[Sidenote: Final defeat of the Hungarians.]

[Sidenote: Beginnings of Hungary and Austria.]

Moreover, he put an end forever to the invasions of the Hungarians. He defeated them in a great battle near Augsburg (955) and pursued them to the confines of Germany. The Hungarians, or Magyars as they are commonly called, then settled down in their own territory and began to lay the foundations of that national development which makes them one of the most important factors in the eastern portion of Europe to-day. A region which had belonged to the Bavarian duchy was organized as a separate district, the Austrian _Mark_ (i.e., March), and became the nucleus of the Austrian empire.

[Sidenote: Otto interferes in Italian affairs.]

57. The most noteworthy, however, of Otto's acts was his interference in Italian affairs, which led to his a.s.suming the imperial crown which Charlemagne had worn. There is no more gloomy chapter in European history than the experiences of Italy and the papacy after the deposition of Charles the Fat in 887. We know little of what went on, but we hear of the duke of Spoleto, the marquis of Friuli, and Burgundian princes from across the Alps, a.s.suming the Italian crown at different times. The Mohammedan invasions added to the confusion, so that Germany and France, in spite of their incessant wars, appear almost tranquil compared with the anarchy in Italy.[100] Three Italian kings were crowned emperor by the popes during the generation following the deposition of Charles the Fat. Then for a generation the t.i.tle of emperor disappeared altogether in the West, until it was again a.s.sumed by the German Otto.

[Sidenote: Otto is crowned emperor, 962.]

Italy was a tempting field of operations for an ambitious ruler. Otto first crossed the Alps in 951, married the widow of one of the ephemeral Italian kings, and, without being formally crowned, was generally acknowledged as king of Italy. The revolt of his son compelled him to return to Germany, but a decade later the pope called him to his a.s.sistance. Otto answered the summons promptly, freed the pope from his enemies, and was crowned emperor at Rome in 962.

[Sidenote: Important results for Germany of the coronation of Otto the Great.]

The coronation of Otto the Great, like that of Charlemagne, was a momentous event in mediaeval history. By a.s.suming the imperial crown he imposed so great a burden on his successors, the German kings, that they finally succ.u.mbed beneath it. For three centuries they strove to keep Germany together and at the same time control Italy and the papacy.

After interminable wars and incalculable sacrifices, they lost all.

Italy escaped them, the papacy established its complete independence, and Germany, their rightful patrimony, instead of growing into a strong monarchy, fell apart into weak little states.

[Sidenote: Example of emperor's trouble in controlling popes and Italian affairs.]

Otto's own experiences furnish an example of the melancholy results of his relations with the pope, to whom he owed his crown. Hardly had he turned his back before the pope began to violate his engagements. It became necessary for the new emperor to hasten back to Rome and summon a council for the deposition of the pontiff, whose conduct certainly furnished ample justification. But the Romans refused to accept a pope chosen under Otto's auspices, and he had to return again to Rome and besiege the city before his pope was acknowledged. A few years later, still a third expedition was necessary in order to restore another of the emperor's popes who had been driven out of Rome by the local factions.

[Ill.u.s.tration: EUROPE ABOUT A.D. 1000]

The succeeding emperors had usually to make a similar series of costly and troublesome journeys to Rome,--a first one to be crowned, and then others either to depose a hostile pope or to protect a loyal one from the oppression of neighboring lords. These excursions were very distracting, especially to a ruler who left behind him in Germany a rebellious n.o.bility that always took advantage of his absence to revolt.

[Sidenote: The Holy Roman Empire.]

Otto's successors dropped their old t.i.tle of King of the East Franks as soon as they had been duly crowned by the pope at Rome, and a.s.sumed the magnificent and all-embracing designation, "Emperor Ever August of the Romans."[101] Their "Holy Roman Empire," as it came to be called later, which was to endure, in name at least, for more than eight centuries, was obviously even less like that of the ancient Romans than was Charlemagne's. As _kings_ of Germany and Italy they had practically all the powers that they enjoyed as _emperors_, except the fatal right that they claimed of taking part in the election of the pope. We shall find that, instead of making themselves feared at home and building up a great state, the German emperors wasted their strength in a long struggle with the popes, who proved themselves in the end incomparably the stronger, and eventually reduced the Empire to a mere shadow.

58. We have no s.p.a.ce to speak of the immediate successors of Otto the Great.[102] Like him they had to meet opposition at home as well as the attacks of their restless neighbors, especially the Slavs. The Empire is usually considered to have reached its height under Conrad II (1024-1039) and Henry III (1039-1056), the first two representatives of the new Franconian line which succeeded the Saxon house upon its extinction in 1024.

