177
Gerbert (afterwards Pope Sylvester II.
Gerbert (afterwards Pope Sylvester II.
Thomas Carlyle
" se, Deo donante, altiorem ceteris,
2 Id. id. , 1024: "Emensa itaque praminentem laetatur universis. "
imperator quam coeperat via, cunctis, 4 Vita S. Adalberti, 21: "Roma
ut ita dicam, Europse primis ibidem autem cum caput mundi et urbium
confluentibus, diversarumque gentium domina sit et vocetur, sola reges
missaticis ad imperiale eius obsequium imperare facit; cumque principis
undique properantibus, sacrosanctum sanctorum corpus suo siuu refoveat,
dominical resurrectionis gaudium, toto merito principem terrarum ipsa con-
iam corridente mundo, prout decuit stituere debet. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 172 POLITICAL THEORY : 11TH & 12TH CENTURIES, [part II.
the lord both of lands and sea, and gives thanks to God, who
has made his magnificence excel that of all kingdoms. 1 And
Wippo, in his panegyric on Henry III. , says: "Thou art the
head of the world, while thy head is the ruler of Olympus,
whose members thou dost rule with the just order of the law. "2
Such are some of the phrases used by the earlier writers as
expressive of the conception that in some sense the emperor
was lord not merely of the German and Italian kingdoms, but
of Europe and of the world. And the tradition was not lost,
but continued throughout the Middle Ages. Thus St Peter
Damian, in the second half of the eleventh century, in his
treatise on the disputed election of Alexander II. and
Cadalous of Parma, adjures the royal counsellors and the
ministers of the Apostolic See to labour together that the
"summum sacerdotium" and the Eoman empire may be united
in alliance with each other, and that the race of men which is
ruled by these two may not be divided. 3 And in a letter
addressed by him to Henry III. he speaks of all the kingdoms
1 Berno, Abbas Augise Divitis, Ep.
iii. : "Domino suo, Christianse reli-
gionis propagatori orthodoxo, Heinrico
imperatori Augusto, nec non terrarum
marisque domino. . . . lure immenso
cordis iubilo grates rerum omnium
persolvimus Domino, qui, in modum
excelsse pyramidis, vestrse dignitatis
magnificent iam universis superex-
cellere fecit regnis. "
2 Wippo, 'Panegyricus Heinrici
Regis' :--
"Tu caput es mundi, caput est tibi
rector Olympi,
Cuius membra regis iusto modera-
mine legis. "
* St Peter Damian, 'Disceptatio
Synodalis,' 'Clausula di<<tionis':
'' Amodo igitur, dilectissimi, illinc
regalis aulse consiliarii, hinc sedis apos-
tolicse comministri, utraque pars in hoc
uno studio conspiremus elaborantes,
ut summum sacerdotium et Roman-
um simul confoederatur imperium,
quatinus humanum genus, quod per
hos duos apices in utraque substantia
regitur, nullis--quod absit! --partibus,
quod pro Kadaloum nuper factum est,
rescindatur; sicque mundi vertices in
perpetuse karitatis unionem concur-
rant, ut inferiora membra per eorum
discordiam non resiliant; quatinus
sicut in uno mediatore Dei et hominum
hsec duo, regnum scilicet et sacer-
dotium, divino sunt conflata mysterio,
ita sublimes istse duse personam tanta
sibimet invicem uuanimitate iungantur,
ut quodam mutuse caritatis glutino et
rex in Romano pontifice et Romanus
pontifex inveniatur in rege, salvo
scilicet suo privilegio papse, quod nemo
prseter eum usurpare permittitur.
Ceterum et ipse delinquentes, cum
causa dictaverit, forensi lege coher-
ceat, et rex cum suis episcopis super
animarum statu, prolata sacrorum
canonum auctoritate, decernat. Ille
tanquam parens paterno semper iure
premineat, iste velut unicus ac sin-
gularis Alius in amoris illius amplexi-
? ? bus requiescat. "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VII. ] CONCEPTION OP A UNIVERSAL EMPIRE. 173
of the world as being subject to his empire. 1 Again, we may
notice how, in a treatise ascribed to Cardinal Beno, in the last
years of the eleventh century, Hildebrand is vehemently cen-
sured for applying certain words of St Gregory the Great to
the emperor, as though there were no difference between him
and any "provincial" king. 2
It is thus that when the empire reached its highest point
under Frederick I. (Barbarossa), we find a frequent recurrence
of phrases indicating the notion that the Empire was superior to
all other States, and even in some sense supreme over them.
Thus Frederick uses of himself a phrase which might seem to
be a claim to universal authority. In the introduction to a
document of 1157 he styles himself " Frederick, by the grace of
God emperor and always Augustus," and says that he holds by
the Divine providence "Urbis et Orbis gubernacula. " 3 Again,
in a document relating to the enfeoffment of the Count of
Provence, he speaks of the dignity of the Boman empire as
having a more excellent glory and greatness than all other
kingdoms, authorities, or dignities, as it is adorned by the
greater number and merit of its illustrious princes and wise
men. 4
It is, however, in one of the documents relating to the Council
of Pavia (1159-1160) that the imperial claims are most forcibly
expressed. On the death of Hadrian IV. there had been a double
election to the papacy, and both Alexander III. and Victor
1 St Peter Damian, Epist. , Bk. vii. 1: "Fridericus divina favente dementia
"Et cum omnia regna terrarum, quse Romanorum imperatoraugustus. Cum
vestro subiicitur imperio, teste mundo, Romani imperii dignitas, sicut nulli
largissima vestrse pietatis abundantia mortalium in dubium venit, per se
repleat. " principaliter ac singulariter nullo nisi
2 M. G. H. , 'Libelli de Lite,' vol. divino innixa podio, totius honestatis
ii. , 'Benonis aliorumque cardinalium omniumque virtutum sit adornata ful-
Scripta,' iii. 9: "Vel si iubentis sunt goribus, tanto comparacione solis, quam
non recte divisisti, dum preceptum habet ad alia sydera, excellentiori
adversus provinciarum regem com- gloria et magnitudine omnia regna
positum csesari oposuisti, quasi nulla et reliquas potestates vel dignitates
sit differentia csesaris et cuiuslibet videtur prsecellere, quanto illustrium
provincialis regis. " principum ac sapientum virorum,
3 M. G. H. , Legum, Sect. IV. , Con- qui portant orbem, ampliori numero
stitutiones, vol. i. 161. et merito decoratur. "
4 Id. id. id. , vol. i. 216 (1162):
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 174 POLITICAL THEORY : llTH & 12TH CENTURIES, [pakt II.
claimed to have been duly elected. Frederick maintained that
in such a circumstance the emperor had the responsibility of
taking the proper steps to prevent a schism, and he therefore
called together a council at Pavia to inquire into the matter and
to decide which of the two claimants had a just title. It is in
the letter of invitation to the German bishops that he uses the
strongest phrases about the position and dignity of the empire.
