of the two great earls, Roger Bigod of Norfolk and Humphrey Bohun of Hereford and Essex, the nobles of the kingdom “called upon the sheriffs to levy no more taxes till the charters were confirmed without any insidious reservation of the rights of the crown.” Edward yielded and the statute of the confirmation of the charter was accepted by the king. “From that day, the tenth of October, 1297, the sole right of raising supplies has been invested in the people — this most salutary power, which is the greatest of the many distinctions between a limited and a despotic monarchy.” 73. Next Edward set up a claim to be “sovereign lord of the land of Scotland.” This brought on a war in 1296, which continued for twentythree years — far beyond his death which occurred July 7, 1307. He was immediately succeeded by his son Edward, who was twenty-three years old. Edward II carried on the war with Scotland until 1323, when on May 10 a truce of thirteen years was concluded. In the first year of his reign Edward had married Isabella, the daughter of the king of France. In Isabella entered into an intrigue with Lord Roger Mortimer, which ended only in their murdering of the king. The murder, however, was preceded by his imprisonment. the declaring of his son Edward king at the age of fifteen, Jan. 7, 1327; the deposition of Edward II, January 13; the proclamation of the accession of Edward III, January 24; and his crowning, January 29. 74. Only four years of the truce between England and Scotland had passed when the king of Scotland — Robert Bruce — broke the truce, and invaded England. But, in 1328 a peace was concluded, in which England recognized the independence of Scotland under Bruce, and the peace was sealed by the marriage of the sister of Edward to the son of Bruce. In had died Charles IV, king of France, leaving no direct heir. The throne was taken by a cousin — Philip of Artois. Edward’s mother was the sister of Charles; and therefore as Charles’s nephew and nearer of kin than was Philip, Edward of England claimed the throne of France. The French law was that a woman could not inherit the throne; but Edward asserted the claim that though women were excluded, the law did not exclude the son of a woman who, if she had been a man, would have inherited. When Charles IV had died, Edward had presented his claim. 75. In 1332 Robert Bruce died, and John Balliol, who had done homage to Edward II for the kingdom, now attempted to take it from Bruce’s young heir. Edward III favored Balliol, and the king of France aided young David, the son of Bruce. And this aiding of Scotland by the rival king of France against the king of England and his ally was by Edward III made the ground “for commencing a great war for the purpose of asserting his pretensions to the crown of France.” The king of France was just then at war with the people of Flanders. Edward III helped the Flemings, and they proclaimed him king of France. In 1337 “Edward boldly assumed the title of king of France, and prepared to enforce his claim at the sword’s point.”

And thus began the Hundred Years’ War between England and France, which continued about a hundred and twenty years, through the rest of the reign of Edward III, to 1337; through the reign of Richard II, to 1399; that of Henry IV, to 1413; that of Henry V, to 1422; and into the reign of Henry VI, till 1458. 76. The Hundred Years’ War was barely ended when a civil war — the Wars of the Roses — began between the house of York and the house of Lancaster, which continued for thirty-five years, through the reigns of Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III, till the death of Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets, and the crowning of Henry VII, the first of the Tudors, on Bosworth Field, Aug. 22, 1485. Though the Wars of the Roses were thus ended, peace did not come to the kingdom; for there were insurrections and pretenders to the throne which kept the kingdom in a constant turmoil for fifteen years. In the last eight years of the reign of Henry VII, 1501 to April 21, 1509, there was “neither revolts nor wars” in the kingdom. Henry VII had two sons, Arthur, born 1486, and Henry in 1491. When Arthur was four years old, a marriage was arranged for him with a girl of five years, Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. In the year 1499, when the children were aged twelve and thirteen, respectively, the marriage ceremony was performed; first by proxy while Catherine was in Spain, and again in their own proper persons, Nov. 6, 1501, when Catherine arrived in England. 77. In January, 1502, a treaty of perpetual peace was made between England and Scotland. This treaty was sealed by the marriage of Margaret, the daughter of Henry VII, of England, to James IV, the king of Scotland.

In April of the same year occurred the death of Arthur, the husband of Catherine, and heir apparent to the throne. The two kings, however, Henry and Ferdinand, immediately arranged that Henry’s remaining son — Henry — should be married to Arthur’s young widow, Catherine. It took a year satisfactorily to settle the terms and to get a dispensation from the pope making the marriage legal; so that it was not till 1503 that the contract was actually completed by a ceremonial, “in which a person was appointed to object that the marriage was unlawful, and another to defend it as ‘good and effectual in the law of Christ’s Church.’” To this contract young Henry was opposed; and, before he reached the age of fifteen, “he protested, in legal form, against the contract which had been made during his nonage.”

Henry VII died April 21, 1509, and the next day began the reign of his young son Henry, eighth of the name. June 7, following, Henry and Catherine were publicly married by the archbishop of Canterbury, and were crowned at Westminster the 24th of the same month.

CHAPTER 8.

PAGAN PHILOSOPHY THE STRENGTH OF THE PAPACY.

