Germany

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Before 1556

From their first appearance in the history of the world theGermans represented the principle of uncheckedindividualism, as opposed to the Roman principle of an all-embracing authority. German history in theMiddle Ages was strongly influenced by two opposing principles: universalism andindividualism. After Arminius had fought for German freedom in the Teutoburg Forest theidea that the race was entitled to be independent gradually became a powerful factor in its historical development. This conception first took form when the Germanic states grew out of the Roman Empire. EvenTheodoric the Great thought of uniting the discordant barbarian countries with the aid of theleges gentium into a great confederation of the Mediterranean. Although in these Mediterranean countries the Roman principle finally prevailed, being that of a more advanced civilization, still the individualistic forces which contributed to found these states were not wasted. By them the world-embracing empire ofRome was overthrown and the way prepared for the national principle. It was not until after the fall of the Western Empire that a greatFrankish kingdom became possible and theFranks, no longer held in check by the Roman Empire, were able to draw together the tribes of the old Teutonic stock and to lay the foundation of a German empire. Before this the Germanic tribes had been continually at variance; no tie bound them together; even the common language failed to produce unity. On the other hand, the so-calledLautverschiebung, or shifting of the consonants, in German, separated the North and South Germans. Nor was German mythology a source of union, for the tribal centres of worship rather increased the already existing particularism. The Germans had not even a common name. Since the eighth century most probably the designationsFranks andFrankish extended beyond the boundaries of theFrankish tribe. It was not, however, until the ninth century that the expressiontheodisk (later GermanDeutsch), signifying "popular," or "belonging to people" made its appearance and a great stretch of time divided this beginning from the use of the word as a name of the nation.

The work of uniting Germany was not begun by a tribe living in the interior but by one on the outskirts of the country. The people calledFranks suddenly appear in history in the third century. They represented no single tribe, but consisted of a combination of Low and High German tribes. Under the leadership ofClovis (Chlodwig) theFranks overthrew the remains of the Roman power inGaul and built up theFrankish state on a Germano-Romanic foundation. The German tribes were conquered one after another and colonized in the Roman manner. Large extents of territory were marked out as belonging to the king, and on these military colonies were founded. The commanders of these military colonies gradually became administrative functionaries, and the colonies themselves grew into peaceful agricultural village communities. For a long time political expressions, such asHundreds, recalled the original military character of the people. From that time theFrankish ruler became the German overlord, but the centrifugal tendency of the Germanic tribes reacted against this sovereignty as soon as the Merovingian Dynasty began slowly to decline, owing to internal feuds. In each of the tribes after this the duke rose to supremacy over his fellow tribesmen. From the seventh century the tribal duke became an almost independent sovereign. These ducal states originated in the supreme command of large bodies of troops, and then in the administration of large territories by dukes. At the same time the disintegration was aided by the bad administration of the counts, the officials in charge of the territorial districts (Gau), who were no longer supervised by the central authority. But what was most disastrous was that an unruly aristocracy sought to control all the economical interests and to exercise arbitrary powers over politics. These sovereign nobles had become powerful through thefeudal system, a form of government which gave tomedieval Germany its peculiar character. Caesar in his day found that it was customary among the Gauls for a freeman, the "client,"voluntarily to enter into a relation of dependence on a "senior." This surrender (commendatio) took place in order to obtain the protection of the lord or to gain the usufruct of land. From this Gallic system of clientship there developed, inFrankish times, the conception of the "lord's man" (homagium orhominium), who by anoath swore fealty to his suzerain and became avassus, orgasindus, orhomo. The result of the growth of thisidea was that finally there appeared, throughout the kingdom, along with royalty, powerful territorial lords with theirvassi orvassalli, as their followers were called from the eighth century. The vassals received as fief (beneficium) a piece of land of which they enjoyed the use for life. The struggle of theFranks with theArabs quickened the development of thefeudal system, for the necessity of creating an army of horsemen then became evident. Moreover the poorer freemen, depressed in condition by the frequentwars, could not be required to do service as horsemen, aduty that could only be demanded from the vassals of the great landowners. In order to force these territorial lords to do military service fiefs were granted from the already existing public domain, and in their turn the great lords granted part of these fiefs to their retainers. Thus theFrankish king was gradually transformed from a lord of the land and people to afeudal lord over the beneficiaries directly and indirectly dependent upon him byfeudal tenure. By the end of the ninth century thefeudal system had bound together the greater part of the population.

While in this way the secular aristocracy grew into a power, at the same time theChurch was equally strengthened byfeudalism. TheChristian Church during this era — a fact of the greatest importance — was the guardian of the remains of classical culture. With this culture theChurch was to endow theGermans. Moreover it was to bring them a great fund of new moral conceptions and principles, much increase inknowledge, and skill in art and handicrafts. The well-knit organization of theChurch, the convincinglogic ofdogma, the grandeur of thedoctrine ofsalvation, the sweet poetry of the liturgy, all these captured the understanding of the simple-minded but fine-natured primitive German. It was theChurch, in fact, that first brought the exaggeratedindividualism of the race under control and developed in it gradually, by means of asceticism, those social virtues essential to the State. The country wasconverted toChristianity very slowly for theChurch had here a difficult problem to solve, namely, to replace the natural conception of life by an entirely different one that appeared strange to the people. The acceptance of theChristian name andideas was at first a purely mechanical one, but it became an inner conviction. No people has shown a morelogical or deeper comprehension of the organization and saving aims of theChristian Church. None has exhibited a like devotion to theidea of theChurch nor did any people contribute more in theMiddle Ages to the greatness of theChurch than the German. In the conversion of Germany much credit is due theIrish and Scotch, but the real founders ofChristianity in Germany are the Anglo-Saxons, above allSt. Boniface. Among the early missionaries were: St. Columbanus, the first to come to the Continent (about 583), who laboured in Swabia; Fridolin, the founder of Saeckingen; Pirminius, who established themonastery ofReichenau in 724; and Gallus (d. 645), the founder of St. Gall. The cause ofChristianity was furthered inBavaria by Rupert of Worms (beginning of the seventh century), Corbinian (d. 730), and Emmeram (d. 715). The great organizer of theChurch ofBavaria wasSt. Boniface. The chief herald of the Faith among theFranks was the Scotchman,St. Kilian (end of the seventh century); the Frisians receivedChristianity through Willibrord (d. 739). The real Apostle of Germany wasSt. Boniface, whose chief work was in Central Germany andBavaria. Acting in conjunction withRome he organized the German Church, and finally in 755 met the death of amartyr at the hands of the Frisians. After theChurch had thus obtained a good foothold it soon reached a position of much importance in the eyes of the youthful German peoples. By grants of land the princes gave it aneconomic power which was greatly increased when many freemenvoluntarily became dependents of these new spiritual lords; thus, besides the secular territorial aristocracy, there developed a second power, that of theecclesiastical princes. Antagonism between these two elements was perceptible at an earlydate. Pepin sought to remove the difficulty by strengthening theFrankish Church and placing between the secular and spiritual lords the newCarlovingian king, who, by the assumption of the titleDei gratia, obtained a somewhatreligiouscharacter.

The Augustinian conception of theKingdom of God early influenced the Frankish State; political and religious theories unconsciously blended. The union ofChurch and State seemed the ideal which was to be realized. Each needed the other; the State needed theChurch as the only source of real order andtrueeducation; theChurch needed for its activities the protection of thesecular authority. In return for the training inmorals and learning that theChurch gave, the State granted it largeprivileges, such as: theprivilegium fori or freedom from thejurisdiction of the State;immunity, that isexemption from taxes and services to the State, from which gradually grew theright to receive the taxes of the tenants residing on theexempt lands and theright to administerjustice to them; further, release from military service; and, finally, the granting of great fiefs that formed the basis of the later ecclesiastical sovereignties. The reverse of this picture soon became apparent; theecclesiastics to whom had been given lands and offices in fief became dependent on secular lords. Thus the State at an early date had a share in the making of ecclesiastical laws, exercised theright of patronage, appointed todioceses, and soon undertook, especially in thetime ofCharles Martel, the secularization of church lands. Consequently the question of the relation ofChurch and State soon claimed attention; it was the most important question in the history of the GermanMiddle Ages. Under thefirst German emperor this problem seemed to find its solution.

Real German history begins withCharlemagne (768-814). Thewar with the Saxons was the most important one he carried on, and the result of this struggle, of fundamental importance for German history, was that the Saxons were brought into connexion with the other Germanic tribes and did not fall under Scandinavian influence. The lasting union of theFranks, Saxons, Frisians,Thuringians,Hessians, Alamanni, and Bavarians, thatCharlemagne effected, formed the basis of a national combination which gradually lost sight of the fact that it was the product of compulsion. From the time ofCharlemagne the above-named German tribes lived underFrankish constitution retaining their own oldlaws theleges barbarorum, whichCharlemagne codified. Another point of importance for German development was thatCharlemagne fixed the boundary between his domain and theSlavs, including the Wends, on the farther side of the Elbe and Saale Rivers. It istrue thatCharlemagne did not do all this according to a deliberate plan, but mainly in the endeavour to win these related Germanic peoples over toChristianity.Charlemagne's German policy, therefore, was not a mere brute conquest, but a union which was to be strengthened by the ties of morality and culture to be created by theChristian religion. The amalgamation of theecclesiastical with the secular elements that had begun in the reign of Pepin reached its completion underCharlemagne. The fact that Pepin obtainedpapal approval of his kingdom strengthened the bond between theChurch and theFrankish kingdom. The consciousness of being the champion ofChristianity against theArabs, moreover, gave to the King of theFranks thereligiouscharacter of the predestined protectors of theChurch; thus he attained a position of great importance in theKingdom of God.Charlemagne was filled with theseideas; likeSt. Augustine hehated the supremacy of theheathen empire. The type ofGod's Kingdom toCharlemagne and his councillors was not the Roman Empire but the Jewish theocracy. This type was kept in view whenCharlemagne undertook to give reality to theKingdom of God. TheFrankish king desired like Solomon to be a greatecclesiastical and secular potentate, a royalpriest. He was conscious that his conception of his position as the head of theKingdom of God, according to the Germanideas, was opposed to the essence of Roman Caesarism, and for reason he objected to beingcrowned emperor by the Pope onChristmas Day, 800. On this day the Germanicidea of theKingdom of God, of whichCharlemagne was the representative, bowed to the Romanidea, which regardsRome as its centre,Rome the seat of the old empire and the most sacred place of theChristian world.Charlemagne when emperor still regarded himself as the real leader of theChurch. Although in 774 he confirmed the gift of hisfather to the Romanres publica, nevertheless he saw to it thatRome remained connected with theFrankish State; in return it had a claim toFrankish protection. He even interfered in dogmatic questions.

Charlemagne looked upon the revived Roman Empire from the ancient point of view inasmuch as he greatly desired recognition by the Eastern Empire. He regarded his possession of the empire as resulting solely from his own power, consequently he himselfcrowned his son Louis. Yet on the other hand he looked upon his empire only as aChristian one, whose most noble calling it was to train up the various races within its borders to the service ofGod and thus to unify them. The empire rapidly declined under his weak and nerveless son, Louis the Pious (814-40). The decay was hastened by the prevailingidea that this State was the personal property of the sovereign, a view that contained the germ of constant quarrels and necessitated the division of the empire when there were several sons. Louis sought to prevent the dangers of such division bylaw of hereditary succession published in 817, by which the sovereign power and the imperial crown were to be passed to the oldest son. This law was probably enacted through theinfluence of the Church, which maintained positively this unity of the supreme power and the Crown, as being in harmony with theidea of theKingdom of God, and as besides required by the hierarchical economy of thechurch organization. When Louis had a fourth son, by his second wife, Judith, he immediately set asidelaw of partition of 817 for the benefit of the new heir. An odious struggle broke out between father and sons, and among the sons themselves. In 833 the emperor was captured by his sons at the battle of Luegenfeld (field of lies) near Colmar.Pope Gregory IV was at the time in the camp of the sons. The demeanour of thepope and the humiliating ecclesiastical penance that Louis was compelled to undergo atSoissons made apparent the change that had come about sinceCharlemagne in the theory of the relations of Church and State.Gregory's view that theChurch was under the rule of therepresentative of Christ, and that it was a higher authority, not only spiritually but also substantially, and therefore politically, had before this found learned defenders inFrance. In opposition to the oldest son Lothair, Louis and Pepin, sons of Louis the Pious, restored the father to his throne (834), but new rebellions followed, when the sons once more grew dissatisfied.

In 840 the emperor died near Ingelheim. The quarrels of the sons went on after the death of the father, and in 841 Lothair was completely defeated near Fontenay (Fontanetum) by Louis the German and Charles the Bald. The empire now fell apart, not from the force of national hatreds, but in consequence of the partition now made and known as the Treaty of Verdun (August, 843), which divided the territory between the sons of Louis the Pious: Lothair, Louis the German (843-76), and Charles the Bald, and which finally resulted in the complete overthrow of theCarlovingian monarchy.