When Christ, he says, was content with the two swords, this
pointed to the Eoman Church and the Eoman Empire, for it is
by these two that the whole world is ordered in sacred and
human things. For as there is one God, one pope, one
emperor, there must be one Church. And thus it is the
Eoman emperor who must take measures to provide a remedy
for this great mischief. He has therefore called together an
assembly of the bishops of the empire, and of the other king-
doms, France, England, Spain, and Hungary, in order that they
should in his presence decide which of the claimants should
lawfully rule over the universal Church. 1
We are not here concerned with the question of the relation
between the secular and the ecclesiastical authorities which
was raised by this attempt to deal with the disputed succession
to the papacy, we deal with Frederick's letter here only as
illustrating his assertion of a special and unique position of the
1 M. G. H. , Legum, Sect. IV. , Con-
stitutiones, vol. i. 182, 'Encyclica In-
vitatoria ad Episcopos Teutonicos':
"Quod in passione sua Christus duobus
gladiis contentus fuit, hoc in Romana
secclesia et in imperio Romano credi-
mus mirabili providentia declarasse,
cum per hsec duo rerum capita et
principia totus mundus tam in divinis
quam in humanis ordinetur. Cumque
unus Deus, unus papa, unus imperator
sufficiat, et una secelesia Dei esse
debeat, quod sine dolore cordis dicere
non possumus, duos apostolicos in Ro-
mana secclesia habere videmur.
Ne itaque in tantse discrimine dis-
cordise universalis secclesia periclitari
possit, Romanum imperium quod ad
remedium tam perniciosi mali divina
dementia providit, universorum saluti
debet sollicite providere et, ne tanta
mala in secclesia Dei premineant futuris
casibus sollerter obviare. . . .
curiam sollempnem et generalem con-
ventual omnium secclesiasticorum
virorum in octava epiphanise Papise
celebrandam indiximus, ad quam am-
bos qui se dicunt Romanos pontifices
vocavimus omnesque episcopos imperii
nostri et aliorum regnorum, Francise
videlicet, Anglise, Hispanise atque
Ungarise, ut eorum in presentia nostra
iusto declaretur examine, quis illorum
regimen universalis secclesise de iure
debeat obtinere. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. Vll. ] CONCEPTION OF A UNIVERSAL EMPIRE. 175
empire. If we were to take the encyclical letter to the German
bishops alone, we might well think that Frederick definitely
claimed that the empire stood above all other political
authorities. When, however, we take account of the other
documents relating to the Council of Pavia, we observe that his
tone is somewhat different. His letter to Henry II. of England
has been preserved, and it is noticeable that in this the more
pretentious phrases about the position of the empire are
omitted, and that he confines himself to the invitation to send
as many of his bishops and abbots as possible to the meeting at
Pavia, that they may assist in restoring the peace of the Church. 1
And in another of these documents, a letter addressed to the
Archbishop of Salzburg asking him to postpone his recognition
of either of the claimants to the papacy, he tells him that he
has entered into communication with the Kings of France and
England, and asked them also not to accept either of the
claimants unless he had been recognised by them all. 2
There is, however, a passage in a letter of Henry II. to
Frederick I. cited by Eahewin, which seems to recognise the
superior authority of the emperor in a very large sense; he
speaks of the emperor as having the right to command, and
assures him that he will not fail in obedience. 3 And Eoger
of Hoveden relates that Eichard I. of England being a prisoner
in Germany, and in order to procure his release from captivity,
handed over his kingdom of England to the Emperor Henry VI. ,
1 M. G. H. , Legum, Sect. IV. , Con-
stitutiones, vol. i. 183: "Set quia hoc
iam diu desiderabile votum nostrum
necessarie cure prepediunt, dilectionem
tuam modis quibus possumus exora-
tum esse cupimus, quatinus de vener-
abili collegio episcoporum regni tui et
abbatum aliorumque orthodoxorum,
quorum sapientia et religione Anglorum
pref ulget ecclesia, quotquot potes, nobis
transmittas et prsedicto sacro conventui
interesse facias, ut eorum ceterorumque
ecclesiasticorum virorum salubri dic-
tante consilio unitas Romanse secclesise,
eo mediante qui facit utraque uuum,
reformetur et status ecclesiarum nulla
deinceps dissensionum turbine collisus,
nostris temporibus incolumis in summa
tranquillitate possit permanere. "
2 Id. id. id. , vol. i. 181: "De oetero
noster predictus legatus hoc verbum
electionis de Romano pontifice in cordi-
bus eorum ita firmabit, ut ipsi una
nobiscum unum inde velint et sapiant,
nec in aliquam personam favorem suum
tam subito ponant, nisi quam nostrum
trium unicus laudaverit assensus. "
3 Rahewin, 'Gesta Friderici, Im-
peratoris,' III. 7: "Regnum nostrum
vobis exponimus. . . . Vobis imperandi
cedat auctoritas, nobis non deerit vol-
untas obsequendi. " Cf. Bryce, 'Holy
Roman Empire,' p. 186, note k.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 176 POLITICAL THEORY: 11TH & 12TH CENTURIES, [part H.
"as to the Lord of all," and that the emperor then invested him
with it on the terms of the payment of an annual tribute. 1 He
adds that the emperor released him from this on his deathbed,
but he also mentions that Eichard was summoned in virtue of
his oath and faith to be present at Cologne in 1197, as being a
chief member of the empire, to take part in the election of
Henry VI. 's successor, and that he sent envoys to represent
him. 2
It is difficult to say what credit is to be attached to this
story; if it is true, it has to be observed that Eichard was
acting under compulsion. But it is possible that there may be
some confusion about it, as Eichard was at the same time
invested, according to Hoveden, with the nominal kingdom of
Arles by Henry VI. There may be some confusion, and it is
possible that it was in this connection that he was summoned
to the election.
Such are some of the most important illustrations of the
survival in the eleventh and twelfth centuries of the conception
of the emperor not only as holding a position and authority
different from that of all other rulers, but as in some sense the
supreme lord of a united world, as representing the conception
of a political unity of the civilised world. It must be observed
that with the exception of the last passages, all of these phrases
represent the opinion or feelings of those who were emperors,
or members of the empire. When we turn to the consideration
of the question how far the sentiments of men in other western
countries corresponded with them, we find ourselves in a some-
what different atmosphere.
There has survived a very significant letter written in 988 by
1 Roger of Hoveden, 'Chronicle,' ed.
Bp. Stubbs, Rolls Series, vol. iii. p. 202,
A. D. 1093: "Ricardus rex Anglise incap-
tione Henrici Romanorum imperatoris
detentus, ut captionem illam evaderet,
consilio Alienor matris suse, deposuit
se de regno Anglise et tradidit illud
imperatori sicut universorum domino,
et investivit eum inde per pilleum
suum : sed imperater sicut prselocutum
fuit, statim reddidit ei, in conspectu
magnatum Alemannise et Anglise,
regnum Anglise prsedictum, tenendum
de ipso pro quinque millibus librarum
sterlingorum singulis annis de tributo
solvendis, et investivit eum inde im-
perator per duplicem crucem de auro.
Sed idem imperator in morte sua de
omnibus his et aliis conventionibus
quietum clamavit ipsum Ricardum
regem Anglioe et hseredes suos. "
2 Id. id. , vol. iv. p. 37.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VII. ] CONCEPTION OF A UNIVERSAL EMPIRE.
177
Gerbert (afterwards Pope Sylvester II. ), in the name of Hugh,
King of France, to the Emperor of Byzantium, which indicates
very clearly the attitude of the newly established kingdom of
the Western Franks. It is possible, indeed, as M. Havet has
suggested, that the letter was never actually sent, but it is
hardly the less significant. It expresses the desire for close
and friendly relations, and, in order that these may be secured,
proposes a marriage between Eobert, the son of the French
king, and the daughter of one of the emperors, and assures them
that the French king will resist any attempt on the part either
of the "Gauls" or the "Germans" to attack the Eoman Empire. 1
It is no doubt very probable that the project of a matrimonial
alliance with Byzantium was suggested by the marriage of
Otto II. with Theophano, and that the letter may represent
nothing more than a project of Gerbert's for the glory of the
French kingdom. But the recognition of the Easterns as
rulers of the Eoman Empire, and the undertaking to defend
it against a possible attack on the part of the " Germans," are
very significant of the attitude of the French kingdom.