[Sidenote: Conrad II, 1024-1039.]

[Sidenote: Poland.]

By an amicable arrangement the kingdom of Burgundy came into the hands of Conrad II in 1032. This large and important territory long remained a part of the Empire, serving to render intercourse between Germany and Italy easier, and forming a barrier between Germany and France. On the eastern borders of the Empire the Slavs had organized the kingdom of Poland in the latter half of the tenth century, and its kings, although often at war with the emperor, generally acknowledged his suzerainty.

Conrad, following the policy of Otto the Great, endeavored to bring as many of the stem duchies as possible into the hands of his son and successor, Henry III, who was made duke of Franconia, Swabia, and Bavaria. This was the firmest of all foundations for the kingly power.

[Sidenote: Henry III, 1039-1056.]

Notwithstanding the energy and ability of Conrad II and Henry III, the fact that the Empire stands forth as the great power of western Europe during the first half of the eleventh century is largely due to the absence of any strong rivals. The French kings had not yet overcome the feudal disruption, and although Italy objected to the control of the emperor, it never could agree to combine against him.

[Sidenote: Henry III and the Church.]

59. The most important question that Henry III had to face was that of a great reform of the Church. This was already under way and it was bound, if carried out, to destroy the control of the emperors not only over the papacy but also over the German bishops and abbots, whom they had strengthened by grants of land and authority with the special purpose of making them the chief support of the monarchy. The reform was not directed particularly against the emperor, but he was, as will become apparent, more seriously affected by the changes proposed by the reforming party than any other of the European rulers.

[Sidenote: Wealth of the Church.]

In order to understand the reform and the long struggle between the emperors and the popes which grew out of it, we must stop a moment to consider the condition of the Church in the time of Henry III. It seemed to be losing all its strength and dignity and to be falling apart, just as Charlemagne's empire had dissolved into feudal bits. This was chiefly due to the vast landed possessions of the clergy. Kings, princes, and rich landowners had long considered it meritorious to make donations to bishoprics and monasteries, so that a very considerable portion of the land in western Europe had come into the hands of churchmen.

[Sidenote: The church lands drawn into the feudal system.]

When landowners began to give and receive land as fiefs the property of the Church was naturally drawn into the feudal relations. A king, or other proprietor, might grant fiefs to churchmen as well as to laymen.

The bishops became the va.s.sals of the king or of other feudal lords by doing homage for a fief and swearing fidelity, just as any other va.s.sal would do. An abbot sometimes placed his monastery under the protection of a neighboring lord by giving up his land and receiving it back again as a fief.

[Sidenote: Fiefs held by churchmen not hereditary.]

One great difference, however, existed between the church lands and the ordinary fiefs. According to the law of the Church, the bishops and abbots could not marry and so could have no children to whom they might transmit their property. Consequently, when a landholding churchman died, some one had to be chosen in his place who should enjoy his property and perform his duties. The rule of the Church had been, from time immemorial, that the clergy of the diocese should choose the bishop, their choice being ratified by the people. As the church law expresses it, "A bishop is therefore rightly appointed in the church of G.o.d when the people acclaim him who has been elected by the common vote of the clergy." As for the abbots, they were, according to the rule of St. Benedict, to be chosen by the members of the monastery.

[Sidenote: Bishops and abbots practically chosen by the feudal lords.]

In spite of these rules the bishops and abbots had come, in the tenth and eleventh centuries, to be selected, to all intents and purposes, by the various kings and feudal lords. It is true that the outward forms of a regular ("canonical") election were usually permitted; but the feudal lord made it clear whom he wished chosen, and if the wrong person was elected, he simply refused to hand over to him the lands attached to the bishopric or abbey. The lord could in this way control the choice of the prelates, for in order to become a real bishop or abbot one had not only to be elected, he had also to be solemnly "invested" with the appropriate powers of a bishop or abbot and with his lands.

[Sidenote: Invest.i.ture.]

Since, to the worldly minded, the spiritual powers attached to church offices possessed little attraction if no property went along with them, the feudal lord was really master of the situation. When his appointee was duly chosen he proceeded to the _invest.i.ture_. The new bishop or abbot first became the "man" of the feudal lord by doing him homage, and then the lord transferred to him the lands and rights attached to the office. No careful distinction appears to have been made between the property and the spiritual prerogatives. The lord often conferred both by bestowing upon a bishop the ring and the crosier, the emblems of religious authority. It seemed shocking enough that the lord, who was often a rough soldier, should dictate the selection of the bishops, but it was still more shocking that he should audaciously a.s.sume to confer spiritual powers with spiritual emblems. Yet even worse things might happen, since sometimes the lord, for his greater convenience, had himself made bishop.