As the imperial power grew weaker, theChurch gradually raised itself above the State. Thescandalous behaviour of Lothair II, who,divorced himself from his lawful wife in order to marry hisconcubine, brought deep disgrace on his kingdom. TheChurch however, now an imposing and well-organized power, sat in judgment on the adulterous king. When Lothair II died, his uncles divided his possessions between them; by the Treaty of Ribemont (Mersen),Lorraine, which lay between the EastFrankish Kingdom of Louis the German and the West Frankish Kingdom of Charles the Bald, was assigned to the EastFrankish Kingdom. In this way a long-enduring boundary was definitely drawn between the growing powers of Germany andFrance. By a curious chance this boundary coincided almost exactly with the linguistic dividing line. Charles the Fat (876-87), the last son of Louis the German, united once more the entire empire. But according to old Germanicideas the weak emperor forfeited his sovereignty by his cowardice when the dreadedNorthmen appeared beforeParis on one of their frequent incursions intoFrance, and by his incapacity as a ruler. Consequently the EasternFranks made his nephew Arnulf (887-99) king. This change was brought about by a revolt of thelaity against thebishops in alliance with the emperor. The danger of Norman invasion Arnulf ended once and for all by his victory in 891 atLouvain on the Dyle. In the East also he was victorious after the death (894) of Swatopluk, the great King of Moravia. The conduct of some of the great nobles forced him to turn for aid to thebishops; supported by theChurch, he wascrowned emperor atRome in 896. Theoretically his rule extended over the West Frankish Kingdom, but the sway of his son, Louis the Child (899-911), the last descendant of the male line of the German Carlovingians, was limited entirely to the EastFrankish Kingdom. Both in the East and West Frankish Kingdoms, in this era of confusion, the nobility grew steadily stronger, and freemen in increasing numbers became vassals in order to escape the burdens that the State laid on them; the illusion of the imperial title could no longer give strength to the empire. Vassal princes like Guido and Lamberto ofSpoleto, and Berengar of Friuli, were permitted to wear the diadem of the Caesars.

As theidea of political unity declined, that of theunity of the Church increased in power. TheKingdom of God, which the royalpriest,Charlemagne, by his overshadowingpersonality had, in his own opinion, made a fact, proved to be an impossibility.Church and State, which for a short time were united inCharlemagne, had, as early as the reign of Louis the Pious, become separated. TheKingdom of God was now identified with theChurch.Pope Nicholas I asserted that the head of the one and indivisible Church could not be subordinate to anysecular power, that only thepope could rule theChurch, that it wasobligatory on princes to obey thepope in spiritual things, and finally that the Carlovingians had received their right to rule from thepope. This grandidea of unity, this all-controlling sentiment of a common bond, could not be annihilated even in these troubled times when thepapacy was humiliated by petty Italian rulers. Theidea of her unity gave theChurch the strength to raise herself rapidly to a position higher than that of the State. From the age ofSt. Boniface theChurch in the EastFrankish Kingdom had direct relations withRome, while numerous new churches andmonasteries gave her a firm hold in this region. At an earlydate theChurch here controlled the entirereligious life and, as the depositary of all culture, the entireintellectual life. She had also gained frequently decisive influence over Germaneconomic life, for she disseminated much of the skill and many of the crafts of antiquity. Moreover theChurch itself had grown into aneconomic power in the EastFrankish Kingdom. Piety led many to place themselves and their lands under the control of theChurch.

There was also in this period a change in social life that was followed by important social consequences. The old militia composed of every freeman capable of bearing arms went to pieces, because the freemen constantly decreased in number. In its stead there arose a higher order in the State, which alone was called on for military service. In this chaotic era the German people made no important advance in civilization. Nevertheless the union that had been formed between Roman and German elements andChristianity prepared the way for a development of the EastFrankish Kingdom in civilization from which great results might be expected. At the close of theCarlovingian period the external position of the kingdom was a very precarious one. The piraticNorthmen boldly advanced far into the empire; Danes andSlavs continually crossed its borders; but the most dangerous incursions were those of the Magyars, who in 907 brought terrible suffering uponBavaria; in their marauding expeditions they also ravaged Saxony,Thuringia, and Swabia. It was then thatsalvation came from the empire itself. The weak authority of the last of the Carlovingians, Louis the Child, an infant in years, fell to pieces altogether, and the old ducal form of government revived in the several tribes. This was in accordance with the desires of the people. In these critical times the dukes sought to save the country; still they saw clearly that only a union of all the duchies could successfully ward off the danger from without; the royal power was to find its entire support in thelaity. Once more, it istrue, the attempt was made by King Conrad I (911-18) to make theChurch the basis of the royal power, but the centralizingclerical policy of the king was successfully resisted by the subordinate powers. Henry I (919-36) was the free choice of the lay powers at Fritzlar. On the day he was elected the old theory of the State as the personal estate of the sovereign was finally done away with, and theFrankish realm was transformed into a German one. The manner of his election made plain to Henry the course to be pursued. It wasnecessary to yield to the wish of the several tribes to have their separate existence with a measure of self-government under the imperial power recognized. Thus the duchies were strengthened at the expense of the Crown. The fame of Henry I was assured by his victory over the Magyars near Merseburg (933). By regaining Lorraine, that had been lost during the reign of Conrad, he secured a bulwark on the side towardsFrance that permitted the uninterrupted consolidation of his realm. The same result was attained on other frontiers by his successful campaigns against the Wends andBohemians. Henry's kingdom was made up of a confederation of tribes, for theidea of a "King of theGermans" did not yet exist. It was only as the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" that Germany could develop from a union of German tribes to a compact nation. As supporters of the supreme power, as vassals of the emperor, theGermans were united.

This imperial policy was continued byOtto I, the Great (936-73). During his long reign Otto sought to found a strong central power in Germany, an effort at once opposed by the particularistic powers of Germany, who took advantage of disputes in the royal family. Ottoproved the necessity of a strong government by his victory over the Magyars near Augsburg (955), one result of which was the reestablishment of the East Mark. After this he was called toRome byJohn XII, who had been threatened byBerengarius II ofItaly, and by making a treaty that secured to the imperial dignity a share in the election of thepope, he attained the imperial crown, 2 February, 962. It wasnecessary for Otto to obtain imperial power in order to carry out his politico-ecclesiastical policy. His intention was to make theChurch an organic feature of the German constitution. This he could only do if theChurch was absolutely under his control, and this could not be attained unless thepapacy andItaly were included within the sphere of his power. The emperor's aim was to found his royal power among theGermans, who were strongly inclined to particularism, upon a close union ofChurch and State. The Germans had now revived the empire and had freed thepapacy from its unfortunate entanglement with the nobility of the city ofRome. Thepapacy rapidly regained strength and quickly renewed the policy ofNicholas I. By safeguarding theunity of the Church of WesternEurope theGermans protected both the peaceful development of civilization, which was dependent upon religion, and the progress of culture which theChurch spread. Thus theGermans, in union with theChurch, founded the civilization of WesternEurope. For Germany itself the heroic age of themedieval emperors was a period of progress in learning. The renaissance of antiquity during the era of the Ottos was hardly more than superficial. Nevertheless it denoted a development in learning, throughoutecclesiastical in character, in marked contrast to the tendencies in the same age of the grammarian Wilgard atRavenna, who sought to revive not only the literature of ancient times, but also theideas of antiquity, even when they opposedChristianideas. Germany now boldly assumed the leadership of WesternEurope and thus prevented any other power from claiming the supremacy. Moreover the new empire sought to assert its universal character inFrance, as well as inBurgundy andItaly. Otto also fixed his eyes on LowerItaly, which was in the hands of the Greeks, but he preferred a peaceful policy with Byzantium. He therefore married his sonOtto II, in 972, to the Greek Princess Theophano.

Otto II (973-83) and his sonOtto III (983-1002) firmly upheld the union with theChurch inaugurated byOtto I.Otto II aimed at a great development of his power along the Mediterranean; these plans naturally turned his mind from a national German policy. His campaign against theSaracens, however, came to a disastrous end in Calabria in 982, and he did not long survive the calamity. His romantic son sought to bring about a complete revival of the ancient empire, the centre of which was to beRome, as in ancient times. There, in union with thepope, he wished to establish thetrueKingdom of God. Thepope and the emperor were to be the wielders of a power one and indivisible. This idealistic policy, full of vague abstractions, led to severe German losses in the east, for the Poles and Hungarians once more gained their independence. InItaly Arduin ofIvrea founded a new kingdom; naturally enough the Apennine Peninsula revolted against the German imperial policy. Without possession ofItaly, however, the empire was impossible, and theblessings of the Ottonian theory of government were now manifest. TheChurch became the champion of the unity and legitimacy of the empire.

After the death ofOtto III and the collapse of imperialism theChurch raised Henry II (1002-24) to the throne. Henry, reviving the policy ofOtto I which had been abandoned byOtto III, made Germany and the German Church the basis of his imperial system; he intended to rule theChurch asOtto I had done. In 1014 he defeated Arduin and thus attained the Imperial crown. The sickly ruler, whose nervousnesscaused him to take up projects of which he quickly tired, did his best to repair the losses of the empire on its eastern frontier. He was not able, however, to defeat the Polish King Boleslaw II: all he could do was to strengthen the position of theGermans on the Elbe River by an alliance with the Lusici, a Slavonic tribe. Towards the end of his reign a bitter dispute broke out between the emperor and thebishops. At the Synod of Seligenstadt, in 1023, Archbishop Aribo ofMainz, who was an opponent of the Reform of Cluny, made an appeal to thepope without the permission of thebishop. Thisecclesiastical policy of Aribo's would have led in the end to the founding of a national German Church independent ofRome. The greater part of theclergy supported Aribo, but the emperor held to the party of reform. Henry, however, did not live to see the quarrel settled.

With Conrad II (1024-39) began the sway of the Franconian (Salian) emperors. The sovereigns of this line were vigorous, vehement, and autocratic rulers. Conrad had natural political ability and his reign is the most flourishing era ofmedieval imperialism. The international position of the empire was excellent. InItaly Conrad strengthened the German power, and his relations with King Canute ofDenmark were friendly. Internal disputes kept the Kingdom ofPoland from becoming dangerous; moreover, by regaining Lusatia theGermans recovered the old preponderance against the Poles. Important gains were also made inBurgundy, whereby the old Romanic states,France andItaly, were for a long time separated and the great passes of the Alps controlled by theGermans. The close connexion with the empire enabled the German population of northwesternBurgundy to preserve its nationality. Conrad had also kept up the close union of the State with theChurch and had maintained his authority over the latter. He claimed for himself the same right of ruling theChurch that his predecessors had exercised, and like them appointedbishops andabbots; he also reserved to himself the entire control of theproperty of the Church. Conrad'secclesiastical policy, however, lacked definiteness; he failed to understand the most important interests of theChurch, nor did he grasp the necessity of reform. Neither did he do anything to raise thepapacy, discredited byJohn XIX andBenedict IX, from its dependence on the civil rulers ofRome. The aim of his financial policy waseconomic emancipation from theChurch; royal financial officials took their place alongside of theministeriales, or financial agents, of thebishops andmonasteries. Conrad sought to rest his kingdom in Germany on these royal officials and on the petty vassals. In this way thelaity was to be the guarantee of the emperor's independence of the episcopate. As he pursued the same methods inItaly, he was able to maintain an independent position between thebishops and the petty Italian despots who were at strife with one another. Thus theecclesiastical influence in Conrad's theory of government becomes less prominent.