In a curious poem by Adalbero, Bishop of Laon, there are
some lines which seem to assert the dignity of the French
kingdom and its independence. 2 In a letter of William, the
Abbot of St Benignus, at Dijon, addressed as has been thought
to Pope John XIX. (1024-1033), he asserts that the Eoman
1 Gerbert, Epistolse, 111: "Basilio bona fiant perpetua, quoniam est nobis
et C. imperatoribus orthodoxis, Hugo unicus filius, et ipse rex, nec ei parem
gratia Dei rex Francorum. in matrimonio aptare possumus propter
Cum nobilitas vestri generis, tum affinitatem vicinorum regum, filiam
etiam gloria magnorum actuum ad sancti imperii prsaeipuo affectu
amorem vestrum nos hortatur et cogit. quserimus. "
Ii quippe esse videmimi, quorum ami- 2 Adalbero, Bishop of Laon,'Carmen,'
citia nihil dignius in humanis rebus 389 :--
possit existimari. Hanc sanctissimam "Regnum Francorum reges sub tem-
amicitiam iustissimamque soeietatem pore patrum
sic expetimus, ut nec regna, nec opes Subjugat, et semper sublimi pollet
vestras in ea requiramus: sed haec honore,
conditio, quse nostri iuris sunt, vestra Regum sceptra patrum nullius sceptra
efficit. Magnoque usui, si placet, haec coercent
nostra coniunctio erit, magnosque Quisque regit, gaudens virtutibus,
fructus afferet. Etenim nobis obstan- imperat seque
tibus nec Gallus, nec Germanus fines Novimus imperium iam regibus esse
lacesset Romani imperii. Ergo ut hsec fugatum. "
VOL. III. M
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 178 POLITICAL THEORY : llTH 4 12TH CENTURIES, [part II.
Empire, which once ruled over the whole world, is now broken
up, and is ruled by many kings, and that the power of binding
and loosing in heaven and earth belongs to the jurisdiction of
St Peter. 1 "We are not now concerned with the ecclesiastical
question, but the emphatic assertion of the contrast between
the unity of the ecclesiastical authority and the fragmentary
and divided nature of political authority is very noteworthy.
And again, while as we have seen St Peter Damian in some
places speaks as though the world was united under the rule
of the one emperor and the one Pope, in another work he
expresses himself very differently, and contrasts the one Pope
who rules over the world with the many kings whose authority
is limited to their particular territories, and explains that this
is the reason why the death of the Pope is notified throughout
the world, while there is no reason why the death of a king
should be thus announced. 2
There is then some evidence that the idea of the unity of the
world continued to influence men's thoughts and expressions, that
the tradition of the universal empire of Eome, and the great unity
of the Carolingian empire was never wholly lost, and that from
time to time it was asserted by emperors, or those who were
under the imperial rule. On the other hand, we find occasional
statements which seem to repudiate the conception of a unity
of political control, and we can find no examples of any attempt
seriously and practically to assert this. This does not mean
that there was no conception of a unity of the Christian and
civilised world. We shall have to consider this more carefully
1 William of Dijon, Epistle (in
Rodolphus Glaber, Hist. , iv. 1):
"Quoniam licet potestas Romani im-
perii, quse olim in orbe terrarum
monarches viguit, nunc per diversa
terrarum loca innumeris regatur scep-
tris, ligandi solvendique in coelo et
in terra potestas incumbit magisterio
Petri. "
a St Peter Damian, 'Opusculum,'xxiii.
1 : "Ad quod facile respondetur, quia
cum unus omni mundo papa prsesideat,
reges autem plurimos in orbe terrarum
sua cuiusque regni meta concludat, quia
quilibet imperator ad papse vestigia
corruit, tanquam rex regum, et prinoeps
imperatorum, cunctos in came viventes
honore ac dignitate prsecellit. . . .
Porro quia terreni principes regni sui
quisque ut dictum est, limitibus in-
cluduntur, causa non est cur per ali-
enas mundi provincias eorum obitus
diffundatur; papa vero, quia solus est
omnium ecclesiarum universalis episco-
pus, cum luce privatur, mors eius per
ampla terrarum regna diffunditur. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VII. ] CONCEPTION OF A UNIVERSAL EMPIRE. 179
when in our next volume we endeavour to deal with the
question of the relation of the spiritual and temporal powers.
It is important to observe that, although there has been
preserved a great mass of political writing of the eleventh and
twelfth centuries, it is only in a few incidental phrases that we
find any trace of the conception of a political unity of the
world. It is not till the latter part of the thirteenth century,
or rather till the fourteenth century, that the conception of a
universal empire takes an important and conspicuous place in
political theory--that is, not until it had ceased to have any
relation to the actual political circumstances of Europe. What
may have been the conditions under which the idea of political
unity became important, just when the actual development of
the modern nationalities was rendering it practically impossible,
we cannot at present consider, though we hope that we may be
able to deal with this later.
The truth is that, if we are to be in a position to consider
this whole question seriously, we must begin by taking account
of the actual trend and movement of European civilisation
during the Middle Ages. As soon as we make the attempt to
do this we shall recognise that the most important aspect of the
living growth of the centuries, from the tenth to the sixteenth,
was the development of the great nationalities of Europe out of
the chaotic welter of incoherent tribes. For a moment these
had been united by Charles the Great under the Frankish
lordship, but the unity was merely artificial and apparent.
Once his great mind and strong hand was removed Europe fell
back into confusion, and it was only slowly out of the complex
of oppositions and sympathies that there arose the various Euro-
pean nationalities. The movement was thus both towards
unity and towards division, unity within certain areas, and the
political separation of these great areas from each other.
No doubt the position of the emperors and their relation to
Eome gave them a place which was formally different from that
of other European rulers, and it is probably true to say that
few men would have doubted that this gave them a certain
priority or precedence. But the position of the new monarchies
was in the main that of independent states, recognising no
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 180 POLITICAL THEORY: 11TH & 12TH CENTURIES, [part II.
authority over them but that of God. We are therefore driven
to the conclusion that while the tradition of a universal empire
was not dead in these centuries, and while in those parts of
Europe which were closely connected with the Empire the
conception was always more or less present to men's minds, it
is yet impossible to recognise that during the eleventh and
twelfth centuries the conception had any living part in deter-
mining either men's ideals, or the principles and theory of the
structure of society.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 181
CHAPTER VIII.
SUMMARY.
There are three great conceptions expressed in the political
literature of the Middle Ages, so far as we have yet examined
it. The first is the principle that the purpose or function of
the political organisation of society is ethical or moral, that
is, the maintenance of justice and righteousness. We have
seen in an earlier volume that this was continually and em-
phatically maintained in the political literature of the ninth
century, and our examination of the general literature of the
eleventh and twelfth centuries, and of the feudal law books to
the thirteenth, has been sufficient to show that no one ever
seriously questioned it. If there has been any doubt among
modern scholars it has arisen from a misunderstanding as to
the influence of St Augustine on the mediseval theory of the
state, and from a hasty interpretation of some phrases of
Hildebrand.