[Sidenote: Att.i.tude of the Church towards its property.]

[Sidenote: Att.i.tude of the king.]

The Church itself naturally looked at the property attached to a benefice as a mere incident and considered the spiritual prerogatives the main thing. And since the clergy alone could rightly confer these, it was natural that they should claim the right to bestow ecclesiastical offices, including the lands ("temporalities") attached to them, upon whomsoever they pleased without consulting any layman whatever. Against this claim the king might urge that a simple minister of the Gospel, or a holy monk, was by no means necessarily fitted to manage the interests of a feudal state, such as the great archbishoprics and bishoprics, and even the abbeys, had become in Germany and elsewhere in the eleventh century.

[Sidenote: Complicated position of the bishops in Germany and elsewhere.]

In short, the situation in which the bishops found themselves was a very complicated one. (1) As an officer of the Church, the bishop had certain ecclesiastical and religious duties within the limits of his diocese. He saw that parish priests were properly selected and ordained, he tried certain cases in his court, and performed the church ceremonies. (2) He managed the lands which belonged to the bishopric, which might, or might not, be fiefs. (3) As a va.s.sal of those who had granted lands to the bishopric upon feudal terms, he owed the usual feudal dues, not excluding the duty of furnishing troops to his lord. (4) Lastly, in Germany, the king had found it convenient, from about the beginning of the eleventh century, to confer upon the bishops in many cases the authority of a count in the districts about them. In this way they might have the right to collect tolls, coin money, and perform other important governmental duties.[103] When a prelate was inducted into office he was invested with all these various functions at once, both spiritual and governmental.

To forbid the king to take part in the invest.i.ture was, consequently, to rob him not only of his feudal rights but also of his authority over many of his government officials, since bishops, and sometimes even abbots, were often counts in all but name. Moreover, the monarch relied upon the clergy, both in Germany and France, to counterbalance the influence of his lay va.s.sals, who were always trying to exalt their power at his expense. He therefore found it necessary to take care who got possession of the important church offices.

[Sidenote: The marriage of the clergy threatens the wealth of the Church.]

60. Still another danger threatened the wealth and resources of the Church. During the tenth and eleventh centuries the rule of the Church prohibiting the clergy from marrying[104] appears to have been widely and publicly neglected in Italy, Germany, France, and England. To the stricter critics of the time this appeared a terrible degradation of the clergy, who, they felt, should be unenc.u.mbered by family cares and wholly devoted to the service of G.o.d. The question, too, had another side. It was obvious that the property of the Church would soon be dispersed if the clergy were allowed to marry, since they would wish to provide for their children. Just as the feudal tenures had become hereditary, so the church lands would become hereditary unless the clergy were forced to remain unmarried.

[Sidenote: Buying and selling of church offices.]

Besides the feudalizing of its property and the marriage of the clergy, there was a third great and constant source of weakness and corruption in the Church, namely, the temptation to buy and sell church offices.

Had the duties and responsibilities of the bishops, abbots, and priests always been arduous and exacting, and their recompense barely enough to maintain them, there would have been little tendency to bribe those who could bestow the appointments. But the incomes of bishoprics and abbeys were usually considerable, sometimes very great, while the duties attached to the office of bishop or abbot, however serious in the eyes of the right-minded, might easily be neglected by the unscrupulous. The revenue from a great landed estate, the distinction of high ecclesiastical rank, and the governmental prerogatives that went with the office, were enough to induce the members of the n.o.blest families to vie with each other in securing church positions. The king or prince who possessed the right of invest.i.ture was sure of finding some one willing to pay something for important benefices.

[Sidenote: Origin of the term simony.]

The sin of buying or selling church offices was recognized as a most heinous one. It was called _simony_,[105] a name derived from Simon the Magician, who, according to the account in the Acts of the Apostles, offered Peter money if he would give him the power of conferring the Holy Spirit upon those upon whom he should lay his hands. As the apostle denounced this first simonist, so the Church has continued ever since to denounce those who propose to purchase its sacred powers,--"Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of G.o.d with money" (Acts viii. 20).

[Sidenote: Simony not really the sale of church offices.]

Doubtless very few bought positions in the Church with the view of obtaining the "gift of G.o.d," that is to say, the religious office. It was the revenue and the honor that were chiefly coveted. Moreover, when a king or lord accepted a gift from one for whom he procured a benefice, he did not regard himself as selling the office; he merely shared its advantages. No transaction took place in the Middle Ages without accompanying gifts and fees of various kinds. The church lands were well managed and remunerative. The clergyman who was appointed to a rich bishopric or abbey seemed to have far more revenue than he needed and so was expected to contribute to the king's treasury, which was generally empty.