This statesmanlike sovereign was followed by his son, the youthful Henry III (1039-56). Unlike hisfather Henry had a goodeducation; he had also been trained from an early age in State affairs. He was a born ruler and allowed himself to be influenced by no one; to force of character andcourage he added a strong sense ofduty. His foreign policy was at first successful. He established the suzerainty of the empire overHungary, without, however, being always able to maintain it;Bohemia also remained a dependent state. The empire gained a dominant position in WesternEurope, and a sense of nationalpride was awakened in theGermans that opened the way for a national spirit. But the aim of these national aspirations, the hegemony in WesternEurope, was a mere phantom. Each time an emperor went toItaly to becrowned that country had to be reconquered. Even at this very time the imperial supremacy was in great danger from the threatened conflict between the imperial and thesacerdotal power, betweenChurch and State. TheChurch, the only guide on earth tosalvation, had attained dominion overmankind, whom it strove to wean from the earthly and to lead to the spiritual. The glaring contrast between the ideal and the reality awoke in thousands the desire to leave the world. A spirit of asceticism, which first appeared inFrance, took possession of many hearts. As early as the era of the first Saxon emperors the attempt was made to introduce the reform movement of Cluny into Germany, and in the reign of Henry III this reform had become powerful. Henry himself laid much more stress than his predecessors on theecclesiastical side of his royal position. His religious views led him to side with the men of Cluny. The great mistake of hisecclesiastical policy was thebelief that it was possible to promote this reform of theChurch by laying stress on his suzerain authority. He repeatedly called and presided oversynods and issued many decisions in Church affairs. His fundamental mistake, the thought that he could transform theChurch in the manner desired by the party of reform and at the same time maintain his dominion over it, was also evident in his relations with thepapacy. He sought to put an end to the disorder atRome, caused by the unfortunateschism, by the energetic measure of deposing the three contendingpopes and raisingClement II to theApostolic See. Clementcrowned him emperor and made him Patrician ofRome. Thus Henry seemed to have regained the same control over theChurch that Otto had exercised. But thepapacy, purified by the elevated conceptions of the party of reform and freed by Henry from the influence of the degenerate Roman aristocracy, strove to be absolutely independent. TheChurch was now to be released from all human bonds. The chief aims of thepapal policy were thecelibacy of the clergy, the presentation ofecclesiastical offices by theChurch alone, and the attainment by these means of as great a centralization as possible. Henry had acted with absolute honesty in raising thepapacy, but he did not intend that it should outgrow his control. Sincerelypious, he was convinced of the possibility and necessity of complete accord between empire andpapacy. His fanciful policy became an unpracticalidealism. Consequently the monarchical power began rapidly to decline in strength.Hungary regained freedom, the southern part ofItaly was held by the Normans, and the Duchy of Lorraine, already long a source of trouble, maintained its hostility to the king. By the close of the reign of Henry III discontent was universal in the empire, thus permitting a growth of the particularistic powers, especially of the dukes.

When Henry III died Germany had reached a turning-point in its history. His wife Agnes assumed the regency for their four-year-old son,Henry IV (1056-1106), and at once showed her incompetence for the position by granting the great duchies to opponents of the crown. She also sought the support of the lesser nobility and thus excited thehatred of the great princes. A conspiracy of the more powerful nobles, led by Archbishop Anno (Hanno) of Cologne, obtained possession of the royal child by a stratagem at Kaiserswert and took control of the imperial power.Henry IV, however, preferred the guidance of Adalbert,Archbishop ofBremen, who was able for the moment to give the governmental policy a more national character. Thus in 1063 he restored German influence overHungary, and the aim of his internal policy was to strengthen the central power. At the Diet of Tribur, 1066, however, he was overthrown by the particularists, but the king by now was able to assume control for himself. In the meantime thepapacy had been rapidly advancing towards absolute independence. TheCuria now extended the meaning ofsimony to the granting of anecclesiastical office by alayman and thus demanded an entire change in the conditions of the empire and placed itself in opposition to the imperial power. The ordinances passed in 1059 for the regulation of the papal elections excluded all imperialrights in the same. Conditions inItaly grew continually more unfavourable for the empire. The chief supporters of thepapal policy were the Normans, over whom thepope claimedfeudal suzerainty. The Germanbishops also yielded more and more to the authority ofRome; the Ottonian theory of government was already undermined. The question was now raised: In theKingdom of God on earth who is to rule, the emperor or thepope? InRome this question had long been settled. The powerful opponent of Henry,Gregory VII, claimed that the princes should acknowledge the supremacy of theKingdom of God, and that thelaws of God should be everywhere obeyed and carried out. The struggle which now broke out was in principle a conflict concerning the respectiverights of the empire and thepapacy. But the conflict soon shifted from the spiritual to the secular domain; at last it became a conflict for the possession ofItaly, and during the struggle the spiritual and the secular were often confounded. Henry was not a match for the genius ofGregory. He wascourageous and intelligent and, though of a passionate nature, fought with dogged obstinacy for therights of his monarchical power. ButGregory as the representative of the reform movement in theChurch, demanding complete liberty for theChurch, was too powerful for him. Aided by the inferior nobility, Henry sought to make himself absolute. The particularistic powers, however, insisted upon the maintenance of the constitutional limits of the monarchy. The revolt of the Saxons against the royal authority was led both by spiritual and secular princes, and it was not until after many humiliations that Henry was able to conquer them in the battle on the Unstrut (1075). Directly after this began his conflict with thepapacy. The occasion was the appointment of anArchbishop ofMilan by the emperor without regard to the election already held by theecclesiastical party.Gregory VII at once sent a threatening letter to Henry. Angry at this, Henry had the deposition of thepope declared at the Synod of Worms, 24 January, 1076.Gregory now felt himself released from all restraint andexcommunicated the emperor. On 16 October, 1076, the German princes decided that thepope should pronounce judgment on the king and that unless Henry were released fromexcommunication within a year and a day he should lose his crown. Henry now sought to break the alliance between the particularists and thepope by a clever stroke. The German princes he could not win back to his cause, but he might gain over thepope. By a penitentialpilgrimage he forced thepope to grant himabsolution. Henry appealed to thepriest, andGregory showed his greatness. He released the king from the ban, although by so doing he injured his own interests, which required that he should keep his agreement to act in union with the German princes.

Thus the day ofCanossa (2 and 3 February, 1077) was a victory for Henry. It did not, however, mean the coming of peace, for the German confederates of thepope did not recognize the reconciliation atCanossa, and elected Duke Rudolf of Swabia as king at Forchheim, 13 March, 1077. A civilwar now broke out in Germany. After long hesitationGregory finally took the side of Rudolf and once moreexcommunicated Henry. Soon after this however, Rudolf lost both throne and life in the battle of Hohenmoelsen not far from Merseburg. Henry now abandoned his policy of absolutism, recognizing its impracticability. He returned to the Ottonian theory of government, and the German episcopate, which was embittered by the severity of theecclesiastical administration ofRome, now came over to the side of the king. Relying upon this strife within theChurch, Henry causedGregory to be deposed by asynod held atBrixen andGuibert of Ravenna to be electedpope asClement III. Accompanied by thispope, he went toRome and wascrowned emperor there in 1084. Love for therights of theChurch drove the greatGregory into exile where he soon after died. After the death of his mighty opponent Henry was more powerful than the particularists who had elected a new rival king, Herman of Luxembourg. In 1090 Henry went again toItaly to defend hisrights against the two powerful allies of thepapacy, the Normans in the south and the Countess Matilda ofTuscany in the north. While he was inItaly his own son Conrad declared himself king in opposition to him. Overwhelmed by this blow, Henry remained inactive inItaly, and it was not until 1097 that he returned to Germany. No reconciliation had been effected between him andPope Urban II. In Germany Henry sought to restore internal peace, and this popular policy intensified the particularism of the princes. In union with these the king's son, young Henry, rebelled against hisfather. Thepope supported the revolt, and the emperor was unable to cope with so many opponents. In 1105 he abdicated. After this he once more asserted hisrights, but death soon closed (1106) this troubled life filled with so many thrilling and tragic events. To Henry should be ascribed the credit of saving the monarchy from the threatened collapse. He has been called the most brilliant representative of the Germanlaity in the earlyMiddle Ages. During his reign began the development, so fruitful in results, of the German cities.

Henry V (1106-25) also adopted the policy of the Ottos. In the numerous discussions of the right of investiture men of sober judgment insisted, as did the emperor, that the latter could not give up the right of the investiture of his vassalbishops with the regalia, that a distinction must be made between the spiritual andsecular power of thebishops. Thepope now made the strange proposal that the emperor should give up the investiture and thepope the regalia. This proposal to strip theChurch ofsecular power would have led to a revolution in Germany. Not only would thebishops have been unwilling to give up their position as ruling princes, but many nobles, as well as vassals of theChurch, would have rebelled. The storm of dissatisfaction which in 1111 broke out inRomeobliged thepope to annul the prohibition of investiture. It was soon seen to be impossible to carry out the permission so granted, and the conflict regarding investitures began again. Theecclesiastical party was again joined by the German princes antagonistic to the emperor, and the imperial forces soon suffered defeats on the Rhine and inSaxony. Consequently thepapal party gained ground again in Germany, and the majority of thebishops fell away from Henry. Notwithstanding this he went, in 1116, toItaly to claim the imperialfeudal estates of the Countess Matilda, who had died, and to confiscate her freeholdproperty. This action naturally made more difficult the relations betweenpope and emperor, and in spite of the universal weariness the conflict began anew. The influence of the German secular princes had now to be reckoned with, for at this time certainfamilies of the secular nobility commenced to claim hereditary power and appeared as hereditary dynasties with distinctfamily names and residences. It was in the age of the Franconian emperors that the dynasticfamilies of the German principalities were founded. These princes acted as an independent power in settling the disagreement between emperor andpope.Callistus II was ready for peace; in 1122 an agreement was reached and the concordat was proclaimed at the Synod of Worms. In this thepope agreed that in Germany the election ofbishops should take place according to canonical procedure in the presence of the king or his representative, and that the bishop-elect should then be invested by the king with the sceptre as a symbol of the regalia. In Germany this investiture was to precede theecclesiasticalconsecration, inItaly andBurgundy it was to follow it. The emperor therefore retained all his influence in the appointment to vacantdioceses, and as secular princes thebishops were responsible to him. Not withstanding this the Concordat of Worms was a defeat for the imperial claims, for thepapacy that had been hitherto a subordinate power had now become a power of at least equal rank. It was now entirely free from the control of the German Crown and held an independent position, deriving its dignity wholly fromGod. The emperor, on the contrary, received his dignity from thepapacy. The talented, but intriguing and deceitful, king had greatly strengthened the anti-imperial tendency in all WesternEurope. During the great investiture conflict the other kings had freed themselves completely from the suzerainty of the emperor. Thepope was the guarantee of their independence, and he had become the representative of the whole ofChristendom, while the imperial dignity had lost the attribute of universality. The way was now open to thepope to become the umpire over kings and nations. There was now a truce in the conflict betweenpope and emperor. Only a minor question had been settled, but the conflict had awakened the intellects of men, and on both sides a voluminous controversial literature appeared. The assertion was now made that theChristian conception of thepapacy was not realized by existing conditions. There were also other manifestations of independent thought. TheCrusades opened a new world ofideas; historical writing made rapid progress, and art ventured upon new forms in architecture. Commerce and travel increased through the active intercourse withItaly, a state of affairs beneficial to the growth of the cities. Germany grew in civilization although it did not reach the same level of culture whichItaly andFrance had then attained.

Henry V died childless, and his nephew, Duke Frederick of Swabia, the representative of the most powerful rulingfamily in the empire, hoped to be his successor. Theclergy, led by Archbishop Adalbert ofMainz, however, feared that Frederick would continue theecclesiastical policy of the Franconian emperors, and they succeeded in defeating him as a candidate. AtMainz the majority of the princes voted for Lothair of Supplinburg (1125-37); thus the electors disregarded any hereditary right to the throne. The Hohenstaufen brothers, Frederick and Conrad, did not yield the crown to Lothair without a struggle. The Hohenstaufenfamily was in possession of the crownlands belonging to the inheritance of the Franconian emperors, and a long struggle ensued over these territories. Lothair's suzerainty was for a while in a very critical position; the Hohenstaufen power increased to such an extent that in 1127 its abettors ventured to proclaim Conrad king. In the end, however, Lothair conquered. Acourageous man, but one somewhat inclined to hasty action, he was able to maintain the claims of the empire againstBohemia,Poland, andDenmark. As a statesman, however, Conrad was less aggressive. He allowed theschism of 1130, whenInnocent II and Anacletus Il contended for theHoly See, to pass by without turning the temporal weakness of thepapacy to the benefit of the empire. After a delay Lothair finally recognizedInnocent aspope and brought him toRome. Here Lothir wascrowned emperor in 1133; but theCuria did not agree to his demand for the restoration of the old right of investiture. However, he received the domains of the Countess Matilda as a fief from thepope and thus laid the foundation of the strong position of the house of Welf (Guelph) in CentralEurope. In the meantime the two Hohenstaufen brothers were defeated, and Lothair was now able (1136), without fear of an uprising in Germany, to go toRome for a second time. The object of this further campaign inItaly was to defeat King Roger ofSicily, the protector of theantipope, but the success of the imperial army was only temporary. Differences of opinion as to imperial andpapalrights in lowerItaly andSicily endangered at times the good understanding between the two great powers. The emperor grew ill and died on the way home, and after his death the vigorous Roger united all lowerItaly, with the exception ofBenevento, into a kingdom that held an unrivalled position inEurope for its brilliant and strangely mixed culture. In the struggle between thepapacy and the empire thisSicilian kingdom was before long to take an important part.