AS, out of the political difficulties of the days of Constantine and the failing empire of Rome, the Catholic Church — the apostasy — rose to power in the State, in the formation of the papacy; so, out of the ruin of the Roman Empire, she, in her Ecclesiastical Empire, rose to supremacy over kings and nations. She had speedily wrought the ruin of one empire; and now for more than a thousand years she would prove a living curse to all the other states and empires that should succeed it. However, in order to a clear understanding and appreciation of the standing of the papacy at the moment when the Roman Empire vanished, and she found herself alone in the midst of that vast scene of destruction and anarchy, it is essential to know the source of her strength, by which she was able to survive. And, in order to know this, it is essential that we sketch a certain portion of her preceding history. 2. In that dismal mixture of downright heathenism, and the profession and forms of Christianity in the philosophical schools of Ammonius Saccas, Clement, and Origen, in Alexandria, there was given birth to the element which, above all other things, has ever been the mainstay of the papacy — monkery, or monasticism: from the Greek word “movachos” signifying “living alone, solitary; a man who retired from the world for religious meditation and the practice of religious duties in solitude; a religious hermit.” 3. It will be remembered F102 that in the philosophy of Ammonius, Clement, and Origen, all Scripture contains at least two meanings, — the literal and the hidden: that the literal is the baser sense of the Scripture, and is therefore a hindrance to the proper understanding of the hidden meaning with its train of further hidden meanings, and, accordingly, was to be despised and separated as far as possible from the hidden sense, and counted as of the least possible worth: that “the source of many evils lies in adhering to the carnal or external part of Scripture;” that “those who do so will not attain to the kingdom of God;” and that, therefore, “the Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.” 4. Now, the basis of that whole scheme was their conception of man himself. It was because that, in their philosophy, the body is the baser part of man, that the literal was counted the baser sense of Scripture. It was because that the body often betrays good men into sin, that, in their philosophy, the literal sense of Scripture was held to often lead men into error. In their system of philosophy, the body of man was but a clog to the soul, and hindered it in its heavenly aspirations; and therefore was to be despised, and, by neglect, punishment, and starvation, was to be separated as far as possible from the soul. And from this it followed that the literal sense of Scripture — which corresponded to man’s body, — was, likewise, a hindrance to the proper understanding of the hidden meanings of the Scripture, and was, therefore, to be despised, neglected, and separated as far as possible from the hidden sense or soul of the Scripture. 5. Whence, then, came to them this philosophy of the nature of man? It was the adoption entire of the heathen conception of the nature of man: it was the direct continuation, under the Christian profession, of the heathen philosophy of the immortality of the soul. For, about the close of the second century, “a new philosophic body suddenly started up, which in a short time prevailed over a large part of the Roman Empire, and not only nearly swallowed up the other sects, but likewise did immense injury to Christianity. Egypt was its birthplace, and particularly Alexandria, which for a long time had been the seat of literature and every science. Its followers chose to be called Platonics [or Platonists]. Yet they did not follow Plato implicitly, but collected from all systems whatever seemed to coincide with their own views. And the ground of this preference for the name of Platonics [or Platonists] was, that they conceived Plato to have understood more correctly than any one besides, that most important branch of philosophy, which treats of God, and things remote from sensible apprehension... Notwithstanding these philosophers were the partisans of no sect, yet it appears from a variety of testimonies that they much preferred Plato, and embraced the most of his dogmas concerning God, the human soul, and the universe.” This, because they regarded “Plato as wiser than all the rest, and as especially remarkable for treating the deity, the soul, and things remote from sense, so as to suit the Christian scheme.” — Mosheim. F103 6. This new philosophy “permitted the common people to live according to the laws of their country, and the dictates of nature; but directed the wise, by means of contemplation, to raise their souls, which sprang from God himself, above all earthly things, at the same time weakening and emaciating the body, which is hostile to the spirit’s liberty, by means of hunger, thirst, labor, and other austerities. Thus they might, even in the present life, attain to communion with the Supreme Being, and ascend, after death, active and unimcumbered, to the universal Parent, and be forever united with him ... 7. “This new species of philosophy, imprudently adopted by Origen and other Christians, did immense harm to Christianity. For it led the teachers of it to involve in philosophic obscurity many parts of our religion, which were in themselves plain and easy to be understood; and to add to the precepts of the Saviour no few things, of which not a word can be found in the Holy Scriptures. It also produced for us that gloomy set of men called mystics, whose system, if divested of its Platonic notions respecting the origin and nature of the soul, will be a lifeless and senseless corpse. It laid a foundation, too, for that indolent mode of life which was afterward adopted by many, and particularly by numerous tribes of monks; and it recommended to Christians various foolish and useless rites, suited only to nourish superstition, no small part of which we see religiously observed by many even to the present day. And finally it alienated the minds of many, in the following centuries, from Christianity itself, and produced a heterogeneous species of religion, consisting of Christian and Platonic principles combined.” — Mosheim. F104 8. “Plato had taught that the souls of heroes, of illustrious men, and eminent philosophers, alone, ascended after death into the mansions of light and felicity, while those of the generality, weighed down by their lusts and passions, sunk into the infernal regions, whence they were not permitted to emerge before they were purified from their turpitude and corruption. This doctrine was seized with avidity by the Platonic Christians, and applied as a commentary upon that of Jesus. Hence a notion prevailed that only the martyrs entered upon a state of happiness immediately after death; and that, for the rest, a certain obscure region was assigned, in which they were to be imprisoned until the second coming of Christ, or, at least, until they were purified from their various pollutions. F105 ... 9. “Jesus Christ prescribed to all His disciples one and the same rule of life and manners. But certain Christian doctors, either through a desire of imitating the nations among whom they lived, or in consequence of a natural propensity to a life of austerity (which is a disease not uncommon in Syria, Egypt, and other Eastern provinces), were induced to maintain that Christ had established a double rule of sanctity and virtue, for two different orders of Christians. Of these rules, one was ordinary, the other extraordinary; one of a lower dignity, the other more sublime; one for persons in the active scenes of life, the other for those who, in a sacred retreat, aspired to the glory of a celestial state. In consequence of this wild system,they divided into two parts all those moral doctrines and instructions which they had received, either by writing or tradition. One of these divisions they called precepts, and the other counsels. They gave the name of precepts to those laws which were obligatory upon all orders of men; and that of counsels to such as related to Christians of a more sublime rank, who proposed to themselves great and glorious ends, and aspired to an intimate communion with the Supreme Being. 10. “This double doctrine suddenly produced a new set of men, who made profession of uncommon degrees of sanctity and virtue, and declared their resolution of obeying all the counsels of Christ, that they might enjoy communion with God here; and also, that, after the dissolution of their mortal bodies, they might ascend to Him with greater facility, and find nothing to retard their approach to the supreme center of happiness and perfection. They looked upon themselves as prohibited from the use of things which it was lawful for other Christians to enjoy, such as wine, flesh, matrimony, and trade [or worldly business]. They thought it their indispensable duty to extenuate the body by watchings, abstinence, labor, and hunger. They looked for felicity in solitary retreats, in desert places, where, by severe and assiduous efforts of sublime meditation, they raised the soul above all external objects and all sensual pleasures. Both men and women imposed upon themselves the most severe tasks, the most austere discipline, all of which, however, the fruit of pious intention, was, in the issue, extremely detrimental to Christianity. These persons were called ascetics, “epovdioi”, “echlektoi” philosophers and even she-philosophers; not were they only distinguished by their title from other Christians, but also by their garb.” — Mosheim. F106 11. “Egypt, the fruitful parent of superstition, afforded the first example of the monastic life.” — Gibbon. F107 “From Egypt, this sour and unsocial discipline passed into Syria, and the neighboring countries, which also abounded with persons of the same dismal constitution with that of the Egyptians; and thence, in process of time its infection reached the European nations. Hence arose that train of austere and superstitious vows and rites, that still, in many places, throw a veil over the beauty and simplicity of the Christian religion. Hence the celibacy of the priestly order, the rigor of unprofitable penances and mortifications, the innumerable swarms of monks, who, in the senseless pursuit of a visionary sort of perfection, refused their talents and labors to society. Hence also that distinction between the theoretical and mystical life, and many other fancies of a like nature. F108 12. Soon there arose certain orders amongst the monks themselves:

Coenobites, Eremites or Hermits, Anchorites, and Sarabaites or Vagrants.

