No More Learning

" Feeling
ran high among the outraged German princes, and Otto of Wittelsbach
would have run the audacious prelate through the body had not Frederick
himself interposed to prevent the shedding of blood. The Emperor was,
however, deeply incensed; the legates were sent packing to Italy with all
haste. He realised that a rupture with the Papacy was imminent, and took
steps to secure the loyalty of the German Church by stating his case in a
letter. He relates the episode of the Besançon diet; he tells how he has
searched the baggage of the cardinals and has found many other letters
of a similar tenour and even blank mandates, sealed by the papal Chancery,
for the legates to fill in arbitrarily to supply a sanction for their nefarious
work of despoiling the churches of Germany? Frederick concludes by
refuting the papal claims of overlordship and by stating his own theory
of the Empire: it is the doctrine of the two swords, the Empire is an in-
dependent and divinely instituted lordship held direct “from God alone
by the election of the princes. ” Frederick's attitude was upheld by the
German bishops; their reply to Hadrian's letter soliciting their support,
though moderate in tone, was an emphatic assertion of their belief in the
Emperor's right. Hadrian did not feel sufficiently prepared for the contest
which he had brought upon himself, more especially as he could not count
on the support of the clergy beyond the Alps; more tactful legates were
dispatched, who, after suffering capture and robbery at the hands of Alpine
brigands, ultimately succeeded in reaching the Emperor's court at Augs-
burg. Frederick, like Hadrian, had no wish to precipitate a struggle. He
was willing enough to listen to the conciliatory letter read out by Bishop
Otto of Freising: beneficium, the letter stated, in Rome, as in the Scriptures,
had not the technical feudal sense; it implied simply a bonum factum, a
good deed; the crowning of the Emperor was admittedly “a good deed. ”
When we say “we have conferred” the crown, we merely mean “we have
imposed” the crown upon the royal head. By such quibbles the Emperor's
anger was appeased, and the legates returned to their master loaded with
gifts and messages of friendship.
Ever since the time of Gregory VII extreme papalists had been arguing
1 Cf. H. Schrörs, Untersuchungen zum Streite Kaiser Friedrichs 1 mit Papst
Hadrian IV (1157-1158), Bonn. Univ. Progr. 1915. The Curia, following on the success-
ful advance made in its position in the time of Conrad III, proposed to undertake a wide
visitation of the churches in the Empire by its legates. This fact helps to explain
the blank mandates with which the legates were armed. Frederick's measures were
directed against further encroachments of papal influeuce.
CH, XII.


## p. 392 (#438) ############################################

392
Ecclesiastical policy
the theory of the feudal subjection of the Empire to the Papacy. Pope
Innocent II had caused the coronation of Lothar III to be commemorated
in a picture hung in the palace of the Lateran. The Emperor was portrayed
kneeling and receiving the crown from the enthroned Pontiff; below was
inscribed this significant couplet:
Rex venit ante fores, iurans prius Urbis honores,
Post homo fit Papae, sumit quo dante coronam.
A picture and inscription so derogatory to the imperial dignity was, we
need scarcely remark, destroyed at Barbarossa’s instance; but it revealed
a tendency, and with this in our minds it is difficult to avoid the inference
that the Curia, in dispatching the famous letter, had intended to set a
subtle trap into which it was hoped the Emperor would fall and, by
accepting the letter, would tacitly acknowledge the papal overlordship
claimed in those both vague and technical phrases. Frederick’s legal mind
and his astute Chancellor Rainald were not to be so easily caught, and the
Curia had to recede along the path of verbal sophistry.
The royal influence in ecclesiastical matters had sensibly diminished
during the reigns of Lothar and Conrad III. St Bernard had jealously
guarded the Church's interests, and even the rights left to the king by the
Worms Concordat were by no means always enforced. Gerhoh of Reichers-
perg, the powerful champion of Church pretensions, was able to write in
Conrad's time: “Thanks to God, episcopal elections now take place without
the presence of the king. "1 But Bernard died in 1153, and a man was on
the throne of Germany who would brook no interference with his rights
or what he deemed to be his rights, would suffer no encroachments upon
the position the law allowed him. Frederick was determined that his in-
Auence should be felt in the elections of bishops and abbots. Within two
months of his accession he interfered, and interfered with success, in the
election to the vacant see of Magdeburg. The votes of the Chapter were
divided between the provost, Gerhard, and the dean, Azzo. Frederick him-
self appeared in the midst of the wrangling electors and recommended
Wichmann, Bishop of Zeitz, who was duly chosen and immediately invested
with the regalia of his see. It was a bold stroke, justified, it is true, so
far as interference in a disputed election went, by the Concordat; but
his action was open to attack on other grounds: it was contrary to Canon
Law to translate a bishop without a licence from the Pope. Wichmann's
election, though upheld by the German bishops at Ratisbon, was denied at
Rome. Eugenius III remained firm till his death in the summer of 1153;
but his more compliant successor Anastasius IV yielded, and granted the
pallium to the archbishop of Frederick's choice. But the king would
not often disturb the electoral gathering with his presence; he would
rather work through trustworthy representatives, or he would send letters
indicative of his will. So on the death of Rainald he wrote to the electors
1 Gerhoh, MGH, Libelli de Lite, ui, 280.