The political policy of theChurch was directed by its distrust of the aims of the Saxon dynasty in lowerItaly; consequently by a bold stroke it brought about the election of Conrad III (1138-52), the Hohenstaufen Duke of Franconia, passing over Duke Henry the Proud, ruler ofSaxony andBavaria, and a descendant of Duke Welf (Guelph). The new king demanded from Henry the surrender of the Saxon duchy. Although after a long struggle the double Duchy of Bavaria-Saxony was dissolved, yet the Saxon duchy that was given by the treaty of 1142 to young Henry the Lion, son of Henry the Proud, continued a menace to the Hohenstaufen rule. Conrad was not able to put an end to the disorders in his realm, and the respect felt for the empire on the eastern frontier declined; neither was he able to assert his power inItaly. Yet all these troubles did not prevent his yielding to the fiery eloquence ofSt. Bernard of Clairvaux and joining theSecond Crusade. Thiscrusade, the success of which had been promised by St. Bernard and thepope, failed completely. When Conrad returned home, broken in spirit, he was confronted by the danger of a formidable rising of the Welfs. In 1152 he died. During his reign theintellectual results of theCrusades began to show themselves. Men's imaginations had been stimulated and led them away from traditionalmedieval sentiment. The world was seized by a romantic impulse and the conception of theCrusades, developed first among the Romanic nations, gave a Romanic colouring to the civilization andmorals of the age. For a long time German knighthood, in particular, was characterized by Romanicideas and manners.

When the new king,Frederick I Barbarossa (1152-90), ascended the throne his German kingdom seemed on the verge of disintegration, and he sought to strengthen his power by a journey through all parts of his realms. Contrary to the policy pursued by his predecessor, he exerted himself to settle the strife between the Welf (Guelph) and Hohenstaufen parties. He wanted to strengthen the Welf power to such extent as to make it evident that this party's interests coincided with those of the Crown. Besides,Saxony, Henry the Lion received also the Duchy ofBavaria which had been taken from hisfather Henry the Proud. As secular protector of theChurch, Frederick came to an agreement with thepope in regard to the latter's adversaries, the citizens ofRome and King Roger ofSicily. The imperial policy of Frederick was one of vast schemes which he could only carry out when he had a firm footing inItaly. But inItaly the city republics had arisen, and these had entirely cast off his suzerainty. Not realizing the power of resistance of the free communities, Frederick wanted to force the cities to recognize the supremacy of the empire. In case thepope should interfere in the dispute, Frederick was resolved not to permit his intervention in secular affairs. Frederick was filled with an ideal conception of his position as emperor. He believed that theGermans were destined in the history of the world to exercise universal rule. It was thisidea, however, that exasperated theItalians and aroused theirhatred. Frederick could only carry out this universal policy ifItaly were his, and the question of its possession led to renewed struggles betweenChurch and State. When Frederick went toRome to becrowned emperor in 1155, most of the Italian cities paid their homage to him. On his return homeBavaria was restored in fief to Henry the Lion, the East Mark (laterAustria) being first detached from the duchy. This led in the course oftime to a development of the mark thatproved of great importance for the future history of the empire. Frederick's policy was, in the main, not to interfere with therights of the German princes as long as they obeyed thelaws of the empire. The spiritual princes he attached closely to himself. The most powerfulbishops of this period, Rainald of Cologne, Christian ofMainz, and Wichmann ofMagdeburg, supported the imperial party. The majority of thebishops looked upon Frederick as a protection against the encroachments ofRome and of the secular rulers. The emperor sought, by strengthening his dynastic power, to make himself independent of both theecclesiastical and temporal princes; to carry out this policy he depended on his inferior civil officials (Ministerialen), who were still serfs, and from whom was hereafter to come the important military nobility. Thus Frederick prepared the way for the flourishing period ofchivalry, which was to give its signature to the time now at hand. A romantic, knightly culture arose; poetry flourished; yet thelove lyrics of the age often expounded unhealthy views ofmorals and marriage. Nevertheless, the movement did not penetrate very deep, and the common people remained uncorrupted. Moreover, poetry was not wasted on artificiallove songs; Wolfram von Eschenbach had thecourage to attempt great problems; Walther von der Vogelweide was the herald of German imperialism. Art undertook to solve great questions, and began to draw its themes from life. Scientific learning, however, had not made equal progress; the time of apprenticeship was not yet passed, while inFrance andItalyScholasticism had already shown itself creative. In 1158 Frederick made a second campaign inItaly that closed with the sack ofMilan, the subjugation ofItaly, and the flight ofPope Alexander III toFrance. When, however, the rest ofEurope sided with the lawfulpope, the defeat of the emperor was assured, for thepapacy, when supported by all other countries, could not be coerced by Frederick. The emperor's third campaign inItaly (1162-64) ended in the failure of his lower Italian policy, and the outbreak of the plague destroyed the more promising prospects of the fourth expedition. In the fifth campaign (1174) occurred the memorable defeat near Legnano which opened the eyes of the emperor to the necessity of a treaty of peace. In 1177 he made peace with thepope atVenice, and recognizedAlexander III, whom he had so obstinately opposed. Thepapacy had victoriously defended its equality with the empire. In Germany Frederick wasobliged to take steps against the violent proceedings of Henry the Lion. The insubordinateGuelph was deposed and his fiefs divided,Bavaria being given to Otto of Wittelsbach. By the repeated allotment of these lands Frederick in reality helped to break up the empire, and when in 1184 hebetrothed his son Henry toConstance, the heiress of the Norman kingdom, he prepared the way for new complications. Frederick took part in theThird Crusade in order that the highest power ofChristendom might actively fight against the infidel. He was drowned inAsia Minor, 10 June, 1190; and was, at his death, a popular hero. He had greatly strengthened the feeling of theGermans that they were one great people, though a really national empire was at the time quite out of the question; the achievement of unity was prevented by the international character ofintellectual, and partly of social, life.

Frederick's son,Henry VI (1190-97), meant to establish a world power along the Mediterranean. His schemes were opposed by a Saxon-Guelphic combination headed byRichard the Lion-Hearted ofEngland, and also by the German princes, who strove to hinder the increase of the royal power aimed at by Henry. The capture of Richard in 1192 dissolved the league of princes and led to peace with the House ofGuelph. In 1194 Henry succeeded in conqueringSicily, and it now seemed as though his imperialistic schemes would gain the day; nevertheless they failed owing to the opposition of the German princes and thepope. When Henry died in 1197 the countries of WesternEurope had already taken a stand against the all-embracing schemes of the German emperor. Germany was threatened by the horrors of a civilwar. All the anti-national forces were active.

Instead of the crown going to Frederick, son of Henry, who was atNaples, Archbishop Adolph of Cologne sought, by means of the electoralrights of the princes, to obtain it for the son of Henry the Lion,Otto IV (1198-1215). But the Hohenstaufen party anticipated this scheme by securing the election of the popular Duke Philip of Swabia (1198-1208). For the first time the question now arose, which of the princes have theright to vote? The number of electors had not, so far, been defined, yet as early as the election of Lothair and Conrad only the princes had voted, and the right of theArchbishops ofMainz to preside at the election was clearly admitted. Not much later the opinion prevailed that only six ruling princes were entitled to act as electors: the three RhenishArchbishops, the Rhenish Palsgrave, the Duke of Saxony, and the Margrave of Brandenburg; to these was added in the course oftime the King ofBohemia. The "Sachsenspiegel" (compilation ofSaxon law, c. 1230) caused this view to prevail. At the time of the double election of Otto and Philip the policy pursued by the German princes was a purely selfish one. The energeticInnocent III, who was thenpope, claimed the right of deciding the dispute and adjudged the crown to Otto. Thus the latter for a time gained the advantage over Philip. In this conflict the German princes changed sides whenever it seemed to their interest. Archbishop Adolph of Cologne, who had carried the election of Otto, finally fell away from him. Philip gained in authority, and after the successful battle near Wassenberg in 1206 he would have overcome Otto and his ally thepapacy, had he not beenmurdered atBamberg in 1208 by Otto of Wittelsbach.

Otto IV was now universally acknowledged king. He had promised thepope to give up his claim to the domains of the Countess Matilda ofTuscany and to grant the free election ofbishops. But when atRome he refused to carry out these promises. However, thepope, though displeased,crowned him emperor in 1209. But when Otto after this wished to revive the imperial claims toNaples, thepopeexcommunicated him (1210).

In the meantime the supreme position of the empire had become so important a matter that foreign princes meddled in German politics. The great conflict betweenPhilip II Augustus of France and John ofEngland was reflected in the contest between theGuelphs and the Hohenstaufens in Germany. Protected by the French and thepope,Frederick II (1212-50) came to Germany and wascrowned atMainz. The coalition of the English and theGuelphs was broken by the French at the battle of Bouvines (1214), yet Otto kept up the struggle for hisrights until his death in 1218. The long conflict had greatly impaired the strength of the Hohenstaufen line; both the imperial and the Hohenstaufen domains had been squandered, and the German princes had become conscious of their power. Like hisfather,Frederick II madeItaly the centre of his policy; but at the same time he intended to keep the control of Germany in his own hands, as the imperial power was connected with this country and he must draw the soldiers needed for his Italian projects from Germany. In order to maintain peace in Germany and to secure the aid of the German princes for his Italian policy Frederick made great concessions to theecclesiastical princes in the "Confoederatio cum principibus ecclesiasticis" (1220) and to the secular princes in the "Statutum in favorem principum" (1232). These twolaws became the basis of an aristocratic constitution for the German Empire. They both contained a large number of separate ordinances, which taken together might serve as a secure basis for the future sovereignty of the local princes. In thesestatutes the expressionlandesherr (lord of the land) occurs for the first time. In this era Germany was cut up into a large number of territorial sovereignties, consisting of theecclesiastical territories, the duchies, which, however, were no longer tribal duchies, the margravates, among which the North Mark ruled by Albert the Bear was one of the most important, the palatinates, the countships, and the independent domains of those who had risen from landed proprietors to landed sovereigns. In addition to these were the districts ruled directly by the king through imperial wardens. What Frederick sought to get by favouring the princes he obtained. He had no real interest in Germany, which was at first ruled by the energetic Engelbert,Archbishop ofCologne; after 1220 he visited it only once. It was to him an appendage ofSicily. Frederick's Italian policy threatened thepapacy, and he strove by concessions to avert a conflict with thepope. The highly talented, almost learned, emperor was far in advance of his age; an autocratic ruler, he created in lowerItaly the first modern state; but by his care forItaly he overstrained the resources of the empire. This brought advantages to the neighbouring Kingdoms ofFrance, andEngland, now long independent powers, as well as toHungary,Poland, and the Scandinavian countries. The conflict between thesacerdotal power and the empire had aided the independent development of the states of WesternEurope. The possession ofItaly and thevow to go on acrusade regulated Frederick's relations with theCuria. In 1212 he wascrowned emperor. Repeatedly urged to undertake the promisedcrusade, and finallyexcommunicated because he failed to do so, the emperor obtained successes in the East in 1227-29, contrary to the wishes of thepope. The silent acknowledgment of these successes by theCuria was a victory for Frederick. A rebellion headed by his son Henry was quickly crushed, but the confederates of Henry, the Lombards, assumed a threatening attitude. The emperor was able to bring order out of the confusion in Germany by the policy of yielding to the princes. About the same time began Frederick's struggle with the Lombards andPope Gregory IX (1227-41). The German princes loyally upheld the emperor, consequently, upon thepope's death, the victory seemed to belong to the imperial party.Innocent IV (1243-54), however, renewed the struggle and fromLyonsexcommunicated the emperor, whose position now became a serious one. In Germany his son Conrad wasobliged to contend with the pretenders, Heinrich Raspe of Thuringia and William ofHolland. InItaly, though, conditions seemed favourable, but just at this juncture Frederick died (13 December, 1250), and with his death ended the struggle for the world sovereignty.

The year 1250 marks an era of extraordinary change in Germany. The romance ofchivalry passed away, and new forces directed the life of the nation. On account of the extraordinaryeconomic changes the population rapidly increased; the majority of the people were peasants, and this class was rising, but compared with nobles andecclesiastics the peasants had no weight politically. The important factor of the new era was the municipality, and its development was the beginning of a purely German policy. The glamour of the imperialidea had vanished, men now took their stand on facts and realities. Education found its way amonglaymen, and it developed with trade. New markets were opened for commerce. The new commercial settlements received "city charters" under the royal cross. The merchants in these settlements needed craftsmen, and these latter from the twelfth century formed themselves into guilds, thus making a new political unit. Councils elected by the cities strove to set aside the former lords of the cities, especially thebishops on the Rhine. In vain the Hohenstaufen rulers supported thebishops against the independence of the towns, but the government in the cities could no longer be put down. In order to protect theirrights some of the cities formed alliances, such as the confederation of the Rhenish towns, that was formed as early as the period of the Great Interregnum in order to guard the public peace. These confederations promised to become dangerous opponents of the territorial lords, but such alliances did not become general and, divided among themselves without mutual support, the smaller confederations of towns succumbed to the united princely power. The growth of the towns brought about the ruin of the system of trade by barter or in kind; the rise of the capitalistic system of commerce at once affected German views of life. Up to this time almost wholly absorbed in thesupernatural, henceforth theGermans took more interest in worldly things. Unconditional renunciation of the world came to an end, and men grew more matter-of-fact and practical. This change in the German way of thinking was aided by the opposition that sprang up in the towns between the citizens and the former lords of the territory, often thebishops and theirclergy. Here and there the influence of the city on the views of theclergy manifested itself. TheDominicans andFranciscans, at least, taught their doctrines in language quite intelligible to the people. The rise of the cities was also of importance in the social life of the day, for the principle, "City air gives freedom" (Stadtluft macht frei), created an entirely new class of freemen.