The Coenobites “lived and ate together in the same house, and were associated under a leader and head, whom they called Father, or in the Egyptian tongue, Abbot.” “The nuns [or female monks] also had their presidents, who were called Mothers.” “The Eremites led a cheerless, solitary life in certain parts of the country, dwelling in hovels among the wild beasts.” The Anchorites were “still more austere than the Eremites: these lived in desert places, with no kind of shelter; fed on roots and plants, and had no fixed residence, but lodged wherever night overtook them, so that visitors might not know where to find them.” The Sarabaites, or Vagrants, “roamed about the provinces, and from city to city, and got their living without labor,by pretended miracles, by trafficking in relies, and by other impositions.” — Mosheim. F109 13. The Eremites “sunk under the painful weight of crosses and chains; and their emaciated limbs were confined by collars, bracelets, gauntlets, and greaves of massy and rigid iron. All superfluous incumbrance of dress they contemptuously cast away; and some savage saints of both sexes have been admired, whose naked bodies were covered only by their long hair. They aspired to reduce themselves to the rude and miserable state in which the human brute is scarcely distinguished above his kindred animals: and a numerous sect of Anchorets derived their name [“Boskoi”, or Grazingmonks] from their humble practice of grazing in the fields of Mesopotamia with the common herd. They often usurped the den of some wild beast whom they affected to resemble; they buried themselves in some gloomy cavern, which art or nature had scooped out of the rock; and the marble quarries of Thebais are still inscribed with the monuments of their penance.

The most perfect hermits are supposed to have passed many days without food, many nights without sleep, and many years without speaking; and glorious was the man (I abuse the name) who contrived any cell, or seat, of a peculiar construction, which might expose him, in the most inconvenient posture, to the inclemency of the seasons.” 14. “In this comfortless state, superstition still pursued and tormented her wretched votaries. The repose which they had sought in the cloister was disturbed by a tardy repentance, profane doubts, and guilty desires; and, while they considered each natural impulse an unpardonable sin, they perpetually trembled on the edge of a flaming and bottomless abyss. From the painful struggles of disease and despair, these unhappy victims were sometimes relieved by madness or death, and, in the sixth century, a hospital was founded at Jerusalem for a small portion of the austere penitents, who were deprived of their senses. Their visions before they attained this extreme and acknowledged term of frenzy, have afforded ample materials of supernatural history. It was their firm persuasion that the air which they breathed was peopled with invisible enemies; with innumerable demons, who watched every occasion, and assumed every form, to terrify, and above all, to tempt, their unguarded virtue. The imagination, and even the senses, were deceived by the illusions of distempered fanaticism; and the hermit whose midnight prayer was oppressed by involuntary slumber might easily confound the phantoms of horror or delight which had occupied his sleeping and his waking dreams.” 15. “The actions of a monk, his words, and even his thoughts were determined by an inflexible rule, or a capricious superior: the slightest offenses were corrected by disgrace or confinement, extraordinary fasts or bloody flagellations; and disobedience, murmur, or delay was ranked in the catalogue of the most heinous sins. A blind submission to the commands of the abbot, however absurd, or even criminal, they might seem, was the ruling principle, the first virtue of the Egyptian monks; and their patience was frequently exercised by the most extravagant trials. They were directed to remove an enormous rock; assiduously to water a barren staff that was planted in the ground, till, at the end of three years, it should vegetate and blossom like a tree; to walk into a fiery furnace; or to cast their infant into a deep pond: and several saints, or madmen, have been immortalized in monastic story, by their thoughtless and fearless obedience. The freedom of the mind, the source of every generous and rational sentiment, was destroyed by the habits of credulity and submission; and the monk, contracting the vices of a slave, devoutly followed the faith and passions of his ecclesiastical tyrant. The peace of the Eastern Church was invaded by a swarm of fanatics, insensible of fear, of reason, or humanity; and the Imperial troops acknowledged without shame that they were much less apprehensive of an encounter with the fiercest barbarians.” — Gibbon. F110 16. As we have seen, to be a monk, was, in itself, to be holier than any could be who were not monks. But there arose degrees of holiness even amongst the monks themselves: and the chief of these were the Mystics.

These were a sect composed of extremes of the Eremites and Anchorites.