## p. 393 (#439) ############################################

Frederick's claims
393
of Cologne recommending his Chancellor Philip of Heinsberg as his
successor, “him only and no other we wish to be elected without delay";
Arnold was appointed to the archbishopric of Trèves in succession to
Hillin “at the suggestion or advice of the Emperor. ” The Concordat
had also conceded to the king the right of deciding disputed elections—a
right which Conrad had allowed to slip from his grasp. As we have seen,
Frederick had exercised his authority in this respect in the case of the
disputed election to the see of Magdeburg soon after his own accession,
and had established a practice known as Devolutionsrecht to meet such
cases, whereby the nomination devolved upon the Emperor; both can-
didates were set aside and a third, his own nominee, was chosen.
This policy, boldly and successfully carried out, completely changed the
character of the German episcopate. The bishops of Frederick's choice are
men of practical experience, of administrative ability, men trained in the
imperial Chancery; Philip, the Chancellor, is appointed to the metropolitan
see of Cologne for his skill in statecraft. Frederick's bishops are politicians
first, and only in the second place good churchmen. But they are never-
theless distinguished men-Rainald of Dassel and Christian of Mayence
are notable examples; they are men capable of governing the extensive
dioceses of Germany.
Moreover he made the weight of his influence felt in other spheres of
the Church's work; he claimed certain powers of jurisdiction over the
clergy. In the peace ordinance of 1152 it is laid down that a clerk com-
mitted for breach of the peace shall be punished in the local lay court, that
of the count of the district, and in case of disobedience he shall be deprived
of his office and benefice. At Ulm in the same year it was decreed that a man
accused of damaging the property of the Church shall only be punished if
he is found guilty in the lay court. He clung tenaciously to the rights of
regalia and spolia. A doctrine had been growing up that property once
bestowed upon the Church belonged to the Church for ever without the
re-grant to a new bishop'; this theory made the investiture of the regalia
by the Emperor a matter of mere formality. Frederick determined that
it should be a real thing, and heavily fined a bishop, Hartwig of Ratisbon,
for disposing of the fiefs of his church before he had been duly invested
with them. Further, he claimed that what he had granted he could like-
wise take away from those who did not fulfil their duties of vassalship.
So in 1154 he deprived Hartwig of Bremen and Ulrich of Halberstadt
of the regalia for refusing to perform their military service on the Italian
campaign. He appropriated the revenues of vacant churches and the move-
able property of deceased bishops, and in the exercise of this last right,
the ius spolii, caused much bitterness among the bishops; nevertheless,
though strongly attacked by Urban III, the vexatious practice continued.
These measures and these claims are characteristic of Frederick's whole
attitude towards the relations of Church and State; the exercise of a certain
1 Gerhoh, loc. cit.
CH. XII.


## p. 394 (#440) ############################################

394
The German clergy and the Schism
control over the affairs of the Church was part of his duty as Emperor.
His ecclesiastical policy was essentially conservative: he wished only to
recover and to retain that authority over the Church which had been
wielded by his predecessors; he looked back to the tradition of the great
Emperors of the past, of Henry III, of Otto I, perhaps even of Charles the
Great whom he caused to be canonised in 1166. We are struck by the
boldness of such a policy, but more surprising still is the ready compliance
with which it was received by the German episcopate, and the compara-
tively mild treatment meted out by the Curia. The legates at Constance
in March 1153 had no doubt their own axe to grind, but it is indeed ex-
traordinary to find them a month or two later sanctioning the deposition
of Henry of Mayence on the sole ground that he had opposed the election
of Frederick Barbarossa; moreover the royal nominee, the king's own
Chancellor Arnold, was raised to the thus vacated archbishopric without
the slightest demur. Several others on purely political grounds were re-
moved from their sees, Henry of Minden, Burchard of Eichstätt, Bernard
of Hildesheim. Frederick began his reign with a definite and reactionary
Church policy, and he carried it through with remarkably little opposition.
The Gregorian party could count but few sympathisers among the German
bishops; those who, like Eberhard of Salzburg or Eberhard of Bamberg,
approved of the hierarchical views of the Curia, were unfitted to organise
and lead a great political party; they were not militant, they were not
politicians, perhaps they were too loyal. At any rate Frederick in these
early years was able to establish his control firmly over the German Church,
firmly enough to be able to count on its support when at a later time he
was to create a schism in Europe. The schism, it is true, roused Eberhard
of Salzburg to declare himself openly on the side of Alexander III, and
his example was followed by the Bishops of Brixen and Gurk; but his
influence did not penetrate beyond the boundaries of his province. The
rest of Germany stood firmly by Frederick and his Pope Victor IV till the
latter's death in April 1164. Then it was that the German clergy adopted
a different attitude; the bishops, who had readily accepted Victor, found
a difficulty in accepting Paschal III. Not only was his election outrageously
uncanonical, but an obvious opportunity of ending the schism had been
allowed to slip by owing to the headstrong action of Rainald of Dassel.
Opposition to Frederick's policy was no longer confined to the province of
Salzburg. The Archbishops of Mayence, of Trèves, and of Magdeburg
changed sides; the Archbishop of Cologne, the promoter of Paschal, stood
alone among the metropolitans of Germany to champion the imperial
cause. It required much compulsion and not a few depositions to bring
the German clergy to heel. The oath of Würzburg, May 1165, never to
recognise Alexander or one of his party as Pope, was extorted from an
unwilling clergy and a not over-zealous laity under threat of the severest
punishments. But it was Frederick’s strong personality and his immense
energy which carried the day in Germany. Resistance continued only in


## p. 395 (#441) ############################################

Success of Frederick's ecclesiastical policy
395
the province of Salzburg, and with this Frederick dealt with a high hand.
The fiefs of the Church were confiscated and given to laymen; the Arch-
bishop himself, Conrad, Eberhard's successor, was declared an enemy to the
Empire and was obliged to flee his diocese to the shelter of the monastery
of Admont where he died shortly after (1168). His place was taken by
Adalbert, a son of King Vladislav of Bohemia and a nephew of the Emperor;
when he too declared for Alexander, in spite of his personal relationship
to Frederick, he lost his see; but he was a young man and lived to be
reappointed to his archbishopric ten years later, when the struggle had
long passed by, and to hold it till the end of the century.
Thus Frederick’s position in Germany was gradually retrieved; vacant
sees were filled with staunch imperialists, and Frederick could once more
enter Italy with the solid support of the German episcopate at his back.
But if the German bishops stood loyally by Frederick, he stood loyally
by them. He might have made a satisfactory, if not a glorious, peace
1169 by the sacrifice of his bishops. Alexander refused to admit the
validity of their ordination, while Frederick made it an essential prelimi-
nary to peace. The negotiations of 1175 broke down on the same point.
After Legnano, Wichmann of Magdeburg, Conrad of Worms, and, a little
later, Christian of Mayence, proceeded to Anagni to discuss terms. Both
Frederick and Alexander were anxious for peace; the Pope's authority
and prestige had suffered more from the schism than had the Emperor's;
peace was even more essential to the conqueror than to the conquered'.
The crucial question of the German bishops was again raised, and this
time not in vain; the bishops were confirmed in their sees. The authority
which Frederick had acquired over the German Church survived the peace
of Venice unchanged. Frederick continued to control elections, to insist
that no vacancy should be filled without his consent, to exact homage and
the oath of fealty from the bishop-elect before consecration; he continued
to claim and to exercise the right of nomination in cases of disputed
elections. In one instance of this kind Frederick was near being beaten;
in 1183 the electors to the archbishopric of Trèves were divided; the
Emperor supported one candidate, the other appealed to Rome, and after
a struggle won his case. But even on this occasion Frederick eventually
had his way, and the papal candidate had to give place to one who met
with the Emperor's approval. So Frederick’s ecclesiastical policy from
the beginning to the end of his reign was successful. Nevertheless, it is
open to much criticism: it was too conservative, too reactionary; it took
no account of changed conditions; it could be maintained by a strong per-
sonality such as Frederick possessed, but it could not last. The forces to
which Frederick’s predecessors had submitted, and against which Frederick
himself had striven, would revive ere long and ultimately triumph.
That Frederick weathered the many storms to which the papal schism
gave rise was due in large measure to his own personality and force of
302.
1 Hauck, iv,
CH. XII.