Under the last of the Hohenstaufens the beginnings of a national culture began to appear. Latin had fallen into disuse, and German become the prevailing written language. For the first time Germany felt that she was a nation. This soon brought many Germans into opposition to theChurch. In the conflict between thepapacy and the empire the former often seemed the opponent of nationalism, and bitterness was felt, not against theidea of theChurch, but against its representative. The Germans still remained deeply religious, as was made evident by the German mystics.

The most valuable result of this strengthening of the national feeling was the conquest of what is now the eastern part of the present German Empire. Henry I had sought to attain this end, but it was not until the thirteenth century that it was accomplished, largely by the energy of theTeutonic Order. The Marks of Brandenburg,Pomerania,Prussia, and Silesia were colonized by Germans in a manner that challenges admiration, and German influence advanced as far as the Gulf of Finland. The centres of German civilization in these districts were thePremonstratensian andCistercianmonasteries. This extraordinary success was won by Germans in an era when the imperial government seemed ready to go to pieces. It was the period of the Great Interregnum (1256-73). We find traces of internal chaos as early as the reign of Frederick's son, Conrad IV (1250-54), and the confusion grew worse in the reign of William ofHolland, and after him during the nominal reigns ofRichard of Cornwall and Alfonso of Castile. At the same timeBohemia rapidly advanced in power under Ottocar II and became a dangerous element for the domestic and foreign policy of Germany. It wasPope Gregory X who restored order in Germany. To carry out his projects in the Holy Land peace must be secured in WesternEurope. He therefore commissioned the electoral princes, who now appear for the first time, to elect a new king. In 1273 the princes chose Rudolf of Hapsburg (1273-91), a man of no greatfamily resources. Meantime the imperial power had fallen into decay; the imperial estates had been squandered; there were no imperial taxes; and the old method of obtaining soldiers for the service of the empire had broken down. Rudolf saw hownecessary the possession of crown-lands was for the imperial authority, his aim being to create a dynastic force. Ottocar II, King ofBohemia, sought to induce theCuria to object to the election of Rudolf, but theCuria had quickly come to terms with Rudolf concerning conditions inItaly. After his election he demanded from Ottocar the return of the imperial fiefs, and the refusal of the latter led to awar (1276) in which, on the plain called the Marchfeld, Ottocar lost both life and crown. This victory gave Rudolf secure possession of the Austrian provinces. As the German king was not permitted to retain vacant fiefs, he evaded thislaw by grantingAustria,Styria, Carniola, and Lusatia in fief to his sons Albert and Rudolf; in this way the power of thefamily was greatly increased. Not even Rudolf thought of strengthening the kingly power by constitutional means. He decided to protect the public peace but did not entirely succeed in this. His policy was always influenced by the circumstances of the moment: at one time he favoured the princes, at another the cities; consequently he was never more than half successful. His only great achievement was that he secured for hisfamily a position in EasternEurope that was destined to give it importance in the future.

Rudolf's successor was Adolf of Nassau (1292-98), not his son Albert, as he had desired. The policy of the new sovereign was to weakenAustria, his natural opponent. Like Rudolf he recognized the necessity of obtaining possessions for hisfamily, for which he tried to lay a foundation inThuringia. Adolf's success against Frederick the Degenerate of Thuringia caused the electoral princes to incline to Albert. In a battle near Goellheim, fought between Albert and Adolf, Albert, aided by Adolf's numerous enemies, defeated the king, who was killed.

Albert I ofAustria, a very able but morose man (1298-1308), was filled with a boundlessambition for power. Without regard for therights of others, he enforced the recognition of his ownrights in his duchy. He desired to preserve the public peace in Germany and opposed the cruelpersecution of theJews customary at this time. He also wished to reorganize the imperial lands, which were to be regained in such a way as to provide a connecting link between the territories of the Hapsburgs in the east and those in the west. If his lands were thus united he would be a match for the strongest of the territorial princes; but the latter opposed this scheme. Albert also roused theanger of theecclesiastical electors by combining withKing Philip IV ofFrance againstBoniface VIII, who had not recognized Albert.Boniface now declared his intention of summoning Albert before his tribunal for themurder of Adolf. Supported by the cities, Albert contended successfully with the Rhenish electors, but after a while, in order to carry out his plans for the aggrandizement of hisfamily, he came to terms with thepope, and this put an end to the opposition of these electors. The only opponent of his dynastic schemes now to be dreaded was Wenceslaus II ofBohemia; but the Przemysl line soon died out, and Albert at once claimed their lands and gave them to his son Rudolf as a fief. Before he could carry out his designs on Thuringia he wasmurdered by John of Swabia, called Johannes Parricida. According to legend, the tyranny of his rule inSwitzerland led to a great struggle for freedom on the part of the confederatedSwiss. The aim pursued by Albert was always the same: by makingAustria powerful to force the other sovereign princes to acknowledge his suzerainty and thus to make the crown hereditary in hisfamily. It is, therefore, not a matter of surprise that after his death the electors decided to select a less mighty prince.

Archbishop Baldwin ofTrier managed the matter so skillfully that his brother Henry of Luxembourg (Lützelburg) was chosen (1308-13). A man of gentle, amiable character, Henry was full of visionary enthusiasm, but withal he was a man of energy; consequently he was soon very popular. By birth he was in sympathy with the French. German interests concerned him less.Italy had a great fascination for him; he was ambitious to receive the imperial crown, to be the first after a long interregnum.Clement V had recognized him. TheGhibelline party inItaly greeted him withjoy. At first he sought to hold a neutral position in the quarrels of the Italian parties, but this proved to be impossible. TheGuelphs, led by King Robert ofNaples, began to oppose him. When Henry thereupon wished to attackNaples, the old conflict with theChurch again broke out, but death suddenly ended his imperial dreams. Henry's only successful act was the marriage of his son John with the heiress ofBohemia, Elizabeth, the sister of Wenceslaus III; for Germany his reignproved of no advantage. The election of his son John to succeed him was impossible, and the Luxembourg party chose Louis theBavarian (1314-47) in opposition to Frederick the Fair (1314-30). There was a double election, each of the candidates being elected by one party, and a civilwar broke out, confined, however, mainly to the partisans of the two Houses of Wittelsbach and Hapsburg. The struggle was ended by the capture of Frederick at the battle of Mühldorf (1322); after this Louis was universally recognized.

While this conflict was going on the old strife betweenChurch and State again broke out. At the time of the double electionJohn XXII claimed therights of an administrator of the country. He asserted that no king chosen by the electors could exercise authority before thepope had given his approval. This over-straining of thepapal claims roused a dissatisfaction which continually grew and to which were already added complaints of the worldliness of theChurch. TheMinorites placed at the disposal of the king eloquent preachers to denounce the worldliness of thepapacy, which had rejected asheretical theFranciscan teaching concerning the poverty of Christ and theApostles. In 1324 Louis wasexcommunicated because he had not obeyed thepapal command to lay down his authority. To this Louis made a sharp reply in the proclamation of Sachsenhausen, in which he denied the claims of thepope and at the same time defended the teaching concerning poverty upheld by theFranciscans. In the conflict with thepope, who supported the candidature of Charles IV ofFrance for the imperial throne, the German cities and the German episcopate, the latter led by Baldwin ofTrier, were virtually a unit on the side of Louis. Even the death of Frederick the Fair did not produce a reconciliation with theCuria. It was at this juncture that the writings of theFranciscans,Michael of Cesena andWilliam of Occam began to exert their influence. The spirit of revolution in theChurch is shown by the "Defensor Pacis" ofMarsilius of Padua, a professor ofParis who went to the Court of Louis theBavarian. In this themedievalpapalecclesiastical system is attacked. Theintellectual ferment enabled Louis to undertake an expedition toRome. He had been invited to enterItaly by the magnates of northernItaly, especially by the Visconti ofMilan and the Scala ofVerona. The city ofRome received him withjoy, and he was the first German king to receive the imperial crown from the Roman commonwealth which had always regarded itself as the source of all sovereignty. But the fickle populace soon drove him away; the means at his command were too small to carry out the old imperial policy. AgainItaly was lost. Notwithstanding the lack of success inItaly, Germany in the main held to Louis, who had beenexcommunicated again. It was now evident thatpapal interdicts had largely lost their terrors; the civil communities frequently paid no attention to them, and in some placesecclesiastics were forced, notwithstanding the prohibition, to sayMass. The growth of a worldly spirit in theChurch began to undermine respect for it, and Germany was the first country to turn against the ideals of theMiddle Ages.Sects opposed to sacerdotalism appeared;mysticism tended to make thesoul independent in its progress towardsGod, without, however, rejecting thesacraments, as was done by some in this era. Yet, unintentionally,mysticism strengthened the tendency to deny the absolute necessity of the intercessory office of theChurch. Moreover,mysticism gave a national cast to Germanreligious life, for theintellectual leaders ofmysticism, Ekkehard,Suso, andTauler, wrote and preached in German. The chief strength of this religious movement was among the citizens of the towns. In the conflict betweenChurch and State the cities sided with the emperor, but they were not yet strong enough without assistance to maintain the authority of a German emperor. Consequently, the position taken by the German princes was decisive for Louis. As he meant to carry on a dynastic policy, as his predecessors had done, he soon came into conflict with these princes, and, in order to be stronger than his opponents, he sought to establish friendly relations with thepope. But although Louis could resolve on vigorous action, yet he lacked thenecessary persistence. He was not an able man, nor one of muchintellectual power. He tried to make a good impression on every one; as a consequence, he failed with all parties. He opened negotiations with theCuria, but the intrigues of Philip VI ofFrance kept the two parties from concluding peace. This led Louis to take the side ofEdward III of England at the beginning of thewar between the French and English for the succession to the French throne. This stand won more general sympathy for Louis in Germany. The electors were also influenced by public opinion when they declared at Rense in 1338 that a legitimate German emperor could be created only by their votes; a king so chosen needed nopapal recognition, and thepope, by crowning the German king, only gave him the imperial title. Louis was also declared to be entirely without blame in the dispute with theCuria. WhenEdward III appeared before Louis at Coblenz and the latter appointed him imperial vicar for the territories beyond the Rhine, the emperor had reached the zenith of his power. Nevertheless the fickle Louis, because he hoped, through the mediation of the King ofFrance, to be reconciled with theCuria and to secure the support of the latter for his schemes to aggrandize hisfamily, allied himself with the French in 1341. Instead of peace a worse estrangement with thepapal court was the result.

With the consent of the emperor, Margaret Maultasch of Tyrol, who had married John of Luxembourg (Lützelburg), haddivorced herself without awaiting thepapal decision and married the emperor's son, Louis of Brandenburg. The Luxembourg party at once had recourse toClement VI. Louis wasexcommunicated in 1346, and Charles IV of Moravia (1347-78) was, with the help of thepope, chosen German king by five of the electors under humiliating conditions. At first Louis had strong support from the German cities, but his unexpected death secured universal recognition for Charles. Henceforth for nearly a hundred years the Luxembourg-Bohemian dynasty held the throne. The king set up by the Wittelsbach party, Guenther of Schwarzburg, could make no headway against the adroit policy of Charles IV. In 1347 Germany was ravaged by the Black Death; theJews were immediately accused of poisoning the wells, and a frightfulpersecution followed. In the midst of the confusion the country was traversed by bands ofFlagellants, and these "penitents" were often full of hostility to theChurch. While inItalyPetrarch and Cola di Rienzi revived the dream of the universal dominion of theEternal City, Charles IV regarded Italian affairs with the eyes of a political realist. TheItalians said that he went toRome (1355) to secure the imperial crown like a merchant going to a fair. In Germany Charles sought to settle the election to the crown at the Diets ofNuremberg and Metz in 1356, and he issued the GoldenBull, which was the first attempt to put into writing the more important stipulations of the imperial constitution. Above all, theBull was intended to regulate the election of the king, and defined what princes should have the electoral vote. The electoral college was to consist of the threeArchbishops ofMainz,Trier, and Cologne; the Count Palatine of the Rhine, the Duke of Saxony (Sachsen-Wittenberg), and the Margrave of Brandenburg; to this number was added later the King ofBohemia. The electors were granted special privileges; besides the royalrights (regalia) and those of taxation andcoinage, they received theprivilegium de non evocando, that is, their subjects could not be summoned before the court of anotherjurisdiction, not even before an imperial one. The royal authority was to find in the electors who were scattered throughout the empire a support against the many petty princes. Other articles of the GoldenBull were to guard therights of the local princes against their vassals and subjects, especially against the cities. Nothing is said of the share of thepope in the election of the king; the one chosen by the majority of the electors was to be the king. Only thecoronation as emperor was left to thepope. The GoldenBull remained the most important part of the fundamental law of the Holy Roman Empire.