They “argued from that known doctrine of the Platonic school, which also was adopted by Origen and his disciples, that the divine nature was diffused through all human souls; or, in other words, that the faculty of reason, from which the health and vigor of the mind proceed, was an emanation from God himself, and comprehended in it the principles and elements of all truth, human and divine. They denied that men could, by labor or study, excite this celestial flame in their breasts; and, therefore, they highly disapproved the attempts of those who, by definitions, abstract theorems, and profound speculations, endeavored to form distinct notions of truth, and to discover its hidden nature. On the contrary, they maintained that silence, tranquillity, repose, and solitude accompanied with such acts of mortification as might tend to extenuate and exhaust the body, were the means by which the internal word [“lagos”, or reason] was excited to produce its latent virtues, and to instruct men in the knowledge of divine things. 17. “For thus they reasoned: ‘They who behold with a noble contempt all human affairs, they who turn away their eyes from terrestial vanities, and shut all the avenues of the outward senses against the contagious influences of a material world, must necessarily return to God, when the spirit is thus disengaged from the impediments that prevented that happy union; and in this blessed frame, they not only enjoy inexpressible raptures from their communion with the Supreme Being, but are also invested with the inestimable privilege of contemplating truth, undisguised and uncorrupted, in its native purity, while others behold it in a vitiated and delusive form.” “An incredible number of proselytes joined those chimerical sectaries, who maintained that communion with God was to be sought by mortifying the senses, by withdrawing the mind from all external objects, by macerating the body with hunger and labor, and by a holy sort of indolence, which confined all the activity of the soul to a lazy contemplation of things spiritual and eternal. The progress of this sect appears evidently from the prodigious number of solitary monks and sequestered virgins, which had overrun the whole Christian world with an amazing rapidity.” F111 18. No one would readily think to what an extent these persons really did go in their endeavors to make manifest their contempt of the body, and to separate it from the soul. It was not alone that they separated themselves from all people except their own kind, and starved the body by fastings and insufficient quantities of food, but it was manifested in every possible way what a wild and fanciful imagination could invent. “Every sensation that is offensive to man, was thought acceptable to God.” Neither the body nor the clothes were ever washed — not even feet or hands, except by an indulgence; so that filthiness actually became the measure of the degree of holiness. 19. Antony, if not the first, was the chief, the great exemplar, and the master of the monks in Egypt. In A.D. 305 he began the work of organizing such of them as would admit of it, into a regular body. He “engaged them to live in society with each other, and prescribed rules for the direction of their conduct.” In 341, Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria, the great champion of Catholic orthodoxy, “introduced into Rome the knowledge and practice of the monastic life; and a school of this new philosophy was opened by the disciples of Antony, who accompanied their primate to the holy threshold of the Vatican. The strange and savage appearance of these Egyptians excited, at first, horror and contempt, and, at length, applause and zealous imitation. The senators, and more especially the matrons, transformed their palaces and villas into religious houses, and the narrow institution of six Vestals was eclipsed by the frequent monasteries, which were seated on the ruins of ancient temples and in the midst of the Roman forum. 20. “Inflamed by the example of Antony, a Syrian youth, whose name was Hilarion, fixed his dreary abode on a sandy beach, between the sea and a morass, about seven miles from Gaza. The austere penance in which he persisted forty-eight years, diffused a similar enthusiasm; and the holy man was followed by a train of two or three thousand anchorets, whenever he visited the innumerable monasteries of Palestine. The fame of Basil is immortal in the monastic history of the East. With a mind that had tasted the learning and eloquence of Athens, with an ambition scarcely to be satisfied by the archbishopric of Caesarea, Basil retired to a savage solitude in Pontus, and deigned for a while to give laws to the spiritual colonies which he profusely scattered along the coast of the Black Sea. In the West, Martin of Tours, a soldier, a hermit, a bishop, and a saint, established the monasteries of Gaul; two thousand of his disciples followed him to the grave; and his eloquent historian challenges the deserts of Thebais to produce, in a more favorable climate, a champion of equal virtue. 21. “Every province, and at last every city, of the empire, was filled with their increasing multitudes; and the bleak and barren isles from Lerins to Lipari, that arise out of the Tuscan Sea, were chosen by the anchorets for the place of their voluntary exile ... The pilgrims who visited Jerusalem eagerly copied, in the most distant parts of the earth, the faithful model of the monastic life. The disciples of Antony spread themselves beyond the tropic, over the Christian empire of Ethiopia. The monastery of Banchor, in Flintshire, which contained above two thousand brethren dispersed a numerous colony among the barbarians of Ireland; and Iona, one of the Hebrides, which was planted by the Irish monks, diffused over the northern regions a doubtful ray of science and superstition.” — Gibbon. F112 Thus Christendom was “filled with a lazy set of mortals, who, abandoning all human connections, advantages, pleasures, and concerns, wore out a languishing and miserable life, amidst the hardships of want and various kinds of suffering, in order to arrive at a more close and rapturous communion with God and angels.” — Mosheim. F113 22. “It is incredible what rigorous and severe laws they imposed on themselves, in order to appease God, and deliver the celestial spirit from the body’s bondage. To live among wild beasts — nay, in the manner of these beasts; to roam about like madmen, in desert places, and without garments; to feed their emaciated bodies with hay and grass; to shun the converse and even the sight of men; to stand motionless in certain places, for many years, exposed to the weather; to shut themselves up in confined cabins, till life ended; — this was accounted piety: this the true method of eliciting the [spark of] Deity from the secret recesses of the soul! 23. “Among these examples of religious fatuity none acquired greater veneration and applause than those who were called Pillar-Saints (Sancti Columnares), or in Greek, Stylites: persons of a singular spirit and genius, who stood motionless on the top of lofty columns during many years, even to the end, in fact, of life, to the great astonishment of the ignorant multitude. This scheme originated in the present [the fifth] century [395- 451] with Simeon of Sysan, a Syrian; at first a shepherd, then a monk; who, in order to be nearer heaven, spent thirty-seven years in the most uncomfortable manner, on the tops of five different pillars, of six, twelve, twenty-two, thirty-six, and forty cubits’ elevation; and in this way procured for himself immense fame and veneration. His example was afterward followed, though not equaled, by many persons in Syria and Palestine, either from ignorance of true religion, or from love of fame.” 24. The top of Simeon’s last pillar “was three feet in diameter, and surrounded with a balustrade. Here he stood, day and night, and in all weathers. Through the night, and till nine A. M. he was constantly in prayer, often spreading forth his hands, and bowing so low that his forehead touched his toes. A bystander once attempted to count the number of these successive prostrations,” and, “after numbering twelve hundred and forty-four repetitions, at length desisted from the endless account.” “At nine o’clock A. M., he began to address the admiring crowd below, to hear and answer their questions, to send messages and write letters, etc.; for he took concern in the welfare of all the churches, and corresponded with bishops, and even with emperors.” “Successive crowds of pilgrims from Gaul and India saluted the divine pillar of Simeon: the tribes of Saracens disputed in arms the honor of his benediction; the queens of Arabia and Persia gratefully confessed his supernatural virtue; and the angelic hermit was consulted by the younger Theodosius, in the most important concerns of the Church and State.” “Toward evening he suspended his intercourse with this world, and betook himself again to converse with God till the following day. He generally ate but once a week; never slept; wore a long sheepskin robe, and cap of the same. His beard was very long, and his frame extremely emaciated. 25. “In this manner he is reported to have spent thirty-seven years; and at last, in his sixty-ninth year, to have expired unobserved, in a praying attitude, in which no one ventured to disturb him till after three days, when Antony, his disciple and biographer, mounting the pillar, found that his spirit was departed, and his holy body was emitting a delightful odor.” “His remains were transported from the mountain of Telenissa, by a solemn procession of the patriarch, the master-general of the East, six bishops, twenty-one counts or tribunes, and six thousand soldiers; and Antioch revered his bones, as her glorious ornament and impregnable defense.” “His pillar also was so venerated that it was literally inclosed with chapels and monasteries for some ages. Simeon was so averse from women, that he never allowed one to come within the sacred precincts of his pillar. Even his own mother was debarred this privilege, till after her death, when her corpse was brought to him. Pagan India still supplies gloomy fanatics resembling Simeon, and admirers like his contemporaries; a plain proof that his austerities were a graft from gentilism, the great religious evil of his day, and still at work upon the Christian Church.” F114 26. “The Christian Church would never have been disgraced by this cruel and unsocial enthusiasm, nor would any have been subjected to those keen torments of mind and body to which it gave rise, had not many Christians been unwarily caught by the specious appearance and the pompous sound of that maxim of ancient philosophy, ‘That in order to the attainment of true felicity and communion with God, it was necessary that the soul should be separated from the body, even here below, and that the body was to be macerated and mortified for this purpose.’” And how exactly according to the ancient philosophy this new Platonic, or monkish, philosophy was, and how certainly all this was the logical fruit of the Platonic philosophy, is easily seen by reference to Plato himself. And, that this may fairly be seen, Plato shall be quite fully quoted. Thus he says: — “True philosophers... will speak to one another in such words as these: We have found, they will say, a path of speculation which seems to bring us and the argument to the conclusion that while we are in the body, and while