## p. 396 (#442) ############################################

396
Rainald of Dassel
character; but a share, and a large share in the success of the Emperor's
policy must be set to the credit of his Chancellor, Rainald of Dassel.
The well-built, thick-set figure of Rainald is ever at the Emperor's hand.
He was a man of learning and of great statesmanlike qualities; in character
headstrong, but generous, cheerful, and affable. Trained, like his great
opponent Alexander III, in the schools of Paris, and with practical ex-
perience gained as provost of the cathedral churches of Hildesheim and
Münster, he was raised in 1156 to the office of Imperial Chancellor.
Henceforth he devoted all his energy and all the ability with which he
was so plentifully endowed to the service of the Empire. He is diplomat,
administrator, organiser of the imperial policy; he is a good soldier too,
fearless and unhesitating in battle. His obstinacy of purpose carried his
master through the difficult crises which the schism engendered, carried
him farther perhaps than he would himself have liked to go. Had it not
been for the influence of Rainald the schism might well have died with
Victor IV in 1164; it is perhaps idle to speculate whether, had Rainald
not succumbed to the pestilence in 1167, Legnano might not have been
an imperial victory, the peace of Venice an imperial triumph'.
It is Rainald who is entrusted with the delicate negotiations which
brought about the numerous changes in the imperial foreign relations
during the schism. Frederick was guided in his policy by the attitude
adopted by the European powers towards the schism. Conrad III's last
efforts had been directed towards a close understanding with the Byzantine
Emperor, and on his death-bed he had urged his successor to continue
this policy. The interests of both Empires were alike threatened by the
Norman kingdom. Frederick, though less eager than Conrad, was not
averse to the alliance, and in 1153 he even sent ambassadors to Constan-
tinople with proposals for a marriage with a Byzantine princess. On the
other hand neither Pope nor Emperor wished to see a revival of Greek
influence in South Italy; and this was soon manifestly revealed as Manuel's
intention. By the compact of Constance (1153), therefore, both Pope and
Emperor bound themselves to concede to Manuel no Italian territory and
to expel him if he should attempt a landing. This was virtually the end
of the friendly relations between the Eastern and Western Empires. It
was followed by the renewal of the Papal-Norman alliance, the victory
of the Normans over the Greeks, and, as a result, a truce between these
two powers. The Pope and the Eastern Emperor, who at the outset of
the reign were allied with Frederick against the Normans, were now allied
with the Normans against Frederick. With the schism came the need for
allies. The Emperor therefore turned his attention to the West of Europe,
to the Kings of France and England. Louis VII and Henry II were keen
rivals; neither was anxious for a German alliance or to recognise an im-
perial Pope, but still less did either wish to see the other reap the advan-
i See the laudatory verses of the Archipoeta, ed. Manitius Münchner Texte, vi,
1913.


## p. 397 (#443) ############################################

Foreign relations
397
tage which such an alliance would yield. So their attitude remained
undecided; the attempt of Henry of Troyes, Count of Champagne, to
bring Frederick and Louis together on the Saône (1162) broke down.
The quarrel of Henry II and Thomas of Canterbury made the prospect
of an English alliance more hopeful; in 1165 Rainald of Dassel visited
England and succeeded in bringing about the desired result; the English
ambassadors at the Würzburg diet went so far as to promise recognition
to Paschal. But the alliance served little useful purpose and was soon at
an end. More important and more permanent results emanated from the
second attempt on the part of the Count of Champagne to bring about
an alliance between the Hohenstaufen and the Capetians; a meeting of
the two monarchs actually took place on 14 February 1171 between Toul
and Vaucouleurs. The friendly relations established on this occasion
matured later (1187) into a close alliance. Louis VII was now dead, but
his son and successor Philip Augustus met Frederick in a conference near
Mouzon on the Meuse and there the alliance was sealed. It was a natural
one; both kings had over-powerful vassals to cope with, and these vassals,
Henry II of England and Henry the Lion of Saxony, were united by a
marriage tie, the importance of which was disclosed after the fall of the
Saxon Duke. It was to endure, in spite of rash attempts of King Henry
to interfere in French affairs on behalf of Philip's enemies in 1185-6, till
the joint forces of Welf and Angevin were finally shattered on the field
of Bouvines in 1214.
While Frederick was engaged in fighting for his imperial rights in the
Lombard plains, Henry the Lion was building up a strong, well-ordered
state in the north-east of Germany. The conquest of the Wendish lands
beyond the Elbe, which had never hitherto been successfully achieved,
was now systematically undertaken. For the first time in history this
country became permanently subjected to German rule. Instead of the
haphazard plundering raids, useless burnings, and wholesale massacres
which characterised the border warfare of the past, Henry employed the
most up-to-date methods of military science; he had learnt at the sieges
of Milan and Crema how a siege should be conducted, and the strongholds
of the Slavs could not stand against the new forms of siege-engines and
battering-rams which he applied to their walls; organised campaigns
rapidly put an end to such resistance as they were able to make in the
open. They had no choice but to submit or to retire into the swamp and
forest land of the interior. There were of course outbreaks of rebellion.
In Henry's absence in the south the Slavs would strike a blow for their
lost independence, would take to their ships and ravage the coasts of Den-
mark; but the years 1160–1162 saw the last serious attempt to throw off
the German yoke. In the summer of 1160 Henry crossed the Elbe, while
his ally Waldemar advanced with Danish troops from the coast; the Slav
strongholds, Ilow, Mecklenburg, Schwerin, and Dobin were abandoned
and destroyed; the Slavs themselves retired inland as the German army
CH. XII.