Learning flourished under the rule of Charles, who was a scholar among his contemporaries. He was surrounded by highlyeducated men, one of whom was John of Neumarkt, the head of his chancelry. His interest being almost entirely inBohemia, he showed his care for the advancement of learning chiefly in this country and founded there, 7 April, 1348, theUniversity of Prague. Charles held steadfastly toCatholicism andChristian Scholasticism. But this did not prevent him from carrying on policies independent of thepope. In reorganizing the imperial chancelry he encouraged the use of German in the imperial documents and thus assured the victory of the national tongue over Latin. By this action he gave German learning an independent standing.

Charles also furthered the interests of the empire in various other directions. He did not, indeed, overthrow the power of the princes, which had grown strong during the several hundred years of its existence, but he sought by the maintenance of internal peace to preserve his supreme power. To promote the foreign interests of Germany he desired to liberate thepapacy from its connexion withFrance and to persuade thepope to return fromAvignon toRome.Gregory went back toRome, but theBabylonian Captivity was to be followed by the Great Schism. In the meantime, Charles had largely increased the territorial possession of hisfamily; the Marks of Brandenburg, Lusatia, and Silesia came into his hands. By marriage he hoped to obtain for his son, and thus for his dynasty, bothHungary andPoland. Thus for a time the House of Luxembourg threatened to crash out the Hapsburgs. In two directions only Charles's adroit agreements and diplomatic skill failed of success. TheSwiss Confederation seceded more and more completely from the empire, and the cities by their leagues established for themselves an independent position in the empire. Towards the end of his life he secured the election of his son Wenceslaus as German king.

Wenceslaus (1378-1400) reigned without the confirmation of the defencelesspope of that time. The German crown was no longer dependent on thepapacy. Other questions far more important than this were now brought into the foreground by the Great Schism. There was a continually growing clamour, which could not be suppressed, for the reform of theChurch in its head and members. The demand for reform had infused new life into the whole conception of theChurch, and the leaders of this movement still held toCatholicdogmas. The most difficult task of the new king, and one he did not shirk, was to put an end to theschism. He sided withRome and supportedUrban VI whileFrance, at the head of the Romanic countries, upheldClement VII. Wenceslaus, however, took no energetic action inecclesiastical affairs; the internal disorder in Germany did not permit it, for here the confederations of princes,knights, and the cities, struggled with one another. In 1381 the confederation of the Rhenish cities formed a coalition with the league of the Swabian cities and sought with considerable success to obtain the adherence of other Swabian towns and of those of North Germany. Thus strengthened, the cities wished to share in the government of the empire; this desire was opposed by the princes who in military force were superior to the cities. The attempts of the rulers ofAustria to overthrow theSwiss confederates failed, but in Germany the army of the Swabian League suffered a crushing defeat in 1388 near Doeffingen. After this Wenceslaus changed his policy and sided with the princes. Confederations of the cities were forbidden. Owing to their lack of union the cities succumbed in this contest for political independence and the territorial princes were the conquerors. The quick-tempered, irascible king sought to strengthen his hold on his hereditary provinces by protecting himself against the other ruling princes, but in this he was not successful. A government by favouritism of the worst kind began which excited theanger of the nobility and theclergy. A dispute with theArchbishop ofPrague led to themurder, by the king's command, of thearchbishop'svicar-general, John of Pomuk, and this caused open rebellion. In 1394 the nobles with Jost, Margrave of Moravia, as their leader, took the kingprisoner; he was soon set free at the instance of the German princes, but his release did not do away with the rule of the nobility inBohemia. In this era of confusion no attempt was made to oppose the repeated incursions (1388) of Charles VI ofFrance into Germany. Wenceslaus looked on inactively when the French king undertook to carry out a scheme for putting an end to theschism by securing the success of theAvignonpope by a bold stroke; but in 1392 Charles VI became insane, and his plans were brought to nought. The waning influence of the German Empire was everywhere perceptible and called forth universal indignation. The king's lack of capacity for government led the majority of the electors to form a league for the protection of the interests of the country.

Soon after this the three episcopal electors chose Ruprecht, Count Palatine of the Rhine, as King of Germany (1400-10). As only a part of the electors joined in this choice Ruprecht was never more than a pretender, and although he was an ambitious and capable man he never succeeded in uniting the empire. Ruprecht hoped to gain popularity by restoring German influence in northernItaly, and by securing the imperial crown to prove himself the legal sovereign. As Ruprecht had no money, his expedition toItaly was inglorious, and its failure had a bad effect on his position in Germany. Even his final recognition by thepope, who had for a long time held to the Luxembourg dynasty, his faithful supporters, did little to aid Ruprecht's cause, and his throne began to totter. In 1405 Archbishop Johann ofMainz combined the princes against Ruprecht in the League of Marbach which, however, accomplished next to nothing. In the question of theschism Ruprecht supportedBoniface IX. As King of theGermans Ruprecht was a failure. During the laxity of government that followed his death the German conquests in the eastern part of the empire were in danger of being lost. A new factor had appeared in history, the Kingdom ofPoland.

All this time the confusion in the affairs of theChurch had continued to grow worse, and it was now proposed to put an end to theschism by means of a council. Thecardinals of the two rivalpopes called a council atPisa which deposed PopesGregory XII andBenedict XIII and electedAlexander V, butGregory and Benedict could still count on some supporters, and the world thus saw threepopes. The greater part of Germany held to the newpope,Alexander V, but the party of the Count Palatine and of theBishop ofTrier held toGregory. A period of utter confusion and great distress ofconscience followed; all the relations of life suffered, the political by no means the least. In Germany the troubles led to a double election; Sigismund of Luxembourg, King ofHungary, the brother of Wenceslaus was elected (1410-37), as was also Jost, Margrave of Moravia. Jost withdrew, and Wenceslaus resigned the government to Sigismund, who in 1411 was generally recognized as emperor. The impotence of the last reign convinced the electors, who had chosen Margrave Jost for reasons of Church politics, that a king who had not large territorial power could accomplish nothing. Consequently they dropped their opposition to Sigismund. The latter's life before his election had been a very eventful one. He had married the daughter and heiress of Louis the Great ofHungary, and had beencrowned king of that country in 1387. In thewar betweenHungary and theTurks he had been completely defeated by Sultan Bajazet; after this he had to contend with a dangerous rebellion inHungary. Sigismund was talented, eloquent, witty, and exceedingly ambitious; he was inclined to visionary schemes, but he honestly desired to relieve the woeful troubles of his time. In his hereditary dominions, to whichHungary was now added, there was great disorder. Yet notwithstanding this he succeeded in bringing together the great councils ofConstance and Basle. Ambition led him to attempt to settle the difficulties in which theChurch was involved, but he was also impelled by political considerations. He hoped that a council would aid him in suppressing the religious troubles kindled in his hereditary kingdom ofBohemia byJohn Hus. It was notzeal for theChurch, however, which inspired his interest in the council, as is evident from the general bent of his mind. For with all his interest in literature and learning, Sigismund scrupulously avoided involving himself intheological difficulties; moreover he took pleasure in denouncing the faults of theclergy. Nevertheless it was Sigismund's energy that held together thegreat council at Constance. It was certainly not his fault that many were not satisfied with the result of this and the following council. The forcible interference of theCouncil of Constance in the religious difficulties ofBohemia and the burning ofJohn Hus were injurious to Sigismund's dynastic interests, and not in accordance with his political schemes. InBohemia and Moravia theHussites at once strove to prevent the king from taking possession of these countries; and it, especially inBohemia, was a violent religious and national outbreak. The king was held directly responsible for the burning of the national hero and saint. Fanatical hordes led by Ziska repeatedly overthrew Sigismund's army in hiscrusade against theHussites, and the storm spread over the adjacent provinces of the empire.Bavaria, Franconia,Saxony, and Silesia were terribly devastated. The imperial government broke down completely. The selfishness of the cities prevented the reform of the German military system, even after its necessity had beenproved by further successes of theHussites. In 1427 an imperial law for the levying of a war-tax was laid before the Diet atFrankfurt, but it was never carried out.

In addition to the troubles inBohemia, Sigismund's already insecure position was made more precarious by a fresh invasion ofHungary by theTurks. The only help he received was from Duke Albert V ofAustria, his son-in-law and the prospective heir of the great inheritance of the Luxembourg possessions. The jealousy among the German states prevented common action against both foes. Sigismund's chiefambition, after the reunion and reformation of theChurch, to unite all the nations of WesternEurope in awar against theTurks, became more and more hopeless. The defeat of theHussites appeared equally impossible, and negotiations were opened with them, peace being finally arranged at Basle. Sigismund induced thepope to weaken in his attitude towards theconciliar theory, and especially to the Council of Basle which was to deal with the Hussite difficulties. To gain his point he had gone toRome, where he wascrowned emperor in 1433. Even inBohemia where the existinganarchy had been increased by a new religious quarrel, where the moderate Calixtines had obtained a decisive victory over the Taborites under Procopius the Great in 1434, the need of peace grew more and more intense. The year previous to this, 1433, a commission of the Council of Basle had made a number of concessions to theHussites in the Compact of Basle or of Prague; among these was thegranting of the Cup to the laity. On the basis of the Compact a peace was agreed to, which was followed by the recognition (1436) of Sigismund as king inBohemia. When this was attained Sigismund seemed to lose all concern for the reform of theChurch and empire in which before he had shown so keen and active an interest. He can hardly be blamed for the boundless selfishness and jealousy of the princes repeatedly wrecked the work of reform; and the whole responsibility for the scanty gains for the empire achieved during his reign should not be laid on his shoulders. Only two of his measures were to have permanent existence: the transfer of the Mark of Brandenburg to the Hohenzollerns, and the granting of electoral Saxony to the House of Wettin. The great councils passed without bringing the fervently desired reform. Great changes were witnessed in these assemblies. At Basle thepope was regarded simply as a representative of theChurch, and the superiority of the council over thepope was openly declared. In 1433 Procopius had been allowed to enter Basle at the head of hisheretical followers and to set forth his opinions before the assembled members of the council without molestation. At Basle opinions which were signs of a revolutionary movement in theChurch repeatedly appeared. In character this council differed entirely from all earlier ones; the excitement was so great that tumults and brawls occurred. Contrary to the wishes ofRome the council remained at Basle; the fear was that if it were transferred to Italian soil the work of reform would be forgotten. Yet the honest intentions of the majority of the members cannot bedoubted. In the end thepope was victorious, and the council was transferred toFerrara. Some of the members remained at Basle and the spectacle of aconciliarschism was offered to the world.

In this troubled era Albert II (1438-39), Duke ofAustria, was chosen emperor. The electors recognized the fact that the centre of gravity of the empire now lay towards the east. Albert, member of the Hapsburgfamily, had not put himself forward as a candidate, and the electors probably selected him through fear that the important andnecessary eastern territories might fall away from the empire. Before he could come to Western Germany Albert, a rough soldier, died during a campaign against theTurks.