the soul is mingled with this mass of evil, our desire will not be satisfied, and our desire is of the truth. For the body is a source of endless trouble to us by reason of the mere requirement of food; and also is liable to diseases which overtake and impede us in the search after truth: and by filling us so full of loves, and lusts, and fears, and fancies, and idols, and every sort of folly, prevents our ever having, as people say, so much as a thought... “Moreover, if there is time and an inclination toward philosophy, yet the body introduces a turmoil and confusion and fear into the course of speculation, and hinders us from seeing the truth; and all experience shows that if we would have pure knowledge of anything we must be quit of the body, and the soul in herself must behold all things in themselves: then I suppose that we shall attain that which we desire, and of which we say that we are lovers, and that is wisdom; not while we live, but after death, as the argument shows; for if while in company with the body the soul can not have pure knowledge, one of two things seems to follow — either knowledge is not to be attained at all, or, if at all, after death. For then, and not till then, the soul will be in herself alone and without the body. “In this present life, I reckon that we make the nearest approach to knowledge when we have the least possible concern or interest in the body, and are not saturated with the bodily nature, but remain pure until the hour when God himself is pleased to release us. And then the foolishness of the body will be cleared away and we shall be pure and hold converse with other pure souls, and know of ourselves the clear light everywhere; and this is surely the light of truth. For no impure thing is allowed to approach the pure ... “And what is purification but the separation of the soul from the body, as I was saying before; the habit of the soul gathering and collecting herself into herself, out of all the courses of the body; the dwelling in her own place alone as in another life, so also in this, as far as she can; the release of the soul from the chains of the body? “The lovers of knowledge are conscious that their souls, when philosophy receives them, are simply fastened and glued to their bodies: the soul is only able to view existence through the bars of a prison, and not in her own nature; she is wallowing in the mire of all ignorance; and philosophy, seeing the terrible nature of her confinement, and that the captive through desire is led to conspire in her own captivity... philosophy shows her that this is visible and tangible, but that what she sees in her own nature is intellectual and invisible. And the soul of the true philosopher thinks that she ought not to resist this deliverance, and therefore abstains from pleasures and desires and pains and fears, as far as she is able... “Each pleasure and pain is a sort of nail which nails and rivets the soul to the body, and engrosses her and makes her believe that to be true which the body affirms to be true; and from agreeing with the body and having the same delights she is obliged to have the same habits and ways, and is not likely ever to be pure at her departure to the world below, but is always saturated with the body; so that she soon sinks into another body and there germinates and grows, and has therefore no part in the communion of the divine and pure and simple... “When the dead arrive at the place to which the genius of each severally conveys them, first of all they have sentence passed upon them, as they have lived well and piously or not. And those who appear to have lived neither well nor ill, go to the river Acheron, and mount such conveyances as they can get, and are carried in them to the lake, and there they dwell and are purified of their evil deeds, and suffer the penalty of the wrongs which they have done to others, and are absolved, and receive the rewards of their good deeds according to their deserts. But those who appear to be incurable by reason of the greatness of their crimes, — who have committed many and terrible deeds of sacrilege, murders foul and violent, or the like, — such are hurled into Tartarus, which is their suitable destiny, and they never come out. Those again who have committed crimes, which, although great, are not unpardonable, — who in a moment of anger, for example, have done violence to a father or a mother, and have repented for the remainder of their lives, or who have taken the life of another under the like extenuating circumstances, — these are plunged into Tartarus, the pains of which they are compelled to undergo for a year, but at the end of the year the wave casts them forth, — mere homicides by way of Cocytus, parricides and matricides by Pyriphlegethon, — and they are borne to the Acherusian Lake, and there they lift up their voices and call upon the victims whom they have slain or wronged, to have pity on them, and to receive them, and to let them come out of the river into the lake. And if they prevail, then they come forth and cease from their troubles; but if not, they are carried back again into Tartarus and from thence into the rivers unceasingly, until they obtain mercy from those whom they have wronged; for that is the sentence inflicted upon them by their judges. Those also who are remarkable for having led holy lives are released from this earthly prison, and go to their pure home which is above, and dwell in the purer earth; and those who have duly purified themselves with philosophy live henceforth altogether without the body, in mansions fairer far than these, which may not be described, and of which the time would fail me to tell. “I do not mean to affirm that the description which I have given of the soul and her mansions is exactly true — a man of sense ought hardly to say that. But I do say that, inasmuch as the soul is shown to be immortal, he may venture to think, not improperly or unworthily, that something of the kind is true.” F115 27. From this it is evident that the whole monkish system, with all its extravagances and torments in life, and its torments in purgatory afterward, was and is but the logical extension, under the name of Christianity, of the Platonic philosophy as propounded by Plato himself. This monkery of the Catholic Church was not peculiar, even in its extravagances, unless perhaps, in those of the pillar-saints; for paganism, long before this, had the like, and even yet has it: and, wherever it is found, it is all the strict logic of the philosophy of the immortality of the soul Of the inquiries of the ancient philosophers of Greece and Rome with regard to the immortality of the soul, it has been well observed that “their reason had been often guided by their imagination, and that their imagination had been prompted by their vanity. When they viewed with complacency the extent of their own mental powers, when they exercised the various faculties of memory, of fancy, and of judgment, in the most profound speculations, or the most important labors, and when they reflected on the desire of fame, which transported them into future ages, far beyond the bounds of death and of the grave, they were unwilling to... suppose that a being, for whose dignity they entertained the most sincere admiration, could be limited to a spot of earth, and to a few years of duration.” — Gibbon. F116 28. Thus it is plain that vanity, self-love, self-exaltation — selfishness — is the root of the philosophy of the immortality of the soul. It was this that led them to consider themselves, in their souls, “immortal and imperishable” (for so Plato definitely puts it), F117 and so, essentially a part of the Deity. And this is confirmed by revelation. For, when God had said to the man whom He had formed and placed in dominion over all the earth and over every moving thing upon it: “Of all the trees of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree which is in the midst of the garden thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” Satan came with the words: “Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that, on the day ye eat thereof, your eyes will be opened and ye will be as God.” F118 The woman believed this Satanic word. So believing, she saw what was not true — that the tree was “to be desired to make one wise,” a philosopher; and “she took of the fruit thereof and did eat and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.” 29. This is the origin of the philosophy of the immortality of the soul, in this world. And the only reason why that man did not die that day, even in the very hour when he sinned, is that there, at that moment, Jesus Christ offered himself in behalf of man, and took upon himself the death that would then have fallen upon the man; and thus gave to man another chance, a probation, a breathing-space, that he might choose life. This is why God could immediately say to the deceiver: “I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” F119 And so it is written: “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” F120 He came that they might first have life; and, without His then offering himself, man never would have had life after he sinned. And, having come that the man might first have life, this life to the man was and is solely for the purpose that he might use it in securing life more abundantly, even eternal life, the life of God. Thus it is only by the gift of Christ that any man in this world ever has opportunity to breathe at all. And, the sole object of man’s having an opportunity to breathe, is that he may choose life, that he may live and escape the death that is due to sin, and that is certain to fall, when Christ shall step away from between, and shall resume His place upon the throne of the universe. 30. And so it is written: “What is your life? — It is even a vapor that appeareth for a little time and then vanisheth away.” F121 And, what is death — the death which men die in this world? — It is even a sleep, F122 from which there is waking only in the resurrection of the dead. So the entering of Christ — Christ’s gift of himself when man had sinned — gave to man this life which is but a vapor, and which ends in this death which is but a sleep, between that life which is life indeed, and that death which is death indeed. Therefore, to all mankind it is spoken forever: “See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil. Therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” F123 “He that heareth my word and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” F124 31. Accordingly, “he that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life;” for “this is the record that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.” F125 And this life which is life indeed, beyond this life which is a vapor and this death which is a sleep, is assured only in Christ, through the resurrection of the dead: as it is written, “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory.” F126 “For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” F127 And, without the resurrection of the dead, there is no hereafter; for “if the dead rise not... your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins; then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” And “if after the men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.” F128 32. This is the true course, and the only true course, to immortality: not merely immortality of the soul, but the immortality of both soul and body.