No doubt there lay behind St Augustine's treatment of the
state a real difficulty which had its origin in the fact that, as we
can see in the later philosophical systems of the ancient world
and in the Christian theory of life, men had become more
clearly aware of the existence of characteristics of human
nature and personality which cannot be adequately expressed
in the terms of the political organisation of society. It is
this new apprehension of the nature of human life which is
struggling for expression in St Augustine's 'De Civitate Dei. '
His apprehension is often profound, but the expression of it
is sometimes crude and ill-considered. As we have seen in
the first volume, St Augustine at times seems to deny to the
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 182 POLITICAL THEORY : llTH & 12TH CENTURIES, [part II.
State as such the character of justice, though at other times he
speaks in different terms. 1 But the difficulty is not to be
measured by these hasty phrases of St Augustine. The diffi-
culty lay in the fact that men had begun to apprehend that
there are aspects of the moral and spiritual life which the
coercive machinery of the state cannot adequately represent.
This is no doubt the principle which lay behind the develop-
ment of the conception of the independence of the spiritual *
power. It was conceived of as the embodiment of moral and
spiritual ideals which could not be adequately represented by
the temporal power. When the distinction was crudely con-
ceived, the former was spoken of as being concerned with
"divine" things and the latter with "secular. " We cannot
here discuss these questions adequately, we shall have to
return to them when in our next volume we deal with the rela-
tions of the ecclesiastical and political powers in the Middle
Age. We can, however, recognise at once that behind the
formal aspects of this question there lay great and profound
difficulties, difficulties for which we have not yet found any
complete solution.
It is necessary to recognise the existence of real perplexities
for the mediseval political thinkers. But, having done this, we
must also recognise that the broad common-sense of these men
refused to allow itself to be entangled in these perplexities to
such an extent as to admit any doubt whether the State had
a moral character and purpose. It is clear' that no mediseval
thinker seriously doubted the moral function of the State, and
that this moral function was the securing and maintaining of
justice. Even when Hildebrand urged that the State had its
origin in sin, he did not mean that the State was sinful. It
may have been sin which made it necessary, but also it was
the remedy for sin, the divinely appointed remedy for the
confusion which sin produced, the means of curbing and
restraining the sinful passions and actions of men.
This is the real meaning of the doctrine of the New Testa-
ment, and the Fathers, and of the Middle Ages, that the authority
of the king is a divine authority. He is God's minister for the
1 Cf. vol. i. pp. 161-170.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VIII. ]
183
SUMMARY.
punishment of the wicked and the reward of the good. It is
true that here again a certain confusion had crept in, owing
mainly to some rash phrases of St Gregory the Great, and,
as we have seen, there were some even in the Middle Ages
who were carried away by this tradition into the impossible
theory that the authority of the king was in such a sense divine,
that he was responsible only to God, and that it was always
unlawful to resist him even when his conduct was unjust and
illegal. But again the robust good sense of the mediseval
political thinkers and the force of circumstances counteracted
this influence. They believed firmly in the divine nature of the
state, they looked upon the ruler as God's representative and
servant, but only so far as he really and in fact carried out the
divine purpose of righteousness and justice.
This, then, was the first principle of the political theory
which we have been considering. And the second is closely
related to the first, for it is the principle of the supremacy of
law as the concrete embodiment of justice. Mediseval thinkers
upon politics were not disturbed by some of our modern
perplexities, they were satisfied to regard the law of any
society as the expression of the principle of justice for that
society. " It is very difficult for us to put ourselves back into
the mood and temper of these times; we look upon all legal
regulations as being at the best reasonable applications of
general principles which make for the wellbeing of human life,
we look upon laws as the expression of the judgment of the
legislative authority, representing more or less adequately the
judgment of the community, and normally we recognise the
laws as reasonable, though not necessarily the best possible;
we take them to be rules laid down by men yesterday or
to-day, and perhaps to be changed to-morrow. Our difficulty
is to make it clear that there ought to be, and to feel certain
that there is, a real moral sanction behind them, and that
they justly interpret the actual needs of society. To the men
of the Middle Ages the law was a part of the local or national
life; it had not been made, but had grown with the life of the
community, and when men began to reflect or theorise on the
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 184 POLITICAL THEORY: llTH ft 12TH CENTURIES, [part n.
nature of law, they assumed that these customary regulations
represented the principles of justice.
To the mediseval political theorist then the supremacy of
justice meant the supremacy of law, and though the expression
of this conception by John of Salisbury is stronger and more
systematic than that of most writers of the period which
we have been considering, yet it does not really go beyond
these principles. To them the conception of an arbitrary
authority was simply unthinkable, the distinction between the
king who governs according to law and the tyrant who violates
it, was not a rhetorical phrase, but the natural and normal
expression of their whole mode of thought.
And if we now compare the conceptions which are embodied
in the general political literature with those of the feudal
lawyers, we find that they are substantially identical. Indeed
Bracton and the authors of the Assizes of the Court of
Burgesses of Jerusalem speak as sharply and definitely as John
of Salisbury. "There is no king where will rules and not law,"
"The king is under God and the law," "La dame ne le sire
n'en est seignor se non dou dreit," these phrases are as un-
equivocal as those of John of Salisbury, and their doctrine is
the doctrine of all feudal lawyers.
The third great principle of mediseval political theory is again
related to the others, and it is the principle that the relation
between the king and the people is founded and depends upon
the mutual obligation and agreement to maintain justice and
law. We have considered the clear and somewhat harsh terms
in which this is expressed by Manegold of Lautenbach. It may
be urged that he represents an extreme position which was not
generally approved,1 but we must not allow ourselves to be
misled into the judgment that the principles which he expressed
were strange or unfamiliar. On the contrary, it is clear that he
was only putting into definite if hard form a principle which
was generally assumed as that which determined the relations
between subject and ruler. This is, we think, the conclusion
1 Cf. Gerhoh of Reichersberg, 'Epis- 'Libelli de Lite,' vol. iii. pp. 232, 238.
tola ad Innocentium Papam. ' M. G. H. ,
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VIII. ]
185
SUMMARY.
which must be drawn from the literature which we have just
been examining, and our judgment is only confirmed when we
turn to the strictly feudal literature. The feudal obligation may
have once been conceived of as one of unconditional personal
loyalty, but, as we find it in the feudal law books of the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries, it is clear that this loyalty was limited
and conditioned by the principle of the necessary fidelity of lord
as well as of vassal to the mutual and legal obligations which
each had undertaken.
Manegold may express the principle in one way, John of
Salisbury in another, and the authors of the Assizes of Jeru-
salem in a third, but their meaning is the same. Manegold speaks
of deposing the ruler who has broken his contract, John of
Salisbury of the lawfulness of slaying the tyrant, the authors
of the Assizes of refusing to discharge any of their feudal
obligations to the lord who refuses to do justice to his vassal
according to the law and the judgment of the court; the forms
of expression are different but the principle is the same. The
mediaeval conception of contract is not a speculation of a
pseudo-historical kind, related to some original agreement upon
which political society was founded, but rather a natural and
legitimate conclusion from the principle of the election or
recognition of the ruler by the community, and the mutual
oaths of the ceremony of coronation; it is an agreement to
observe the law and to administer and maintain justice.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? ? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust.