The election now went to the head of the Hapsburgfamily, the inert and indolent Frederick III, who, as King of the Romans, was Frederick IV (1440-93). During his reign the work of reform in the empire fell completely into abeyance. He too wasobliged to face the difficulties in theChurch. The electors had decided to remain neutral in the dispute between thepope and the Council of Basle, but this neutrality had been broken, inasmuch as the Diet ofMainz in 1439 accepted the reformdecree of Basle, with exception of the assertion of the superiority of the council over thepope. Henceforthbishops andabbots were to be elected canonically, but the king had theright to secure the election of suitablepersons by negotiation. Papal reservations and annates were abolished. The Council of Basle, however, held firmly to its exaggerated conception of the powers of a council, and its members wished to establish thedogma ofconciliar superiority by deposingPope Eugene IV. In this dispute the electors remained neutral. The reform of theChurch was more and more lost sight of by the Council of Basle in its struggle with thepope. Frederick, who was appealed to by bothRome and Basle, at first remained neutral; then he proposed the calling of a new council toreunite divided Christianity. WesternEurope gradually turned again to the rightfulpope, and thepope elected at Basle,Felix V, received but slight recognition. For a time the German attitude of neutrality was maintained, but after a while Frederick gave the impulse to the universal recognition ofPope Eugene. This was brought about by Aeneas Sylvius, laterPius II, an adroit diplomat who was able to influence the king and the leading princes. An agreement was made withRome in the Concordat ofVienna (1448) in which theCuria made but trifling concessions, while the question of reform received scant consideration. From now on the Synod of Basle, transferred to Lausanne, had only a shadowy existence. TheCuria, although sorely pressed, had once more conquered. The general anxiety to avoid a newschism in theChurch had far more to do with the settlement of theseecclesiastical troubles than the interference of Frederick. Moreover Frederick showed his lack of skill in other ways. In 1444 theSwiss at the battle of St. Jakob on the Birs, not far from Basle, by their extraordinarycourage defeated his French mercenaries, called Armagnacs, and thus frustrated his schemes for restoring the control of the Hapsburgs over theSwiss League. In spite of the constant disorders in the empire and the frequentwars, Frederick never wavered in hisbelief in the future greatness of the Hapsburg dynasty. It was this confidence that in 1452 led him toRome, where he wascrowned emperor by thepope, the last German king to becrowned atRome. Directly afterwards came the capture of Constantinople by theTurks, whichobliged the emperor to take up arms for the defence of the eastern frontier of his realm. Yet he could neither maintain peace within the empire nor its most importantrights. Luxembourg and the possessions of the Wittelsbachfamily in theNetherlands fell into the hands ofBurgundy, the Poles annexed WestPrussia, and the remnant of theTeutonic Order in East Prussia wasobliged to recognize the suzerainty of the Polish king. Thus the Germanizing influences that had been at work for centuries in what is now the eastern part of the German Empire were destroyed.

The complete breakdown of the power of the empire called forth the demand that the emperor should be either deposed or have a coadjutor, but the lack of harmony among the electors prevented any change. The clamour for internal reform grew louder, but nothing was done except to enactlaws for the maintenance of the public peace. During this confusion Frederick's position in his hereditary possessions became very precarious. The Czechs had held the preponderating power inBohemia ever since the time of the Hussite troubles and now elected George of Podiebrad as king. The Hungarians also chose a ruler for themselves, electing the hero of thewars with theTurks,Matthias I Corvinus.Matthias soon overthrew theBohemian king, and in 1487 apparently intended to form a great kingdom by uniting the eastern German provinces with theBohemian,Moravian, and Hungarian territories. Important changes also occurred in the northern part of Germany. The Counts of Holstein, who had carried the German nationality into the northern territory of what is now Germany, had received Schleswig as early as 1386 in fief fromDenmark; the two provinces, Holstein and Schleswig, soon grew together. After the death of the last Count of Holstein, King Christian ofDenmark was in 1460 elected duke by Schleswig and Holstein. In this way he became a prince of the empire, a point of importance in the near future. This was afterwards to influence the position of the Baltic countries and the German interests there. For centuries the centre of the empire had been in the south, and Germany had no maritime interests. In this case also, as in the Germanization of the east, self-help was the means of attaining the desired end. The Hanseatic League, a union of German mercantile guilds, rapidly extended from Cologne to Reval on the Gulf of Finland. From the middle of the thirteenth century the chief towns of the League were Luebeck andHamburg. German commerce flourished on all waters, for the members of the League carried the fame of their country across all the seas surrounding theEurope of that day. It is in fact a striking phenomenon that the national feeling was invigorated, while the strength of the empire was weakened by the division into so many petty sovereignties. The Hanseatic League maintained its ascendency in the Baltic as late as the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

At the same time a great power threatened to spring up in the west. By peaceful agreement Charles the Bold, Duke ofBurgundy (1467-77), attempted to secure Frederick's consent to his election as King of the Romans and to the elevation of his possessions to the rank of an independent kingdom. But all these ambitious plans came to an end upon the death of Charles at the battle ofNancy in 1477. The duke's possessions fell to Louis XI ofFrance, while Maximilian, son of the Emperor Frederick and son-in-law of Charles the Bold, hastened to theNetherlands, which he secured for himself (1479) by the brilliant battle at Guinegate. He was not, however, able to make himself master ofBurgundy and Artois. Moreover,Flanders was not willing to submit to the new regime and it was not until 1489 that it was completely subdued. Somewhat later, on the death ofMatthias Corvinus in 1490, Maximilian's energetic action gained for his dynasty the future possession ofHungary andBohemia, while at the same time he reunited the Tyrol withAustria. Consequently when the old emperor died, all looked to the knightly hero Maximilian for the restoration of the empire.

Thus the outlook was by no means unfavourable at the time Maximilian I (1493-1519) ascended the throne. There were even indications of a healthier condition of internal affairs. The Swabian League, made up of the free cities and of theknights, sought, especially in 1486, to effect an adjustment of those interests of the different estates which most threatened the existence of the empire. Another favourable sign was the rapid development in civilization and culture of the several principalities. No less promising was the decision of the electors, now that the imperial authority had shown its entire impotence to check further decentralization. Turbulent agitation for reform in the cities was another important indication in the same direction. Maximilian tried by vigorous reforms to win the good will of the cities, the aid of which would be essential to him in the expectedwar withFrance, but the obstacles to be overcome before reforms could be introduced seemed steadily to increase. The most serious difficulty was and remained the antagonism between the interests of the empire and those of the princes. Maximilian, with his dynastic resources, which were made up of very heterogeneous elements, was not able to overcome these opposing forces. Thus the Diet of Worms in 1495 could not do much to promote reform on account of the opposing interests of the ruling princes, the freeknights of the empire, and the imperial cities. At this diet the "Universal Pacification of the Empire" was proclaimed. All privatewars were forbidden. An Imperial Chamber was established as a perpetual supreme court for the maintenance of the public peace, and the appointments to it were made by the emperor and the Estates of the empire. So many matters, however, were turned over to this court that it was condemned to inactivity from the outset. Nor was the Imperial Chamber able to promote the public peace, as it lacked all power of enforcing its decrees. Order in the empire could not be attained until the subordinate rulers became strong enough to exercise a vigorous police power in their territories. Maximilian had only agreed to the establishment of this court on condition that a general imperial tax, "the common penny," and military help againstFrance and theTurks should be promised him. Concessions of a very different character had also been demanded by the ruling princes from the king. The powerfulArchbishop ofMainz,Berthold of Henneberg, was the first to express the opinion that the administration of the empire should be placed in the hands of the electors, without, however, doing away with the monarchy. This proposition of the Diet of Worms was rejected by Maximilian. Five years later, however, when the promised financial and military aid was not forthcoming, he consented to the appointment of a permanent Imperial Council atNuremberg. If this council had maintained an active existence for any length of time the king would have become a mere puppet. But after two years the royal powerproved strong enough to break down the unnatural limitations imposed on it by the Estates.

During these constitutional struggles within the empire the hostile feeling betweenFrance and Germany continued to grow.France, now greatly increased in power, wished to gain a firm foothold in the Italian peninsula, and put forward claims toNaples andMilan. Thus began the long struggle of the Hapsburg dynasty withFrance for the possession ofItaly. Maximilian was unable to checkmate the Italian schemes of the French king. In the end Maximilian even changed his policy, for, in order to gain assistance againstVenice, he allied himself withFrance. Yet even now he reaped no laurels inItaly. In the Swabianwar also, which theSwiss confederated cantons carried on against the Swabian League, his intervention was unsuccessful. As a matter of fact Maximilian wasobliged, in the Treaty of Basle (1501), to acknowledge the independence of theSwiss Confederation. In the course of thesewars theSwiss had become enthusiastic soldiers, and after thisSwitzerland could furnish or refuse entire armies of mercenaries, in this way attainingEuropean importance in the great struggle of the Hapsburgs withFrance. The work of reform in the empire, however, came to a complete standstill on account of these unsuccessful foreign undertakings. The only permanent result of all these efforts was the Imperial Chamber. The course of history could not be reversed: the territorial development of the separate states had been toological to allow its reversal. A strengthening of the central administration, the preliminary condition for a reform of the empire, was no longer possible. In 1508 Maximilian had assumed the title of "Elected Roman Emperor," thus proclaiming that the imperial dignity was independent ofpapal confirmation. Restlessly active, he staked everything on the success of those foreign policies that would strengthen his royal power. It was for this reason that he finally returned to his earlier course of action and joined the Holy League againstFrance. The brilliant success ofFrancis I over theSwiss at Marignano (1515) forced Maximilian to agree to a peace by which the French receivedMilan, andVenice obtainedVerona. In the meantime various imperial diets again took up the question of reform, but the whole reform movement failed entirely, and the separate states gained a complete victory over the central administration. At Maximilian's death practically nothing had been accomplished for the constitution of the empire.

Political and cultural life followed the course of development we have described, the foci being in the several states. Among these states the most prominent were the electoral principalities, which had been granted special honours and privileges by the GoldenBull. The three Rhenish electors were the most important political personages. Saxony was much increased in size by the addition ofMeissen. It would have become the leading state of northern Germany had not its territories been divided in 1485 between the Albertine and Ernestine branches of the rulingfamily. The Electoral Mark of Brandenburg, acquire in 1417 by the Hohenzollerns, was still in the beginnings of its growth. The Hussitewars had almost entirely estrangedBohemia from the empire. The Palatinate of the Rhine, always a home of culture, was still one of its centres. The Duchies of Brunswick-Lueneburg andBavaria were also prominent. In 1495 the able Counts of Wirtemberg (Würtemberg) received Countship of Swabia, which was raised to a duchy. Baden grew into a principality more slowly. More rapid was the development ofHesse, whose sovereigns under the title of Landgraves, were soon to come into prominence. The future of the empire depended on these minor states. The empire lacked imperial civil officials, imperial taxes, an imperial army, a general and systematized administration of imperialjustice, while in these subordinate states there arose a defined government, a centralization of the civil officials, a systematic administration of law. This is alsotrue of Maxmilian's hereditary possessions, the Austrian provinces. The leaders of progress in this respect also were the imperial cities, in whichintellectual life began to flourish. In art they produced anAlbrecht Dürer and the twoHolbeins. A darker side, however, was not lacking to this brilliant city life. Bloody outbreaks were often caused by a restless proletariat. Dissatisfaction was also rife among the freeknights of the empire who had lost their former importance in consequence of the change in the military system, which had again made infantry the decisive element in battle. Moreover discontent was at work among the peasantry. Theknights became robber-knights and highwaymen. Though banned by the empire, Franz von Sickingen, without authority, carried onwar with the city of Worms. Theeconomic changes had even more ruinous consequences for the peasantry. The age of discovery, of the growth of commerce, and of the great inventions, is also the age in which capital made its appearance as the great power of the world. There was a change in the value of money which brought severe suffering upon the peasantry which was despised and politically withoutrights, especially in the thickly populated southern part of Germany. Communistic writings appeared, which discussed the position of the peasants. The unrest increased in Franconia, Swabia, and on the upper Rhine, and revolts occurred. It was proposed to found acommunistic kingdom ofGod and all hopes were placed on a strong emperor. Mixed with these desires was the expectation of a thorough reform ofecclesiastical affairs concerning which dissatisfaction was loudly expressed.

The social-religious restlessness continually increased. The period of political confusion had not passed by without leaving its impress on the German character. The brilliant exterior of life covered but thinly the brutality within. There was widespread evidence of the lack of morality in domestic life, of barbarity in the administration ofjustice, and of inhumanity inwar. Loyalty to theChurch continually decreased, although a rich and voluminous religious literature had been disseminated by the art of printing. Great preachers, likeGeiler von Kaysersberg atStrasburg, also appeared at this time. TheBrethren of the Common Life took for their ideal the abnegation of the world. But all this failed to prevent the decline of the authoritative influence of theChurch on the life of the people. The Great Schism had severely shaken the position of thepapacy. The common people were estranged from theChurch. A craving for religious self-help arose, and religious movements antagonistic to theChurch won large followings. German learning loosened the bond that up to then had united it totheology. A newintellectual movement disputed the dominance ofScholasticism at theuniversities.Nicholas of Cusa, Æneas Sylvius, andGregor von Heimburg prepared the way forHumanism. Themedieval ideals having apparently lost their attraction, men turned to others, which advocated the world and its pleasures in opposition to self-abnegation, and instead ofmedieval universalism preached the freedom of the individual.

In the second half of the fifteenth centuryItalianHumanism entered Germany in order to break down here as it had done inItaly the absolute domination of theecclesiastical conception of the world. ButHumanism in Germany assumed an entirely different form. In Germany the end sought was not beauty of form in learning, art, and life; here it manifested, rather, a practical, pedagogical, and, finally, religious tendency. Aided by the art of printing,humanism by its delight in experiment and induction, roused othersciences to fresh life, such as thescience of history and especially the naturalsciences. Individualism, moreover, strengthened the national sentiment and was a powerful force in overthrowingmedieval universalism, and in putting an end to the ideal of themedieval world, the universality of theKingdom of God. At the close of Maximilian's reign the signs of the times were undoubtedly very threatening, yet closer investigation shows that theChristianidea was still powerful. Notwithstanding the turning away of many from theChurch, there were still men in Germany who were filled with thisidea. These men did not conceal from themselves the necessity of genuine moral reform. The same power and intensity ofChristian feeling that had built the greatcathedrals in the laterMiddle Ages was still alive in the more serious minded part of the nation. Only theelect few carried these feelings over into the succeeding age, and with them the certain expectation of the reform of theChurch from within.