## p. 398 (#444) ############################################

398
Subjection of the Wends
advanced. At Mecklenburg the sons of Niclot, the chief of the Obotrites,
attempted to resist, but they were easily defeated, and Niclot himself fell
in a skirmish with a foraging party. So ended the campaign of that year.
But the sons of the fallen chief, Pribislav and Vratislav, were yet to give
trouble. Of their father's possessions the fortress of Werla alone had been
restored to them; the rest Henry had bestowed upon his followers, the
most conspicuous of whom, Guncelin of Hagen, became Count of Schwerin,
and it was against him that the attack of 1161 was in the main directed.
Count Adolf with his Holsteiners penetrated into the swampy waste
whither Pribislav had withdrawn, while Henry and Guncelin attacked
Vratislav in his fortress of Werla. After an obstinate resistance the place
fell into Henry's hands, and with it Vratislav whom Henry retained a
captive at Brunswick. His brother held his own for another year. In
February 1162 he attacked Mecklenburg, captured and burnt the town,
massacred the garrison, enslaved the women and children. The prompt
action of Guncelin of Hagen alone prevented further calamities; marching
straight for Ilow, the place next threatened, he frustrated the attempts
of the Slav prince and compelled him to retreat. Vratislav was hanged
for complicity in the plans of his elder brother. Then Henry himself,
supported by many of the neighbouring princes, Waldemar, Albert the
Bear, and Adolf of Schauenburg, took the field. The previous tactics were
again adopted: the Danish king attacked by sailing up the river Peene,
Henry by marching across country against the fortress of Demmin. An
advance guard was sent forward under Adolf, Guncelin, and Christian
of Oldenburg. The necessary precautions were, however, neglected, and
a catastrophe followed. On the morning of 6 July, the camp was sur-
prised and, in spite of a brave defence, in which Count Adolf lost his life,
the Slavs were temporarily successful. But while the victors were scattered
through the camp in search of booty, the German troops rallied under
their leaders, made a counter-attack, and little by little regaining the
lost ground, finally turned the disorganised ranks of the enemy to flight.
Henry arrived in the evening to find the day which had begun so disas-
trously ended in a brilliant success. Having joined forces with Waldemar,
the duke followed up the victory and drove the Slavs, who had fired the
fortress of Demmin and retired inland, to surrender. Thus ended the last
serious campaign which Henry had to make on his eastern frontier. But
its success was overcast by a great blow, the death of Count Adolf of
Schauenburg. He it was who had been responsible for much of the
development in the Wendish country. Holstein under his organisation
had prospered as it had never done before; however, the young colonies
no longer needed his firm hand and his watchful care; they were now,
thanks to him, strong enough to continue their growth unaided.
Christianity too made rapid progress. The Church in Slavonia had
passed through many vicissitudes. The see of Oldenburg, founded by
Otto I in 968, was divided by Adalbert, Archbishop of Bremen, into


## p. 399 (#445) ############################################

Progress of Christianity among the Wends
399
רי
three parts, Oldenburg, Mecklenburg, and Ratzeburg (1052-1054); but,
shortly after, the three bishoprics became vacant and remained so for 84
years until they were re-established by Hartwig of Bremen in 1149. Their
existence nevertheless continued to be precarious, and it was only when
at the Diet of Goslar in 1154 Henry, in spite of the protests of Arch-
bishop Hartwig, was granted the right of investiture to the three bishoprics
and to any others which should be founded in the Wendish country
hereafter, that substantial headway could be made? . This imperial con-
cession moreover later received papal confirmation. That the administra-
tion of Church and State should be controlled by one hand was almost
essential to the success of a country in the earliest stages of its civilisation,
and henceforth the missionary work in Slavonia made steady progress.
Henry was content not merely with sanctioning appointments made by
the Chapter, but himself took the initiative; Gerold, for example, Vicelin's
successor at Oldenburg, was the duke's chaplain and formerly scholasticus
and a canon at Brunswick. The task of this new bishop was not an easy
one; he arrived at Oldenburg to find, instead of the flourishing town of
Vicelin's day, a deserted ruin; a half-destroyed chapel alone stood to mark
the once busy missionary centre. There can moreover have been little
real enthusiasm among the Slavs for the new religion. Life was difficult;
taxation was onerous; the new civilisation brought with it new burdens.
Henry was a hard task-master; obedience to him was all they understood.
“There may be a God in Heaven,” Niclot answered to Henry's exhorta-
tions, “he is your God. You be our God, and we are satisfied. You
worship Him, we will worship you. ” Nevertheless, in spite of all, progress
was made; the churches were rebuilt, and received generous endowment
from Henry's treasury.
Moreover there was peace in the land. Helmold, the simple parish
priest of Bosau, who chronicled the events that were passing in the country
around him, speaks with unbounded enthusiasm of the great duke and of
the beneficial results of his energy and enterprise. “He says peace, and
they obey; he commands war, and they say: 'we are ready. ” So he
writes at the conclusion of his Chronicle of the Slavs. And again, “All
the region of the Slavs from the Eider, which is the boundary of the
kingdom of the Danes, extending between the Baltic Sea and the Elbe
through long tracts of country to Schwerin, once bristling with snares and
almost a desert, is now, thanks to God, become one united Saxon colony,
and cities and towns are built there, churches and the number of Christ's
servants are multiplied. " These words contain no exaggeration. West-
phalian, Frisian, and Flemish colonists had now firmly established them-
1 This is not an isolated example of the grant of such a privilege: similar grants
were made to Count Thierry of Flanders in respect of the bishopric of Cambray and
to Duke Berthold of Zähringen in respect of the bishopric of Lausanne; the former
privilege was afterwards revoked in deference to the protest of the bishop concerned.
See Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, iv, 210.
CH. XII.