2 Id. id. , 1024: "Emensa itaque praminentem laetatur universis. "
imperator quam coeperat via, cunctis, 4 Vita S. Adalberti, 21: "Roma
ut ita dicam, Europse primis ibidem autem cum caput mundi et urbium
confluentibus, diversarumque gentium domina sit et vocetur, sola reges
missaticis ad imperiale eius obsequium imperare facit; cumque principis
undique properantibus, sacrosanctum sanctorum corpus suo siuu refoveat,
dominical resurrectionis gaudium, toto merito principem terrarum ipsa con-
iam corridente mundo, prout decuit stituere debet. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 172 POLITICAL THEORY : 11TH & 12TH CENTURIES, [part II.
the lord both of lands and sea, and gives thanks to God, who
has made his magnificence excel that of all kingdoms. 1 And
Wippo, in his panegyric on Henry III. , says: "Thou art the
head of the world, while thy head is the ruler of Olympus,
whose members thou dost rule with the just order of the law. "2
Such are some of the phrases used by the earlier writers as
expressive of the conception that in some sense the emperor
was lord not merely of the German and Italian kingdoms, but
of Europe and of the world. And the tradition was not lost,
but continued throughout the Middle Ages. Thus St Peter
Damian, in the second half of the eleventh century, in his
treatise on the disputed election of Alexander II. and
Cadalous of Parma, adjures the royal counsellors and the
ministers of the Apostolic See to labour together that the
"summum sacerdotium" and the Eoman empire may be united
in alliance with each other, and that the race of men which is
ruled by these two may not be divided. 3 And in a letter
addressed by him to Henry III. he speaks of all the kingdoms
1 Berno, Abbas Augise Divitis, Ep.
iii. : "Domino suo, Christianse reli-
gionis propagatori orthodoxo, Heinrico
imperatori Augusto, nec non terrarum
marisque domino. . . . lure immenso
cordis iubilo grates rerum omnium
persolvimus Domino, qui, in modum
excelsse pyramidis, vestrse dignitatis
magnificent iam universis superex-
cellere fecit regnis. "
2 Wippo, 'Panegyricus Heinrici
Regis' :--
"Tu caput es mundi, caput est tibi
rector Olympi,
Cuius membra regis iusto modera-
mine legis. "
* St Peter Damian, 'Disceptatio
Synodalis,' 'Clausula di<<tionis':
'' Amodo igitur, dilectissimi, illinc
regalis aulse consiliarii, hinc sedis apos-
tolicse comministri, utraque pars in hoc
uno studio conspiremus elaborantes,
ut summum sacerdotium et Roman-
um simul confoederatur imperium,
quatinus humanum genus, quod per
hos duos apices in utraque substantia
regitur, nullis--quod absit! --partibus,
quod pro Kadaloum nuper factum est,
rescindatur; sicque mundi vertices in
perpetuse karitatis unionem concur-
rant, ut inferiora membra per eorum
discordiam non resiliant; quatinus
sicut in uno mediatore Dei et hominum
hsec duo, regnum scilicet et sacer-
dotium, divino sunt conflata mysterio,
ita sublimes istse duse personam tanta
sibimet invicem uuanimitate iungantur,
ut quodam mutuse caritatis glutino et
rex in Romano pontifice et Romanus
pontifex inveniatur in rege, salvo
scilicet suo privilegio papse, quod nemo
prseter eum usurpare permittitur.
Ceterum et ipse delinquentes, cum
causa dictaverit, forensi lege coher-
ceat, et rex cum suis episcopis super
animarum statu, prolata sacrorum
canonum auctoritate, decernat. Ille
tanquam parens paterno semper iure
premineat, iste velut unicus ac sin-
gularis Alius in amoris illius amplexi-
? ? bus requiescat. "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VII. ] CONCEPTION OP A UNIVERSAL EMPIRE. 173
of the world as being subject to his empire. 1 Again, we may
notice how, in a treatise ascribed to Cardinal Beno, in the last
years of the eleventh century, Hildebrand is vehemently cen-
sured for applying certain words of St Gregory the Great to
the emperor, as though there were no difference between him
and any "provincial" king. 2
It is thus that when the empire reached its highest point
under Frederick I. (Barbarossa), we find a frequent recurrence
of phrases indicating the notion that the Empire was superior to
all other States, and even in some sense supreme over them.
Thus Frederick uses of himself a phrase which might seem to
be a claim to universal authority. In the introduction to a
document of 1157 he styles himself " Frederick, by the grace of
God emperor and always Augustus," and says that he holds by
the Divine providence "Urbis et Orbis gubernacula. " 3 Again,
in a document relating to the enfeoffment of the Count of
Provence, he speaks of the dignity of the Boman empire as
having a more excellent glory and greatness than all other
kingdoms, authorities, or dignities, as it is adorned by the
greater number and merit of its illustrious princes and wise
men. 4
It is, however, in one of the documents relating to the Council
of Pavia (1159-1160) that the imperial claims are most forcibly
expressed. On the death of Hadrian IV. there had been a double
election to the papacy, and both Alexander III. and Victor
1 St Peter Damian, Epist. , Bk. vii. 1: "Fridericus divina favente dementia
"Et cum omnia regna terrarum, quse Romanorum imperatoraugustus. Cum
vestro subiicitur imperio, teste mundo, Romani imperii dignitas, sicut nulli
largissima vestrse pietatis abundantia mortalium in dubium venit, per se
repleat. " principaliter ac singulariter nullo nisi
2 M. G. H. , 'Libelli de Lite,' vol. divino innixa podio, totius honestatis
ii. , 'Benonis aliorumque cardinalium omniumque virtutum sit adornata ful-
Scripta,' iii. 9: "Vel si iubentis sunt goribus, tanto comparacione solis, quam
non recte divisisti, dum preceptum habet ad alia sydera, excellentiori
adversus provinciarum regem com- gloria et magnitudine omnia regna
positum csesari oposuisti, quasi nulla et reliquas potestates vel dignitates
sit differentia csesaris et cuiuslibet videtur prsecellere, quanto illustrium
provincialis regis. " principum ac sapientum virorum,
3 M. G. H. , Legum, Sect. IV. , Con- qui portant orbem, ampliori numero
stitutiones, vol. i. 161. et merito decoratur. "
4 Id. id. id. , vol. i. 216 (1162):
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 174 POLITICAL THEORY : llTH & 12TH CENTURIES, [pakt II.
claimed to have been duly elected. Frederick maintained that
in such a circumstance the emperor had the responsibility of
taking the proper steps to prevent a schism, and he therefore
called together a council at Pavia to inquire into the matter and
to decide which of the two claimants had a just title. It is in
the letter of invitation to the German bishops that he uses the
strongest phrases about the position and dignity of the empire.