For Christ has bought, and will redeem, the body equally with the soul; He cares, and would have men care, for the body equally as for the soul; as it is written, “I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.” F129 God only hath immortality. F130 Christ “hath brought life and immortality to the light through the gospel.”

F131 Thus immortality is the gift of God, and is obtained only by believers of the gospel. And to these it is given only at the resurrection of the dead; as it is written: “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” F132 33. This is the truth as to immortality. This is the true way of mankind from mortality to immortality. But, it is directly antagonistic to the Platonic or pagan idea of immortality, and of that way to it. This is evident on its face; but it is aptly confirmed by an incident that occurred at the very seat of the original Platonic philosophy — in Athens itself. Paul, in one of his journeys, came to Athens, where he remained several days, and talked “in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.” And, in all his speech, he preached the gospel — Christ and Him crucified: Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God: Christ and the resurrection of the dead: and life and immortality only through Christ and the resurrection of the dead. “Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans and of the Stoics encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? Other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods.” And this “because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection.” This was altogether a new doctrine, something which they never had heard. Therefore, “they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.” And when, standing on Mars’ Hill, he preached to them the gospel, and called upon all “to repent: because He hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead — when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.” 34. This account demonstrates even by inspiration that the Christian conception of immortality is not in any sense that of Plato and the other philosophers. If Paul had preached in Athens the immortality of the soul, no one in Athens would ever have counted him “a setter forth of strange gods.” Such preaching would never there have been called “new doctrine.”

Nothing of that sort would ever have been “strange things to their ears.”

But Christianity knows no such thing as the immortality of the soul.

Therefore Paul preached immortality as the gift of God through Jesus Christ and the resurrection from the dead: immortality to be sought for and obtained only through the faith of Christ, by believers in Jesus — immortality only through Christ and the resurrection of the dead. He preached that, without the gospel, all men are lost, and subject to death.