## p. 400 (#446) ############################################

400
Foundation and prosperity of Lübeck
selves in the newly-acquired territory; the country was administered and
kept at peace from strongholds such as Schwerin, Malchow, and Ilow,
fortressed and garrisoned by German troops. Even in distant Pomerania
a significant advance was made when in 1163 it became subject to Henry;
German influence began to penetrate deep, and the Cistercians and the
Premonstratensians successfully pushed forward the work of conversion.
Of the numerous activities of Henry the Lion perhaps his patronage
of commercial and municipal development had the most lasting results.
In this direction, it must be admitted, his policy was often carried out at
the expense of others. The new city of Lübeck, founded by Count Adolf
of Schauenburg in 1143, was already shewing signs of its future commercial
greatness and was rapidly absorbing the trade of the Baltic; the duke's
town of Bardowiek suffered in consequence.
Henry demanded a half-share
in the profits of the market of the city; the demand not unnaturally was
refused, and the market of Lübeck was closed by the duke's order (1152).
A fire destroying the greater part of the city completed its ruin. At the
request of the citizens a new town was built for them in the neighbourhood,
called after its founder Löwenstadt. But the narrowness of its harbour,
which could admit only the smallest ships, hampered its trade, and the
town failed. Nevertheless it served its purpose, for Count Adolf was forced
to yield to the duke's will. The abandoned city was rebuilt under the
auspices of Henry, the burghers returned, and trade once more flourished
in the port of Lübeck'. Under Henry's patronage the town developed
with extraordinary rapidity; in 1160, by the removal thither of the seat
of the Bishop of Oldenburg, Lübeck acquired an ecclesiastical, in addition
to its commercial, importance. In Bavaria also Henry stimulated trade,
and it was to a trade dispute between the duke and Bishop Otto of Freising
that Bavaria owes the early prosperity of its modern capital. The rich
supplies of salt from the Reichenhall mines were carried along the road
from Salzburg to Augsburg and crossed the Isar at Vehringen, a little town
belonging to Bishop Otto, who drew a handsome revenue from the tolls.
By the building of a bridge at Munich, then an insignificant village, and
by the destruction of the old one, Henry not only diverted the trade
1 Henry's charter to Lübeck contained the grant of mint, toll, and market.
Rietschel in a paper on the town policy of Henry the Lion read before the International
Historical Congress at Berlin, 1908, tried to prove that Henry was the first to develop
the constitution of the Rath. His evidence is the charter of 1188 to Lübeck in which
Frederick concedes omnia iura que primus loci fundator Heinricus quondam dux Saxonie
eis concessit et privilegio suo firmavit. The charter, however, though partly based on
a genuine original, is a forgery of the years 1222–5. The Rath does not emerge until
the last fifteen years of the twelfth century, and then it makes its first appearance in
the Rhine district-between 1185-1198 at Basle, Strasbourg, Worms, Spires, and
Utrecht. The first evidence for it at Lübeck is in 1201. Cf. Hermann Bloch, Der
Freibrief Friedrichs I für Lübeck und der Ursprung der Rathverfassung in Deutschland.
(Zeitschrift des Vereins für Lübeckische Geschichte und Altertumskunde, Vol. xvi,
Lübeck, 1914. )


## p. 401 (#447) ############################################

Oppressive rule of Henry the Lion
401
through his territory and the revenues to his treasury, but raised the
little place to a city of the first importance. The bishop's remonstrances
went unheeded by the Emperor, who sanctioned Henry's arrangements at
the court at Magdeburg in 1158.
But Henry's rule threatened the independence of the nobility; for he
did not confine his almost sovereign power to the frontier and to the newly-
won Wendish lands, but exercised it in Saxony itself. The traditional
policy of the Billung dukes had been to interfere very little in the affairs
of the duchy except on the border and in their own personal posses-
sions. Henry, regardless of tradition, interfered everywhere, strained
the use of his jurisdiction to the utmost limits, and attempted even to
transform the countships into administrative offices under his immediate
control. He sought further to increase his power and possessions by
claiming the inheritance of counts who left no direct male heir. As early
as 1144 he had thus laid claim to the inheritance of the murdered Count
Rudolf of Stade, territory of the first importance to him, for it commanded
both banks of the mouth of the Elbe, but by so doing he involved himself
in a life-long feud with the count's brother, Hartwig, afterwards Arch-
bishop of Bremen; he laid claim to the lands of Christian of Oldenburg
despite the claims of the count's son who was a minor (1167); to those
of the Count of Asseburg despite the claims of the count's daughter (1170).
Had it not been for the imperial support, Henry could not have stood
against the opposition he was creating; but for the first twenty-five years
of the reign Emperor and duke were the best of friends. The success of
their respective activities depended largely on this mutual understanding;
Frederick, relieved of the burden, which had borne heavily on his pre-
decessors, of protecting the eastern frontier of his kingdom, of maintaining
the peace of Germany, could devote himself whole-heartedly to his Italian
policy; Henry with the free hand allowed him by the Emperor could in-
crease and consolidate his unrivalled position north of the Alps.
Nevertheless the Saxon princes were not prepared to stand idle when
their independence was at stake. Conspiracies were common, and when the
Emperor left for Italy in the autumn of 1166 the struggle began in earnest.
Many princes and bishops were united against him: Wichmann of Magde-
burg and Herman of Hildesheim; Louis, the Landgrave of Thuringia, and
Henry's old associate in the Slav campaigns, Christian of Oldenburg; and
there was of course Henry's keenest rival in East Saxony, the Ascanian,
Albert the Bear, and his four sons, each of whom was to rise to a power-
ful position after the death of their father four years later. Fighting at
first centred round Haldensleben, Goslar, and Bremen; with these attacks
Henry was well able to cope, but the prospect looked more serious when
the Archbishops of Magdeburg and Cologne joined in an offensive and
defensive alliance directed at his overthrow. The sudden death of Rainald
in Italy in 1167 and of Hartwig in the following year relieved the situation,
and the return of Frederick settled the matter in Henry's favour. For the
C. MED, H. VOL. V. CH, XII.
26