When Christ, he says, was content with the two swords, this
pointed to the Eoman Church and the Eoman Empire, for it is
by these two that the whole world is ordered in sacred and
human things. For as there is one God, one pope, one
emperor, there must be one Church. And thus it is the
Eoman emperor who must take measures to provide a remedy
for this great mischief. He has therefore called together an
assembly of the bishops of the empire, and of the other king-
doms, France, England, Spain, and Hungary, in order that they
should in his presence decide which of the claimants should
lawfully rule over the universal Church. 1
We are not here concerned with the question of the relation
between the secular and the ecclesiastical authorities which
was raised by this attempt to deal with the disputed succession
to the papacy, we deal with Frederick's letter here only as
illustrating his assertion of a special and unique position of the
1 M. G. H. , Legum, Sect. IV. , Con-
stitutiones, vol. i. 182, 'Encyclica In-
vitatoria ad Episcopos Teutonicos':
"Quod in passione sua Christus duobus
gladiis contentus fuit, hoc in Romana
secclesia et in imperio Romano credi-
mus mirabili providentia declarasse,
cum per hsec duo rerum capita et
principia totus mundus tam in divinis
quam in humanis ordinetur. Cumque
unus Deus, unus papa, unus imperator
sufficiat, et una secelesia Dei esse
debeat, quod sine dolore cordis dicere
non possumus, duos apostolicos in Ro-
mana secclesia habere videmur.
Ne itaque in tantse discrimine dis-
cordise universalis secclesia periclitari
possit, Romanum imperium quod ad
remedium tam perniciosi mali divina
dementia providit, universorum saluti
debet sollicite providere et, ne tanta
mala in secclesia Dei premineant futuris
casibus sollerter obviare. . . .
curiam sollempnem et generalem con-
ventual omnium secclesiasticorum
virorum in octava epiphanise Papise
celebrandam indiximus, ad quam am-
bos qui se dicunt Romanos pontifices
vocavimus omnesque episcopos imperii
nostri et aliorum regnorum, Francise
videlicet, Anglise, Hispanise atque
Ungarise, ut eorum in presentia nostra
iusto declaretur examine, quis illorum
regimen universalis secclesise de iure
debeat obtinere. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. Vll. ] CONCEPTION OF A UNIVERSAL EMPIRE. 175
empire. If we were to take the encyclical letter to the German
bishops alone, we might well think that Frederick definitely
claimed that the empire stood above all other political
authorities. When, however, we take account of the other
documents relating to the Council of Pavia, we observe that his
tone is somewhat different. His letter to Henry II. of England
has been preserved, and it is noticeable that in this the more
pretentious phrases about the position of the empire are
omitted, and that he confines himself to the invitation to send
as many of his bishops and abbots as possible to the meeting at
Pavia, that they may assist in restoring the peace of the Church. 1
And in another of these documents, a letter addressed to the
Archbishop of Salzburg asking him to postpone his recognition
of either of the claimants to the papacy, he tells him that he
has entered into communication with the Kings of France and
England, and asked them also not to accept either of the
claimants unless he had been recognised by them all. 2
There is, however, a passage in a letter of Henry II. to
Frederick I. cited by Eahewin, which seems to recognise the
superior authority of the emperor in a very large sense; he
speaks of the emperor as having the right to command, and
assures him that he will not fail in obedience. 3 And Eoger
of Hoveden relates that Eichard I. of England being a prisoner
in Germany, and in order to procure his release from captivity,
handed over his kingdom of England to the Emperor Henry VI. ,
1 M. G. H. , Legum, Sect. IV. , Con-
stitutiones, vol. i. 183: "Set quia hoc
iam diu desiderabile votum nostrum
necessarie cure prepediunt, dilectionem
tuam modis quibus possumus exora-
tum esse cupimus, quatinus de vener-
abili collegio episcoporum regni tui et
abbatum aliorumque orthodoxorum,
quorum sapientia et religione Anglorum
pref ulget ecclesia, quotquot potes, nobis
transmittas et prsedicto sacro conventui
interesse facias, ut eorum ceterorumque
ecclesiasticorum virorum salubri dic-
tante consilio unitas Romanse secclesise,
eo mediante qui facit utraque uuum,
reformetur et status ecclesiarum nulla
deinceps dissensionum turbine collisus,
nostris temporibus incolumis in summa
tranquillitate possit permanere. "
2 Id. id. id. , vol. i. 181: "De oetero
noster predictus legatus hoc verbum
electionis de Romano pontifice in cordi-
bus eorum ita firmabit, ut ipsi una
nobiscum unum inde velint et sapiant,
nec in aliquam personam favorem suum
tam subito ponant, nisi quam nostrum
trium unicus laudaverit assensus. "
3 Rahewin, 'Gesta Friderici, Im-
peratoris,' III. 7: "Regnum nostrum
vobis exponimus. . . . Vobis imperandi
cedat auctoritas, nobis non deerit vol-
untas obsequendi. " Cf. Bryce, 'Holy
Roman Empire,' p. 186, note k.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 176 POLITICAL THEORY: 11TH & 12TH CENTURIES, [part H.
"as to the Lord of all," and that the emperor then invested him
with it on the terms of the payment of an annual tribute. 1 He
adds that the emperor released him from this on his deathbed,
but he also mentions that Eichard was summoned in virtue of
his oath and faith to be present at Cologne in 1197, as being a
chief member of the empire, to take part in the election of
Henry VI. 's successor, and that he sent envoys to represent
him. 2
It is difficult to say what credit is to be attached to this
story; if it is true, it has to be observed that Eichard was
acting under compulsion. But it is possible that there may be
some confusion about it, as Eichard was at the same time
invested, according to Hoveden, with the nominal kingdom of
Arles by Henry VI. There may be some confusion, and it is
possible that it was in this connection that he was summoned
to the election.
Such are some of the most important illustrations of the
survival in the eleventh and twelfth centuries of the conception
of the emperor not only as holding a position and authority
different from that of all other rulers, but as in some sense the
supreme lord of a united world, as representing the conception
of a political unity of the civilised world. It must be observed
that with the exception of the last passages, all of these phrases
represent the opinion or feelings of those who were emperors,
or members of the empire. When we turn to the consideration
of the question how far the sentiments of men in other western
countries corresponded with them, we find ourselves in a some-
what different atmosphere.
There has survived a very significant letter written in 988 by
1 Roger of Hoveden, 'Chronicle,' ed.
Bp. Stubbs, Rolls Series, vol. iii. p. 202,
A. D. 1093: "Ricardus rex Anglise incap-
tione Henrici Romanorum imperatoris
detentus, ut captionem illam evaderet,
consilio Alienor matris suse, deposuit
se de regno Anglise et tradidit illud
imperatori sicut universorum domino,
et investivit eum inde per pilleum
suum : sed imperater sicut prselocutum
fuit, statim reddidit ei, in conspectu
magnatum Alemannise et Anglise,
regnum Anglise prsedictum, tenendum
de ipso pro quinque millibus librarum
sterlingorum singulis annis de tributo
solvendis, et investivit eum inde im-
perator per duplicem crucem de auro.
Sed idem imperator in morte sua de
omnibus his et aliis conventionibus
quietum clamavit ipsum Ricardum
regem Anglioe et hseredes suos. "
2 Id. id. , vol. iv. p. 37.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VII. ] CONCEPTION OF A UNIVERSAL EMPIRE.
177
Gerbert (afterwards Pope Sylvester II. ), in the name of Hugh,
King of France, to the Emperor of Byzantium, which indicates
very clearly the attitude of the newly established kingdom of
the Western Franks. It is possible, indeed, as M. Havet has
suggested, that the letter was never actually sent, but it is
hardly the less significant. It expresses the desire for close
and friendly relations, and, in order that these may be secured,
proposes a marriage between Eobert, the son of the French
king, and the daughter of one of the emperors, and assures them
that the French king will resist any attempt on the part either
of the "Gauls" or the "Germans" to attack the Eoman Empire. 1
It is no doubt very probable that the project of a matrimonial
alliance with Byzantium was suggested by the marriage of
Otto II. with Theophano, and that the letter may represent
nothing more than a project of Gerbert's for the glory of the
French kingdom. But the recognition of the Easterns as
rulers of the Eoman Empire, and the undertaking to defend
it against a possible attack on the part of the " Germans," are
very significant of the attitude of the French kingdom.