For, to the Greeks he wrote: “If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost,in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” F133 He preached the Word, — not that the soul is “immortal and imperishable,” but — “the soul that sinneth, it shall die;” F134 that “the wicked shall perish:” F135 that “they shall be as nothing:” that “yet a little while and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be:” F136 that “the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” F137 “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?” F138 35. Selfishness, then, selfishness in pride and self-exaltation,being the root of the philosophy of the immortality of the soul, in the nature of things selfishness could be the only root of this sanctification and glorification of the soul by all these starvings, punishments, or exercises of whatever sort that were employed to depress the body and exalt the soul so as to accomplish the separation of the soul from the body and enable her to reach the high destiny prescribed in the philosophy. Consequently, the analysis of the monastic life is clearly only self-righteousness: “exorbitant selfishness made the rule of life.” — Draper. F139 The goal of the soul was to be reached solely by their own efforts. The rules for their guidance to this goal were of their own making. They themselves prescribed for themselves rules by which they were to deliver themselves from themselves. And, a law without a penalty being of no force, it was perfectly logical that, for the violation of the rules which they themselves had prescribed to themselves, they should lay upon themselves penalties in penances and dreadful punishments to whatever degree would most likely prevent any further violation of the rules, or any recurrence of the proscribed action or thought. But, all their rules were prohibitions of what it was inherently in them to do; all their proscriptions were of things which were essentially of themselves; and, it is impossible for a man by any law, penalty, or proscription upon himself, to prevent himself from desiring to do that which is in him to do. In other words, it is impossible for any finite being to deliver himself from himself. And, when, in his own proud estimation, any such one concludes that he has delivered himself from himself, in the very pride and self-glorification of that which he decides that he has accomplished, self is magnified more than ever before. And this is exactly the round which was traveled in the self-involved system of the philosophy of the immortality of the soul and of its logical manifestation in monkery. 36. There is a way of deliverance from self. It is the way of Christ, and of the faith of Christ who is “the Way.” And so it is written: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery [a thing to be seized upon and held fast, as a robber his prey] to be equal with God: but emptied himself.” F140 He, being divine, and in all perfections complete, could empty Himself and still retain His divine humility. He could successfully empty Himself without any taint of self-exaltation. And, that having been accomplished in Himself, in order that the like might be accomplished in all mankind; having emptied Himself, in order that every man might be emptied of himself; — now to every man comes the word: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who... emptied Himself.” Do not think that you are equal with God: do not think that you are immortal: do not think that equality with God is a thing to be seized upon and held fast. But, “let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who... emptied Himself.” And that mind which was in Christ will accomplish in you precisely what it accomplished in Him: it will empty yourself. Do you also become “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,” by which the world shall be crucified unto you, and you unto the world; and so shall you be delivered “from this present evil world, according to the will of God and Jesus Christ our Lord.” F141 And all this without any rules, penances, or punishments; but by the divine power of the righteousness of God, which, from faith to faith, is revealed in the gospel of Christ. F142 37. The frenzy of the fanaticism to which the devotees of monkery attained, was only the measure of the popularity which the philosophy of monkery had acquired. And thus the profession of monkery became the standard of all virtue — with the clerical order, with kings and emperors, and with the multitude. Those who were not of the monastic order, in order to have any recognized standing anywhere, were obliged to imitate, or at least, to make a show of imitating, the course of the monks, so far as it was practicable without their actually becoming monks. And one thing in particular that was thus demanded, and with a force that would accept of no refusal, was the celibacy of the clergy. 38. “Marriage was allowed to all the clergy, from the highest rank to the lowest. Yet those were accounted more holy and excellent who lived in celibacy. For it was the general persuasion that those who lived in wedlock were much more exposed to the assaults of the evil spirits than others: and it was of immense importance that no impure or malignant spirit should assail the mind or the body of one who was to instruct and govern others.

Such persons, therefore, wished, if possible, to have nothing to do with conjugal life. And this, many of the clergy, especially in Africa, endeavored to accomplish with the least violence to their inclinations; for they received into their houses, and even to their beds, some of those females who had vowed perpetual chastity, affirming, however, most religiously, that they had no disgraceful intercourse with them. Such connections they considered as a marriage of soul, without the marriage of the body. These concubines were by the Greeks called “suneisaktoi” [plural of “suneisaktos” introduced together; a priest’s housekeeper — Liddell and Scott], and by the Latins mulieres subintroductae [women secretly brought in].” — Mosheim. F143 39. At first, all orders of monks were composed of the laity. But, when they attained to such heights of popularity, and therefore, of saintliness, many of them, by the voice of the populace, or even by the command of the emperors, were chosen to the clerical office, and even to bishoprics. At first, also, when they were of the laity, they, as others of the laity, were subject to the episcopal jurisdiction of the diocese in which they were. But, by reason of their great popularity and their immense numbers, they became so powerful, and by their self-exaltation they became so arrogant, that, on occasion, they would defy the authority of the bishops; and not only of the bishops, but even of the emperors; and, by the violent and virulent tide of their passions would carry everything before them. 40. This disregard of their authority the bishops resented; which resentment, in turn, the monks resented. Thus, gradually, there developed a condition of continual variance between the bishopric and the monastic orders. In their contentions with the bishops, the monks would invariably appeal to the bishop of Rome; and thus, by degrees, through one minor exemption after another, the point was at last reached at which, by the authority of the pope, the monks were wholly exempt from all episcopal jurisdiction, and were made directly responsible to the bishop of Rome himself. This greatly magnified the self-importance of the monks, and brought to the pope a vast army permeating all Christendom — an army of fanatics, who, by their very philosophy, were inured to the most savage hardships; and who thus were prepared to go through fire or flood, and to face death in any shape without flinching, in the service of their head, and for the propagation of the form of religion which they themselves were largely instrumental in creating. 41. This also gave to the bishop of Rome an army of devotees who were of a disposition to employ any means whatever, even to the most savage, to secure the recognition of his authority, and conformity to his religion. For their own “voluntary martyrdom must have gradually destroyed the sensibility both of the mind and body; nor can it be presumed that the fanatics, who torment themselves, are susceptible of any lively affection for the rest of mankind. A cruel, unfeeling temper has distinguished the monks of every age and country: their stern indifference, which is seldom mollified by personal friendship, is inflamed by religious hatred; and their merciless zeal has strenuously administered the holy office of the Inquisition.” — Gibbon. F144 CHAPTER 9.

THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY — COUNCIL OF EPHESUS.

ONE element in the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Empire that is impossible to be ignored is Theological Controversy; and another is Episcopal Rivalry and Ambition of Supremacy. These two elements were easily made to combine: each to promote the other, and both to contribute to the exaltation of the bishop of Rome. 2. This, because in every controversy in theology, each party strained every point to get the bishop of Rome to its side, and commit himself to the phase of doctrine held by that party; and when the controversy had been decided by a general council, there was, by the defeated party, invariably appeal to the bishop of Rome: and in every contest of rival bishops, and especially of rival patriarchs, it was the same way. In these rivalries, whether manifested through theological controversy or in episcopal ambition, the appellants, even though they were emperors, were ever ready to employ whatever flattering title, and to concede whatever honor, was most likely to win to their side the bishop of Rome. And such things were always highly pleasing to the bishop of Rome: they were always accepted by him; not one of them was ever forgotten by him. And whatever course the bishop of Rome might take with reference to the cause in behalf of which the flattering title or conceded dignity was bestowed, all these things were tenaciously held, were perpetually treasured, and were forever employed, as indisputable proofs of his supremacy, of his being the only true source of appeal, and of his absolute worthiness in all respects to wear them. 3. By the pious zeal of Theodosius, “the unity of the faith” had been supposedly secured, since by imperial decree and inquisitorial repression, the empire had been made Catholic. All possible efforts of the emperor had been exerted to secure and also to assure the peace of the Church. But peace was just as far from the Church now as it ever had been, and a good deal farther from the State than it had ever yet been. 4. By this time, among the chief bishoprics of the empire, the desire for supremacy had become so all-absorbing that each one was exerting every possible influence to bring the others into subjection to himself. The rivalry, however, was most bitter between the bishopric of Alexandria and that of Constantinople. Of the great sees of the empire, Alexandria had always held the second place. Now, however, Constantinople was the chief imperial city; and the Council of Constantinople had ordained that the bishop of Constantinople should hold the first rank after the bishop of Rome. The Alexandrian party argued that this dignity was merely honorary, and carried with it no jurisdiction. Rome, seeing to what the canon might lead, sided with Alexandria. Constantinople, however, steadily insisted that the canon bestowed jurisdiction to the full extent of the honor.