## p. 402 (#448) ############################################

402
Breach between Frederick and Duke Henry
moment there was peace; Albert the Bear, the leader of the opposition
among the East Saxon princes, died in 1170, so that Henry could safely
leave the charge of his affairs to his English wife Matilda, daughter of
Henry II, whom he had married in 1168 at Brunswick, and could set off
on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (1172).
On Henry's return to Germany there are no obvious signs of a change
of attitude in his relations with the Emperor. They meet frequently, and
apparently on cordial terms of friendship. There were nevertheless grounds
for friction. Old Welf Vi, since the loss of his son by the pestilence in
Italy (1167), thinking that in his advanced age he could make better use
of money than of land, resolved to sell his inheritance. He offered it first
to Henry who, though accepting the proposal readily enough, was tardy
in the matter of payment; Welf therefore approached his other nephew,
Frederick, who concluded the bargain forth with. Henry was thus deprived
of a rich portion of the estates of his family, lands on both sides of the
Alps, on which he had surely counted. This was a grievance but not the
only one that rankled in the heart of Henry. Frederick had attempted,
it was said, to get into his hands the disposal of Henry's inheritance in the
event of the latter's death in the Holy Land. Nor was the bitterness all on
one side; the Emperor too had cause to complain of his cousin. Henry had
been drawn into relations with foreign powers who were not in sympathy
with Frederick’s Italian policy-with the Eastern Emperor Manuel who
was aiding the Lombards, with Henry II of England, his father-in-law,
who had recognised Alexander III.
So the breach widens. The collapse of the great Welf power was at
hand. A campaign to Italy was arranged for the autumn of the year 1174,
and in this campaign Henry took no part. Frederick, whose Lombard
adversaries had grown in strength, had become more united, more stub-
bornly resolved to resist to the last, could ill afford to dispense with the
troops which Henry could bring into the field. It is unlikely that
he willingly left the duke in Germany even for so important a task
as the maintenance of peace; nor in the circumstances was Henry,
surrounded as he was by personal enemies, very likely to succeed in this.
The two met for the last time on terms of friendship at Ratisbon in May
1174. Their next meeting, if indeed it is historical, is the famous inter-
view at Chiavenna. This is altogether a very mysterious episode. The
chroniclers who refer to it are so confused in their knowledge that many
scholars are led to the conclusion that the whole thing is a myth, a legend
spread by ballad singers after Henry's death in 1195; and their contention
is so far supported in that we possess no account of it written near the time
it was supposed to have taken place. With the exception of Gilbert of
Mons, who probably wrote in 1196, and the Marbach Annals, which are
attributed to the year 1184, all our authorities belong to the first quarter
of the thirteenth century. Yet it is difficult to understand how such a
widely, though inaccurately, known story could have arisen entirely with-


## p. 403 (#449) ############################################

The meeting at Chiavenna
403
out foundation. It was after his army had suffered severe losses at the
siege of Alessandria that Frederick in the spring of 1176 sought a personal
interview with his cousin. They met at Chiavenna, and the Emperor
begged for the other's assistance; he even humbled himself before his proud
subject, for, it seems, he realised that he must make amends for something,
presumably his conduct while Henry was in Palestine. Henry, on the other
hand, felt himself in a position to dictate terms, and he demanded the
restoration of Goslar, which he had ceded to the Emperor as the price of
peace in 1168, as a fief; the terms were too heavy, and the two parted in
enmity. So runs the story and, in spite of the difficulties, we may accept
the substance of it. Moreover it has an important bearing on what
followed. Though the refusal of help and the subsequent trial cannot be
regarded as cause and effect, it is impossible to deny the influence of the
one on the other. The breach between the former friends was now almost,
if not quite, irreparable; the Emperor would no longer arbitrate in the
duke's quarrels as a friend, not even as an impartial judge, but as a man
determined on the duke's ruin; and it was a quarrel between the duke and
the Saxon princes which gave rise to the famous trial.
The quarrel centred round the bishopric of Halberstadt. Its Bishop,
Ulrich, as long ago as 1160 had been deprived of his see for the attitude
he had adopted in the papal schism; for he had recognised Alexander III.
His place had been filled by one Gero, a close friend of the duke. By the
terms of the agreement reached at Anagni and confirmed at Venice, Ulrich
was restored to his old see, and he immediately set about undoing all the
acts of the usurper; he claimed back the fiefs of his church which had been
granted to Henry; he dismissed from their benefices the clergy appointed
by Gero under the duke's patronage. Henry was engaged in a campaign
in Pomerania, and was besieging the fortress of Demmin, when the news
of these events reached him. Having hurriedly concluded a truce with the
Slavs, he hastened back to Saxony. The last move of the bishop was still
more threatening; on a hill in the near neighbourhood of Halberstadt
he built a fortress, obviously as a basis of operations against the duke.
Twice was the stronghold destroyed and twice rebuilt. A command from
the Emperor in Italy, bidding the princes to refrain from repairing the
obnoxious fortress, for the moment restored peace. But Henry's position
was becoming daily more hazardous; a portion of his army had suffered
a severe defeat and the loss of more than four hundred prisoners at the
hands of Bernard of Anhalt; then early in the year 1178 an offensive and
defensive alliance was concluded against him at Cassel between Ulrich and
the formidable Philip of Cologne. The duke's castles and lands in West-
phalia were attacked and plundered, and it was only with difficulty that
Archbishop Wichmann of Magdeburg succeeded in preventing further
hostilities till the Emperor's return. He returned towards the end of
October, and both parties laid their complaints before him at a diet held
at Spires on 11 November 1178.
CH. XII.
26-2


## p. 404 (#450) ############################################

404
Proceedings against Henry the Lion
We are now launched into a sea of uncertainty and doubt. Innumer-
able questions arise: What was the Emperor's attitude? What were the
grounds of complaint against the duke? What course did the proceedings
follow? According to what law was he judged? Where and when was the
case heard? All and each of these questions are capable of more than one
answer. The only incontrovertible authority is the document drawn up
at the Diet of Gelnhausen on 13 April 1180, which, while having as its
main object the partition of the Saxon duchy, gives an official account of
the course of the trial. This too is not free from criticism. The original
manuscript is in parts wholly illegible; we have to rely on a transcript
made in 1306; it is open to a variety of interpretations according to the
way in which it is punctuated. But still it tells us much that we wish
to know; it makes it clear that there were two distinct legal processes,
one according to customary law, landrecht, one according to feudal law,
lehnrecht. In the former there is a single summons', the Swabian princes
-Henry's tribal peers—are the judges? , the sentence is the ban; in the
latter there are three citations, the princes without differentiation of
tribe are the judges, the punishment is the loss of fiefs. The document
tells us further that it was the complaints of the princes which initiated
the proceedings; for Henry “had sorely oppressed the liberty of the
Church and of the princes of the Empire by seizing their possessions and
by threatening their rights.
He was summoned to Worms on 13 January 1179 to answer to the
charges but failed to appear, and a new hearing was arranged for 24 June
at Magdeburg. Here, as Henry was again absent, the ban was pronounced
against him according to customary law. Now new charges are brought
into court: Henry in spite of warnings has continued his aggressions
against the princes; a Saxon noble, Dietrich of Landsberg, declared that
at Henry's instigation the Lusatians had made an incursion into his
territory, and was prepared to prove his assertion by battle—a challenge
which Henry refused; Henry had shewn contempt of the imperial com-
mands. It is now “evident high treason,” and the suit according to
1 The rule in customary law was that three summonses should be issued to the
defendant with terms of fourteen days intervening. But could these three intervals
be made consecutive in one long term of six weeks? Suits by customary law were
commonly of a local character and were heard in local courts. The short terms were
therefore quite practicable. When however the suit was cognisable in the imperial
court, which was always moving about, frequent short summonses were difficult. One
peremptory citation after a six weeks' interval would be an obvious and natural eva-
sion of this inconvenience. Güterbock, Der Prozess Heinrichs des Löwen (1909), pp.
131 sq. , cites eight instances of this practice: Otto of Nordheim, Lothar of Supplin-
burg, Frederick of Swabia, Conrad of Salzburg, Otto of Wittelsbach, Frederick of
Isenburg, Ottokar of Bohemia, and Guy of Flanders. Haller, Der Sturz Heinrichs
des Löwen (1911), contests this view and believes there were three citations in both
suits, pp. 367 sq.
2 The tribe was determined by the situation of the family castle (in the case of
the Welfs, Altdorf in Swabia), i. e. by descent.