In a curious poem by Adalbero, Bishop of Laon, there are
some lines which seem to assert the dignity of the French
kingdom and its independence. 2 In a letter of William, the
Abbot of St Benignus, at Dijon, addressed as has been thought
to Pope John XIX. (1024-1033), he asserts that the Eoman
1 Gerbert, Epistolse, 111: "Basilio bona fiant perpetua, quoniam est nobis
et C. imperatoribus orthodoxis, Hugo unicus filius, et ipse rex, nec ei parem
gratia Dei rex Francorum. in matrimonio aptare possumus propter
Cum nobilitas vestri generis, tum affinitatem vicinorum regum, filiam
etiam gloria magnorum actuum ad sancti imperii prsaeipuo affectu
amorem vestrum nos hortatur et cogit. quserimus. "
Ii quippe esse videmimi, quorum ami- 2 Adalbero, Bishop of Laon,'Carmen,'
citia nihil dignius in humanis rebus 389 :--
possit existimari. Hanc sanctissimam "Regnum Francorum reges sub tem-
amicitiam iustissimamque soeietatem pore patrum
sic expetimus, ut nec regna, nec opes Subjugat, et semper sublimi pollet
vestras in ea requiramus: sed haec honore,
conditio, quse nostri iuris sunt, vestra Regum sceptra patrum nullius sceptra
efficit. Magnoque usui, si placet, haec coercent
nostra coniunctio erit, magnosque Quisque regit, gaudens virtutibus,
fructus afferet. Etenim nobis obstan- imperat seque
tibus nec Gallus, nec Germanus fines Novimus imperium iam regibus esse
lacesset Romani imperii. Ergo ut hsec fugatum. "
VOL. III. M
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 178 POLITICAL THEORY : llTH 4 12TH CENTURIES, [part II.
Empire, which once ruled over the whole world, is now broken
up, and is ruled by many kings, and that the power of binding
and loosing in heaven and earth belongs to the jurisdiction of
St Peter. 1 "We are not now concerned with the ecclesiastical
question, but the emphatic assertion of the contrast between
the unity of the ecclesiastical authority and the fragmentary
and divided nature of political authority is very noteworthy.
And again, while as we have seen St Peter Damian in some
places speaks as though the world was united under the rule
of the one emperor and the one Pope, in another work he
expresses himself very differently, and contrasts the one Pope
who rules over the world with the many kings whose authority
is limited to their particular territories, and explains that this
is the reason why the death of the Pope is notified throughout
the world, while there is no reason why the death of a king
should be thus announced. 2
There is then some evidence that the idea of the unity of the
world continued to influence men's thoughts and expressions, that
the tradition of the universal empire of Eome, and the great unity
of the Carolingian empire was never wholly lost, and that from
time to time it was asserted by emperors, or those who were
under the imperial rule. On the other hand, we find occasional
statements which seem to repudiate the conception of a unity
of political control, and we can find no examples of any attempt
seriously and practically to assert this. This does not mean
that there was no conception of a unity of the Christian and
civilised world. We shall have to consider this more carefully
1 William of Dijon, Epistle (in
Rodolphus Glaber, Hist. , iv. 1):
"Quoniam licet potestas Romani im-
perii, quse olim in orbe terrarum
monarches viguit, nunc per diversa
terrarum loca innumeris regatur scep-
tris, ligandi solvendique in coelo et
in terra potestas incumbit magisterio
Petri. "
a St Peter Damian, 'Opusculum,'xxiii.
1 : "Ad quod facile respondetur, quia
cum unus omni mundo papa prsesideat,
reges autem plurimos in orbe terrarum
sua cuiusque regni meta concludat, quia
quilibet imperator ad papse vestigia
corruit, tanquam rex regum, et prinoeps
imperatorum, cunctos in came viventes
honore ac dignitate prsecellit. . . .
Porro quia terreni principes regni sui
quisque ut dictum est, limitibus in-
cluduntur, causa non est cur per ali-
enas mundi provincias eorum obitus
diffundatur; papa vero, quia solus est
omnium ecclesiarum universalis episco-
pus, cum luce privatur, mors eius per
ampla terrarum regna diffunditur. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VII. ] CONCEPTION OF A UNIVERSAL EMPIRE. 179
when in our next volume we endeavour to deal with the
question of the relation of the spiritual and temporal powers.
It is important to observe that, although there has been
preserved a great mass of political writing of the eleventh and
twelfth centuries, it is only in a few incidental phrases that we
find any trace of the conception of a political unity of the
world. It is not till the latter part of the thirteenth century,
or rather till the fourteenth century, that the conception of a
universal empire takes an important and conspicuous place in
political theory--that is, not until it had ceased to have any
relation to the actual political circumstances of Europe. What
may have been the conditions under which the idea of political
unity became important, just when the actual development of
the modern nationalities was rendering it practically impossible,
we cannot at present consider, though we hope that we may be
able to deal with this later.
The truth is that, if we are to be in a position to consider
this whole question seriously, we must begin by taking account
of the actual trend and movement of European civilisation
during the Middle Ages. As soon as we make the attempt to
do this we shall recognise that the most important aspect of the
living growth of the centuries, from the tenth to the sixteenth,
was the development of the great nationalities of Europe out of
the chaotic welter of incoherent tribes. For a moment these
had been united by Charles the Great under the Frankish
lordship, but the unity was merely artificial and apparent.
Once his great mind and strong hand was removed Europe fell
back into confusion, and it was only slowly out of the complex
of oppositions and sympathies that there arose the various Euro-
pean nationalities. The movement was thus both towards
unity and towards division, unity within certain areas, and the
political separation of these great areas from each other.
No doubt the position of the emperors and their relation to
Eome gave them a place which was formally different from that
of other European rulers, and it is probably true to say that
few men would have doubted that this gave them a certain
priority or precedence. But the position of the new monarchies
was in the main that of independent states, recognising no
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 180 POLITICAL THEORY: 11TH & 12TH CENTURIES, [part II.
authority over them but that of God. We are therefore driven
to the conclusion that while the tradition of a universal empire
was not dead in these centuries, and while in those parts of
Europe which were closely connected with the Empire the
conception was always more or less present to men's minds, it
is yet impossible to recognise that during the eleventh and
twelfth centuries the conception had any living part in deter-
mining either men's ideals, or the principles and theory of the
structure of society.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 181
CHAPTER VIII.
SUMMARY.
There are three great conceptions expressed in the political
literature of the Middle Ages, so far as we have yet examined
it. The first is the principle that the purpose or function of
the political organisation of society is ethical or moral, that
is, the maintenance of justice and righteousness. We have
seen in an earlier volume that this was continually and em-
phatically maintained in the political literature of the ninth
century, and our examination of the general literature of the
eleventh and twelfth centuries, and of the feudal law books to
the thirteenth, has been sufficient to show that no one ever
seriously questioned it. If there has been any doubt among
modern scholars it has arisen from a misunderstanding as to
the influence of St Augustine on the mediseval theory of the
state, and from a hasty interpretation of some phrases of
Hildebrand.