The bishop of Constantinople therefore aspired to the complete occupancy of the second place, and Alexandria was supremely jealous of that aspiration. 5. Theodosius died A.D. 395, and was succeeded by his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius, by whom the empire was permanently divided.

Arcadius became emperor of the East and Honorius of the West. Although Arcadius occupied the throne and bore the name of “emperor,” “the East was now governed by women and eunuchs.” — Milman. F145 Eutropius, a eunuch, was prime minister to Arcadius. At the death of Nectarius, Eutropius had brought from Antioch and made bishop of Constantinople, a presbyter, John surnamed Chrysostom — the golden-mouthed. By the exercise of discipline, Chrysostom undertook to purify the bishopric. He “exposed with unsparing indignation the vices and venality of the clergy, and involved them all in one indiscriminate charge of simony and licentiousness.” — Milman. F146 In an episcopal progress through Lydia and Phrygia, he deposed thirteen bishops. He declared his free opinion “that the number of bishops who might be saved, bore a very small proportion to those who would be damned.” — Gibbon. F147 In addition to this, and with much more danger to himself, he incurred the enmity of the monks, by declaring with evident truth that they were “the disgrace of their holy profession.” 6. These measures set the whole ecclesiastical order against him, and they began to intrigue for his overthrow. This opened the way for the bishop of Alexandria again to assert his authority. Theophilus, a violent and unscrupulous prelate, was now bishop of Alexandria, and he immediately espoused the cause of the malcontents, who proudly accepted him as their leader. 7. Another new element was now added: Chrysostom had not confined his denunciations to the clergy and the monks, but had uttered them against the women of the court, and especially the empress Eudoxia, a young and beautiful woman of violent disposition, “who indulged her passions, and despised her husband.” — Gibbon. F148 Her, Chrysostom reviled as another Jezebel. She was not the kind of woman who would take this without making reply. She called Theophilus to Constantinople to preside over a council to depose Chrysostom. He came with a “stout body of Egyptian mariners” to protect him, and a train of bishops to sit in the council. 8. Theophilus and his followers joined with the enemies of Chrysostom, numbering thirty-six bishops in all, and held their council at a place or estate Ad Quercem — at the Oak. Four times the council summoned Chrysostom to appear, and sent the following letter: — “The holy synod at the Oak to John: Letters complaining of countless offenses committed by you have been delivered to us.

Appear, therefore, and bring with you the priests Serapion and Tigrius, for they are wanted.” F149 9. Chrysostom on his part assembled a council of forty bishops, and sent three of the bishops and two priests with a letter to Theophilus, telling him that he should not disturb the Church, and that if in spite of the Nicene Canon, he wanted to settle a dispute beyond his diocese, he should come to Constantinople itself, and “not like Cain entice Abel into the field.” In the letter he also declared that as there was an indictment against Theophilus containing seventy charges, he was the one who ought really to be called to account rather than to be presiding in a council to try another; and besides this that there were more bishops in the council at Constantinople than there were with Theophilus at the Oak. At the same time he wrote privately to other bishops at the Oak telling them that if they would exclude from the council his avowed enemies, he would appear whenever they desired; but if not, he would not appear, even if they sent ten thousand times for him. In answer to this letter, a notary was sent to Chrysostom with an imperial decree that he “must appear at the synod,” and at the same time a priest and a monk brought a fresh summons from the synod at the Oak. Chrysostom then sent authorized representatives to the Oak. “They were roughly treated, and the process against him was put into full swing.” — Hefele. F150 10. The council sat for two weeks, during which time they framed twentynine different charges, amongst which those considered the very gravest were that he had “administered baptism after he had eaten,” and another, that he had “administered the sacrament to those who had in like manner broken their fast.” — Milman. F151 He was unanimously condemned, and as there had been accessions to their number, there were forty-five bishops who subscribed to the decree. 11. Having deposed him, it was necessary to execute the sentence, but on account of the watchfulness of the populace, this had to be done at night.

To prevent a riot, he secretly surrendered himself to the imperial officers, who conducted him across the Bosphorus, and landed him at a place near the entrance of the Black Sea. Theophilus and his followers had come into the city, and the next day when the populace learned that Chrysostom had been carried off, “they suddenly rose with unanimous and irresistible fury.

Theophilus escaped; but the promiscuous crowd of monks and Egyptian mariners were slaughtered without pity in the streets of Constantinople.” — Gibbon. F152 12. The next night there was a harmless earthquake, but it was readily seized upon and made to do service as evidence of the wrath of Heaven against the deposition of Chrysostom. Eudoxia herself, as superstitious as the rest, was frightened by it, and when the mob crowded about the palace asserting the vengeance of Heaven and demanding the return of Chrysostom, she went herself to Arcadius, asked for his recall, and, to appease the populace, published a letter “disclaiming all hostility to the banished prelate, and protesting that she was ‘innocent of his blood.’” — Milman. F153 13. Chrysostom returned in triumph. The whole city, men, women, and children, turned out to meet him. The shores were crowded; the Bosphorus was covered with vessels, and both shores were grandly illuminated. When he landed, with hymns of thanksgiving and chants of praise they escorted him to the cathedral. Chrysostom mounted the pulpit, and made the following speech: — “What shall I say? Blessed be God! These were last words on my departure, these the first on my return. Blessed be God! because He permitted the storm to rage. Blessed be God! because He has allayed it. Let my enemies behold how their conspiracy has advanced my peace, and redounded to my glory. Before, the church alone was crowded, now the whole forum is become a church. The games are celebrating in the circus, but the whole people pour like a torrent to the church. Your prayers in my behalf are mor