## p. 405 (#451) ############################################

Dismemberment of the duchies of Saxony and Bavaria 405
feudal law goes forward. A second hearing was fixed for 17 August at
Kaina, and a third for 13 January 1180 at Würzburg, where on the
ground of contumacy, the repeated neglect of the imperial summons
the sentence, the loss of his fiefs, fell. We are told that Henry made an
attempt to secure a reconciliation, perhaps the removal of the ban, after
the Diet of Magdeburg. A meeting between Henry and the Emperor
apparently took place at Haldensleben, where the price of peace was set
at 5000 marks;
Henry refused to pay so large a sum, and the negotiations
broke down. The law therefore took its course. At the Diet of Geln-
hausen, 13 April 1180, the duchy of Saxony was partitioned. Westphalia,
severed from the duchy, was granted with ducal powers to the Archbishop
Philip of Cologne; the remainder, the portion east of the Weser, with
the title of Duke of Saxony, was conferred upon the Ascanian prince,
Bernard of Anhalt, the younger son of Albert the Bear. But Henry in
the course of his career had accumulated a number of Church fiefs in his
hands; these now reverted to the bishops, leaving to the new duke but a
comparatively small portion of Henry's extensive territorial possessions
in east and middle Saxony. In the Bavarian capital, Ratisbon, a diet
was held on 24 June 1180. Its object was twofold: first, as a year and a
day had elapsed since the publication of the ban at Magdeburg, Henry's
complete outlawry, the oberacht, was pronounced, and a campaign to give
effect to the sentence was arranged to open on 25 July. Secondly,
Henry's Bavarian duchy and fiefs were declared forfeit. Three months
later (16 September), at Altenburg, Bavaria was subjected to a treatment
similar to that of Saxony. The March of Styria was completely detached
and raised to the position of an independent duchy under Ottokar, its
former margrave; the dukedom thus diminished in extent was conferred
upon Otto of Wittelsbach.
No single event in the Middle Ages so profoundly altered the map of
Germany as the fall of Henry the Lion. In place of the four or five large
compact duchies, the conspicuous feature of the Germany of the Saxon
and Salian Emperors, we have now some few duchies, relatively small, and
innumerable independent principalities, little and great, scattered broad-
cast over the country. The duke moreover no longer stands in a place
apart, unrivalled in his wealth, power, and magnificence; there are others
as powerful as or more powerful than he: the Margrave of Brandenburg,
the Landgrave of Thuringia, the Count-Palatine of the Rhine. The day
of the tribal duchy has passed away.
Henry was condemned but not subdued; all this time, while the long
and dreary trial was going forward, warfare between the ducal and the
anti-ducal party had continued unceasingly, and fortune had on the
whole favoured Henry. Halberstadt had been captured and burnt by the
duke's men, and its Bishop Ulrich made prisoner; the Archbishops of
Magdeburg and Cologne had laid siege to the duke's town of Haldens-
1 Arnold of Lübeck, 11, 10.
CH. XII.


## p. 406 (#452) ############################################

406
Submission and banishment of Henry
leben, but in spite of every effort they were forced after some months to
abandon the attempt to take it. A truce gave both parties a much-
needed rest during the early months of the next year, 1180; but in April
fighting began again, and still Henry was successful. Though he failed
to capture Goslar, to which he laid siege, he gained an important victory
over an army led by Louis of Thuringia and Bernard of Anhalt at
Weissensee on the Unstrut, pursued the enemy as far as Mühlhausen, and
returned triumphantly, with more than four hundred prisoners, among
them the Landgrave Louis himself, to Brunswick. At the duke's bidding,
the obedient Wends swept ravaging through the Lausitz. On 30 July
Bishop Ulrich of Halberstadt, the source of much of Henry's trouble, died,
and two days later came the news of a considerable victory in Westphalia.
There a number of discontented vassals rose against their feudal lord; a
strong army under Henry's old associates in the Slav campaigns, the
younger Adolf of Schauenburg, Bernard of Ratzeburg, and Guncelin of
Schwerin, joined battle with them at Halrefeld, and after hard fighting
utterly routed them.
But this was the last of Henry's triumphs. The Emperor himself had
taken the field in July; after capturing Lichtenburg, an important
stronghold of the duke, he held a diet at Werla whence he issued a decree
commanding Henry's vassals to join his standard. A large number of
desertions was the result. Henry moreover had failed in his attempts to
secure foreign aid; he had approached Denmark and England. But his
old ally Waldemar was now strong enough to rest on his own resources;
his dependence on Henry was irksome, and he was only too glad to stand
by and watch the discomfiture of his former master. Henry II of England,
though full of good intentions towards his son-in-law, was not prepared
single-handed to entangle himself in so large an enterprise as war with
the Emperor would entail. One after another Henry's supporters fell
away and surrendered their castles; one after another his strongholds
opened their gates to the Emperor. The burghers of Lübeck put up a
gallant fight, for they owed much of their prosperity to the duke's
paternal care. But Waldemar of Denmark had now openly declared
himself on Frederick's side; between the Danish fleet and the German
troops the town was so closely invested that further resistance was useless;
the citizens, not however before they had obtained the express permission
of their patron, surrendered their city. The fall of Lübeck crippled
Henry's resources. He attempted to negotiate, he attempted to make a
last stand at Stade; but the time had passed for negotiations, and the
town of Stade fell into the hands of Philip of Cologne; it remained only
for him to submit. He appeared at a diet held at Erfurt, bowed himself
before the Emperor, who characteristically raised him from the ground
and kissed him amid tears. He was granted the two cities of his patri-
mony, Brunswick and Lüneburg, but it was considered, and, as events
proved, with justice, unsafe to allow him to remain in Germany. He was