No doubt there lay behind St Augustine's treatment of the
state a real difficulty which had its origin in the fact that, as we
can see in the later philosophical systems of the ancient world
and in the Christian theory of life, men had become more
clearly aware of the existence of characteristics of human
nature and personality which cannot be adequately expressed
in the terms of the political organisation of society. It is
this new apprehension of the nature of human life which is
struggling for expression in St Augustine's 'De Civitate Dei. '
His apprehension is often profound, but the expression of it
is sometimes crude and ill-considered. As we have seen in
the first volume, St Augustine at times seems to deny to the
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 182 POLITICAL THEORY : llTH & 12TH CENTURIES, [part II.
State as such the character of justice, though at other times he
speaks in different terms. 1 But the difficulty is not to be
measured by these hasty phrases of St Augustine. The diffi-
culty lay in the fact that men had begun to apprehend that
there are aspects of the moral and spiritual life which the
coercive machinery of the state cannot adequately represent.
This is no doubt the principle which lay behind the develop-
ment of the conception of the independence of the spiritual *
power. It was conceived of as the embodiment of moral and
spiritual ideals which could not be adequately represented by
the temporal power. When the distinction was crudely con-
ceived, the former was spoken of as being concerned with
"divine" things and the latter with "secular. " We cannot
here discuss these questions adequately, we shall have to
return to them when in our next volume we deal with the rela-
tions of the ecclesiastical and political powers in the Middle
Age. We can, however, recognise at once that behind the
formal aspects of this question there lay great and profound
difficulties, difficulties for which we have not yet found any
complete solution.
It is necessary to recognise the existence of real perplexities
for the mediseval political thinkers. But, having done this, we
must also recognise that the broad common-sense of these men
refused to allow itself to be entangled in these perplexities to
such an extent as to admit any doubt whether the State had
a moral character and purpose. It is clear' that no mediseval
thinker seriously doubted the moral function of the State, and
that this moral function was the securing and maintaining of
justice. Even when Hildebrand urged that the State had its
origin in sin, he did not mean that the State was sinful. It
may have been sin which made it necessary, but also it was
the remedy for sin, the divinely appointed remedy for the
confusion which sin produced, the means of curbing and
restraining the sinful passions and actions of men.
This is the real meaning of the doctrine of the New Testa-
ment, and the Fathers, and of the Middle Ages, that the authority
of the king is a divine authority. He is God's minister for the
1 Cf. vol. i. pp. 161-170.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VIII. ]
183
SUMMARY.
punishment of the wicked and the reward of the good. It is
true that here again a certain confusion had crept in, owing
mainly to some rash phrases of St Gregory the Great, and,
as we have seen, there were some even in the Middle Ages
who were carried away by this tradition into the impossible
theory that the authority of the king was in such a sense divine,
that he was responsible only to God, and that it was always
unlawful to resist him even when his conduct was unjust and
illegal. But again the robust good sense of the mediseval
political thinkers and the force of circumstances counteracted
this influence. They believed firmly in the divine nature of the
state, they looked upon the ruler as God's representative and
servant, but only so far as he really and in fact carried out the
divine purpose of righteousness and justice.
This, then, was the first principle of the political theory
which we have been considering. And the second is closely
related to the first, for it is the principle of the supremacy of
law as the concrete embodiment of justice. Mediseval thinkers
upon politics were not disturbed by some of our modern
perplexities, they were satisfied to regard the law of any
society as the expression of the principle of justice for that
society. " It is very difficult for us to put ourselves back into
the mood and temper of these times; we look upon all legal
regulations as being at the best reasonable applications of
general principles which make for the wellbeing of human life,
we look upon laws as the expression of the judgment of the
legislative authority, representing more or less adequately the
judgment of the community, and normally we recognise the
laws as reasonable, though not necessarily the best possible;
we take them to be rules laid down by men yesterday or
to-day, and perhaps to be changed to-morrow. Our difficulty
is to make it clear that there ought to be, and to feel certain
that there is, a real moral sanction behind them, and that
they justly interpret the actual needs of society. To the men
of the Middle Ages the law was a part of the local or national
life; it had not been made, but had grown with the life of the
community, and when men began to reflect or theorise on the
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 184 POLITICAL THEORY: llTH ft 12TH CENTURIES, [part n.
nature of law, they assumed that these customary regulations
represented the principles of justice.
To the mediseval political theorist then the supremacy of
justice meant the supremacy of law, and though the expression
of this conception by John of Salisbury is stronger and more
systematic than that of most writers of the period which
we have been considering, yet it does not really go beyond
these principles. To them the conception of an arbitrary
authority was simply unthinkable, the distinction between the
king who governs according to law and the tyrant who violates
it, was not a rhetorical phrase, but the natural and normal
expression of their whole mode of thought.
And if we now compare the conceptions which are embodied
in the general political literature with those of the feudal
lawyers, we find that they are substantially identical. Indeed
Bracton and the authors of the Assizes of the Court of
Burgesses of Jerusalem speak as sharply and definitely as John
of Salisbury. "There is no king where will rules and not law,"
"The king is under God and the law," "La dame ne le sire
n'en est seignor se non dou dreit," these phrases are as un-
equivocal as those of John of Salisbury, and their doctrine is
the doctrine of all feudal lawyers.
The third great principle of mediseval political theory is again
related to the others, and it is the principle that the relation
between the king and the people is founded and depends upon
the mutual obligation and agreement to maintain justice and
law. We have considered the clear and somewhat harsh terms
in which this is expressed by Manegold of Lautenbach. It may
be urged that he represents an extreme position which was not
generally approved,1 but we must not allow ourselves to be
misled into the judgment that the principles which he expressed
were strange or unfamiliar. On the contrary, it is clear that he
was only putting into definite if hard form a principle which
was generally assumed as that which determined the relations
between subject and ruler. This is, we think, the conclusion
1 Cf. Gerhoh of Reichersberg, 'Epis- 'Libelli de Lite,' vol. iii. pp. 232, 238.
tola ad Innocentium Papam. ' M. G. H. ,
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VIII. ]
185
SUMMARY.
which must be drawn from the literature which we have just
been examining, and our judgment is only confirmed when we
turn to the strictly feudal literature. The feudal obligation may
have once been conceived of as one of unconditional personal
loyalty, but, as we find it in the feudal law books of the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries, it is clear that this loyalty was limited
and conditioned by the principle of the necessary fidelity of lord
as well as of vassal to the mutual and legal obligations which
each had undertaken.
Manegold may express the principle in one way, John of
Salisbury in another, and the authors of the Assizes of Jeru-
salem in a third, but their meaning is the same. Manegold speaks
of deposing the ruler who has broken his contract, John of
Salisbury of the lawfulness of slaying the tyrant, the authors
of the Assizes of refusing to discharge any of their feudal
obligations to the lord who refuses to do justice to his vassal
according to the law and the judgment of the court; the forms
of expression are different but the principle is the same. The
mediaeval conception of contract is not a speculation of a
pseudo-historical kind, related to some original agreement upon
which political society was founded, but rather a natural and
legitimate conclusion from the principle of the election or
recognition of the ruler by the community, and the mutual
oaths of the ceremony of coronation; it is an agreement to
observe the law and to administer and maintain justice.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? ? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust.