## p. 407 (#453) ############################################

The Diet of Mayence
407
a
therefore banished under oath not to return without Frederick's leave.
The terms were hard, and foreign powers viewed with alarm the total
collapse of the great Welf power. Henry II of England, Pope Alexander III,
Philip Augustus, and Philip, Count of Flanders, used their endeavours to
persuade the Emperor to a more lenient course; and their efforts were not
without success: the term of banishment was limited to three years
and
portion of his revenues was allotted to the exiled duke. So in the summer
of 1182 Henry with his family left Brunswick to spend the years of
banishment at the court of his father-in-law in Normandy and England.
For the general peace of the country it was no doubt better that
Henry should be out of Germany, but it is none the less true that his
overthrow and banishment caused a serious set-back to his work on the
eastern frontier. Duke Bernard had neither the ability nor the resources
necessary to carry it on effectively; he had little influence among the East
Saxon nobility, who quarrelled among themselves and threw the country
into anarchy. “In those days there was no king in Israel,” laments Arnold
of Lübeck, “and each man ruled in the manner of a tyrant. " Denmark
took the opportunity to re-assert its independence; Canute VI, who had
succeeded his father Waldemar in May 1182, soon gained ascendency in
Holstein and Mecklenburg; he defeated Bogislav of Pomerania and made
him his vassal; finally he refused his homage to Frederick.
But these disasters were confined to the north-east corner of Germany;
elsewhere the Emperor's power and prestige were greater than they had
ever been. Here the chronicler tells a different tale; "all the tumult of
war has been stilled," and the brilliant festival of Mayence at Whitsuntide
1184 bears testimony to the success of the Emperor's rule. In the broad
meadows on the banks of the Rhine a vast city of wooden palaces and
bright-coloured tents was erected to house the multitude of princes and
foreign envoys that came thither to witness the knighting of the two
elder sons of Frederick, King Henry and Duke Frederick of Swabia. For
three days the large company were entertained as the Emperor's guests
with festivities and tournaments. To Henry, thus ceremoniously knighted,
was entrusted the regency during the Emperor's absence (1184-5). Born
in 1165, he was crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle when but four years old;
now at the age of nineteen he was called to a position of the highest
responsibility and difficulty; and if his youthful efforts at administration
were not entirely successful, it was because unaided he had to deal with
problems which might well have baffled more experienced rulers. There
was no Rainald of Cologne, no Christian of Mayence, no statesman-
bishop on whom he could rely for assistance. Philip of Cologne, the
most powerful man at the moment, was already adopting a hostile
attitude towards the crown, which was soon to be aggravated into open
hostility when the young king early in 1185 imposed a fine upon him for
breaking the peace in a feud with the burghers of Duisburg.
A dispute over the archbishopric at Trèves made matters worse.
CH. XII.


## p. 408 (#454) ############################################

408
Quarrel with Pope Urban III
Two candidates claimed to have been elected to the see in May 1183 —
Rudolf of Wied, provost of the Cathedral, and the Archdeacon Folmar.
Frederick summoned the electors to a diet at Constance, on the advice of
the princes ordered a fresh election, and subsequently invested the suc-
cessful candidate Rudolf with the regalia. Folmar, who had originally
received a majority of the votes, vigorously protested against the whole
proceeding, against Frederick’s interference, and most of all against the
election of his rival. He appealed to the Pope, and even used armed force
to keep Rudolf from entering upon his duties; in Germany his cause was
championed by Philip of Cologne, Rudolf's by King Henry who impetu-
ously took up arms against the supporters of Folmar. Pope Lucius III
hesitated to give a decision on the appeal; but his successor, Frederick's
old enemy Archbishop Humbert of Milan, as Pope Urban III, im-
mediately confirmed the appointment of the anti-imperialist candidate
and consecrated Folmar. Henry, by way of retaliation, was sent on a
plundering expedition into the papal patrimony. The Trèves election
dispute in this way brought the Emperor once more into hostility with
the Curia. Moreover other issues were involved: the still undecided
claim to the inheritance of the Countess Matilda, and the coronation of
his son.
To this last demand both Lucius and Urban were deaf. It
was not possible, they said, that two Emperors should rule the Empire
at one and the same time. Frederick therefore took the matter into his
own hands; at the feast which celebrated at Milan the nuptials of
Henry and Constance of Sicily he had his son crowned King of Italy at
the hands of Ulrich, the Patriarch of Aquileia, and associated him
with himself in the government of the Empire.
Philip, Archbishop of Cologne, formerly the zealous champion of the
imperial cause against Alexander III, had now, as we have seen, set him-
self at the head of the opposition to Frederick and his son in Germany.
Having, on the fall of Henry the Lion, acquired the duchy of Westphalia,
he had become a territorial prince with interests of his own to follow,
interests which clashed with those of the Empire. He had behind him,
moreover, a considerable party; many of the bishops, especially those of
his metropolitan diocese, sympathised with the attitude he had adopted
in the papal-imperial controversy, and more especially was this the case
when Urban III retaliated against the Emperor by an attack on the
latter's rights to the regalia and spolia, vexatious rights which they would
gladly see abolished. Many of the lay nobles, on the other hand, saw in
his policy the advancement of particularist as opposed to national or im-
perial interests; so we find enrolled among Philip's partisans Louis, the
Landgrave of Thuringia, and Adolf, Count of Holstein. For foreign
allies he could reckon of course on the Curia, perhaps on Denmark and
England. To the latter court he had paid a visit apparently with the
object of arranging a marriage between Prince Richard and a daughter
of the Emperor; it is not impossible that he used the occasion to come


## p. 409 (#455) ############################################

Rebellion of Archbishop Philip of Cologne
409
to an understanding with the banished Henry the Lion at the same time;
however, when the duke returned from exile about Michaelmas 1185, he
seems to have lived peaceably at Brunswick without taking any active
steps to support the great coalition which was gathering against the
Emperor.
The situation was serious; but Frederick was equal to the occasion.
He hurried back from Italy in the summer of 1186. Having tried with-
out success to settle matters at a personal interview with Philip, he
summoned a diet to Gelnhausen in December, himself addressed the
bishops in a long speech in which he expatiated on his grievances, especi-
ally regarding the Trèves election, and finally won them over to his way
of thinking. Conrad of Mayence, on behalf of the German clergy, made
known to the Pope the result of this assembly.