From 1556 to 1618

After the death of Maximilian I the two great competitors for the imperial crown wereFrancis I of France andCharles, Maximilian's grandson. Notwithstanding the opposition ofLeo X and the alienation of French sympathies, the choice of the electors fell onCharles (28 June, 1519), who wascrowned asCharles V atAachen, on 23 October, 1520, and byClement VII at Bologna, on 23 February, 1530. In January, 1521, he opened the Diet of Worms and his administration of the Holy Roman Empire lasted until his abdication. In 1556Charles V resigned the imperial throne. This act implied a serious break in the continuity of the political andreligious history of the German people.Charles's reign had lasted for more than a generation, but only an insignificant part of it had been devoted to Germany. His attention had been mainly given to theNetherlands, toSpain, and to thewars withFrance and theTurks. Consequently from 1520 the defection from theChurch had made more and more rapid headway, in spite of the emperor's prohibitory edicts issued at the Diet of Worms (1521) and at the Diet of Augsburg (1530), and shortly after 1540 this apostasy threatened to affect the whole of Germany. At the same time the separatist tendencies of the ruling princes increased in strength. It was not until towards the end of his reign thatCharles took measures to check the princes of the empire. By thewar in Gelderland (1543), the deposition of theArchbishop ofCologne (1547), and the Smalkaldic War (1546-47), he succeeded in bringing the triumphant career ofProtestantism to a standstill, thus saving the greater part of western and southern Germany toCatholicism. Driven from these territoriesProtestantism overran, during the following decades, theBavarian and Bohemian-Austrian provinces in the south-east. But even there it was not able to maintain itself. On the other hand,Charles did not succeed in forcing the princes to return to their proper position in the empire and to subordination to the emperor. The most important of the princes were the rulers of the northern states; these were in no wise affected byCharles's military successes, as he did not push his operations as far as northern Germany. The Dukes of Saxon andBavaria also, who were friendly toCharles and took part in his campaigns, suffered no curtailment of their power. The partial failure ofCharles determined the future development of the empire, the basis of which was laid down in the recess of the Imperial Diet of 1555. By it, in the so-called Religious Peace of Augsburg, Germany was divided between theCatholics and the adherents of the Augsburg Confession, and the territorial princes were practically made the political arbiters of the empire. The principle,cujus regio, ejus religio, was recognized. The Imperial Chamber (Reichskammergericht) was subjected to the influence of the Estates of the empire. In the newly instituted system of administration by "circles" also, the control of the emperor was no longer permitted. Further, the permanent council of administration (Reichsdeputationstag), an organ of centralization developed in 1558 from the system of "circles," was summoned and presided over by the Elector ofMainz as chancellor of the empire and not by the emperor. Economical and judicial legislation devolved on the separate states. At the Diet ofSpeyer (1570) the princes annulled the supreme authority of the emperor in military matters.

These events implied not only a change in the government of the empire, so that it was controlled by the electors and not by the emperor, but the empire itself became almost a shadow incapable of great administrative actions. Its constitutional powers waned; diets were seldom convoked (only ten up to 1618), the decisions of the Imperial Chamber were not carried out, the administration by "circles" did not take root. The empire failed just as signally, as aEuropean power, in maintaining its interests during the greatwars of the reign of Philip II in WesternEurope, an exception being the Pacification of Cologne (1579), which sought to restore order in theNetherlands, but to which little heed was paid. Not even the boundaries of the empire were maintained. From about 1580 theSpaniards andDutch established themselves in the Rhine provinces and Emden, andSpain sought in addition to obtain Alsace.France entangled as many of the south-western sections of the empire as possible in its intrigues, especially the city ofStrasburg. James I ofEngland married his daughter to the Elector Palatine. On the Baltic coast the Swedes,Russians, and Poles despoiled theGermans of the more distant territories colonized by them, while the Danes settled in the southwest corner of the Baltic. At the same time theDutch overthrew theeconomic supremacy of the Hanseatic League in the Baltic Sea and German Ocean. On the Danube the Hapsburgs were compelled to buy an armistice with theTurks by the payment of tribute. The blame for the helpless condition of the empire rested principally on the reigning princes. They took no interest in its affairs, not because they were lacking in German sentiment, but because the horizon of theirideas was still too restricted, and because either they gave little thought to politics or their attention was absorbed by the details of administration within their own dominions. The governmental organization of their principalities was still very imperfect. The conservation and gradual development of their territories engrossed the energies of the princes, especially of the most powerful among them, the Elector Augustus of Saxony (1553-86) and Duke Albert V ofBavaria (1550-89). They, therefore, avoidedwar above all things. The only alliance among them that had any stability at that time, the "Landsberg League" of southern Germany (1556-90), had, for its sole object, the maintenance of peace.

The emperors of this period, Ferdinand I (1556-64), Maximilian II (1564-76), Rudolf II (1576-1612), and Matthias (1612-19), not only failed to arouse the princes to a more intelligent treatment of the affairs of the empire, but by their own policy they encouraged the princes to pursue purely personal ends. For, unlikeCharles V who had ruled a world-empire, his successors governed territories, the political importance of which barely exceeded that of the majority of German states, and which only surpassed these latter in extent. Accordingly, as none of them were men of pre-eminent ability, their political aims were narrow, their need of peace urgent, and their credit inadequate, while the credit of the western powers had largely developed since the time ofCharles V. Moreover they had harder conditions to face in their own dominions than the other princes. Most of their territories were in the eastern part ofEurope where, from the end of the fifteenth century, the landed petty nobles, who formed a large class, opposed with ever-increasing success the progress of the commonalty and the introduction of orderly administration under the control of the sovereign. With this inferior nobility in the dominions of the German Hapsburgs, theProtestants, who attracted to themselves all the opposing elements, made common cause. Thus the emperors were by degrees so harassed in theirfamily possessions that, towards the end of Rudolf's reign, the power fell into the hands of the nobility, and Matthias, though advised by his able ministerCardinal Klesl, was hardly able to maintain his authority.

In the period from 1556 to 1618 the only general movement in the inner politics of the empire, and one that caused important changes in the relative influence of the German rulers, namely, the endeavour to place theecclesiastical principalities in the hands of the younger sons of reigning princes, was entirely due to the desire of these princes to increase their territories. Theecclesiastical domains in the eastern provinces of Germany were few and insignificant, whereas in the northwest as well as throughout the west and south they were numerous, some being large in extent and of great importance. With exception of the territorially powerfulDiocese of Münster and the small diocese ofHildesheim, those in the east and north came under the control ofProtestant princes as "administrators" to the aggrandizement of the Houses of Wettin, Hohenzollern, andGuelph. In this way these territories were made ripe for secularization.Bavarian princes became Bishops of Cologne and Hildesheim, which were, thereby, saved from the fate that befell the others. These measures quickened the process of consolidation by which the territories of a few dynastic houses in northern Germany steadily grew in extent, the result being of considerable importance in the future political development of Germany. On the other hand, the attempts of the princes to annex the spiritual principalities of southern Germany failed.Protestantism entered these territories at a later date and with less force than it had in those of northern Germany. Consequently theecclesiastical lands in the south had more power of resistance than those in the north, while the princes were weaker, because their number was large and their possessions all small, excepting what belonged to the Austrian Hapsburgs on the Upper Rhine and perhaps also the territory belonging toWürtemberg. In these circumstances the Ecclesiastical Reservation (Reservatum Ecclesiasticum), adopted at the instance of theCatholics in the Recess of the Imperial Diet of 1555,proved an effective precautionary measure in southern Germany. It provided that anybishop orabbot who turnedProtestant could not take advantage of the rule cujus regio, ejus religio, but must resign.

The chief opponents of theecclesiastical principalities in southern Germany were the representatives of the House of Wittelsbach, rulers of the Palatinates and ofBavaria. Prominent because of their noble descent, the Elector Palatine being in fact the ranking temporal elector, they were all poor in land. The branch that ruled the Palatinate of Neuburg acquired a heritage on the Lower Rhine by marrying into the ducal House of Cleves-Juelich, which was becoming extinct. The other branches sought to extend their domains at the expense of their neighbours. What decided the predominance of theCatholics in the south was the result of two movements which settled the question whether theProtestants, in spite of the successes in 1543-47 ofCharles V, were finally to seize Cologne and the whole country of the Lower Rhine and from these centres crush theCatholics of southern Germany. In the first of these contests, the "Cologne War" (1582-84), which arose from the apostasy ofArchbishop Gebhard Truchsess, the lastArchbishop ofCologne who was not aBavarian, theCatholics were successful. In the second, the contest over the Cleves-Juelich succession on the extinction of the native ducalfamily, the inheritance, it istrue, passed toProtestant rulers, the Palatines of Neuburg and the Hohenzollerns; but of these the Neuburg line becameCatholic in 1612, so that the danger was dispelled once more. As a consequence theCatholicChurch gained sufficient time, after theCouncil of Trent, to accomplish gradually the reconversion of the greater part of southern and western Germany, especially sinceBavaria in the south, and Münster as well as Cologne in the west, remained faithful to it. The political consequence of theCatholic victory in the southwest was that this part of the empire, in contrast to the northern sections, continued to be split up into many principalities. This caused a constant state of unrest among the reigning princes and the nobles of the empire in south-western Germany. The electors palatine, especially, were dissatisfied with their fortunes. They pursued within the empire a policy of hostility to theCatholics and to the imperial house that became more and more reckless with each succeeding decade. Moreover they were in league withFrance and other foreign countries. In accordance with this policy they turned from theLutheran to theCalvinisticfaith and put themselves at the head of all the discontented elements in the empire. Up to 1591 their aim was to bring about a union of all the GermanProtestant princes, including theLutheran, for the purpose of enforcing the claims ofProtestantism in south-western Germany. Even Saxony eventually took part in these negotiations. At the same timeCalvinism also penetrated surreptitiously into central Germany (the so-called Crypto-Calvinisin). But in 1592 a complete revulsion took place inSaxony. After that, the only remaining adherents of the palatine princes in central Germany were a few petty reigning princes and counts of that section. One of them, Christian of Anhalt, appears actually to have guided the policies of the electoral palatinate from 1592-1620. After sixteen years more of persistent urging, a few princes of south-western Germany joined the palatine princes in 1608 to form the "Protestant Union." Their value as allies, however, was in inverse ratio to their historical fame. The hopes of foreign succour that the palatine princes had entertained alsoproved vain; in 1609 theNetherlands concluded an armistice withSpain; in 1610Henry IV ofFrance was assassinated. In their disappointment theCalvinists brought the entire machinery of the empire to a standstill by breaking up the Imperial Diet in 1613. In their freebooting temper the party was ready to snatch at whatsoever spoil presented itself.

TheCalvinistic party was, nevertheless, too weak to inflict any serious harm. TheLutherans, under the leadership ofSaxony, drew back more and more. TheCatholics, led byBavaria, maintained a purely defensive attitude. The revival ofreligious life among them made but slow progress, despite the strenuous exertions of theBavarian rulers, of the Hapsburgs, and of individualbishops, of whom theBishop ofWürzburg,Julius Echter of Mespelbrunn, was the most prominent, and of theJesuits. The situation was in no wise altered by the fact that in 1598 Maximilian I succeeded to the sovereignty ofBavaria. He surpassed all the German princes of that period in ability and energy, and in the course of a few years he madeBavaria the most powerful of the German states. But he was prudent, peaceable, and above all intent on the internal improvement of his principality. Only on one occasion did he offer a decided opposition to theCalvinistic party; in 1607 he seized Donauwörth, which hadpersecuted itsCatholic inhabitants. The Catholic League, which he organized in 1609 to offset the Protestant Union, was of a purely defensive nature.

Thus, in spite of unrest, the peace of the empire was apparently not in immediate danger at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Its impotence, however, was most clearly manifested in itseconomic andintellectual life. UnderCharles V the German mercantileinstinct had made the mistake of giving itself largely to the profitable business of money transactions with governments. This was no longer lucrative, but the self-controlnecessary for the more arduous gains of industrial enterprises now hardly existed. Moreover, political conditions made commerce timid. The free cities of the empire, the centres of mercantile life, had lost the support of the imperial power. The princes were either hostile to them or still biased by theireconomic views of land and agriculture. Furthermore, the extent of the several principalities was too small to form the basis of commercial undertakings while customsduties closed their frontiers. Foreign competition was already proving a superior force; commerce and manufacture, with the prosperity of which the growth of great states seems universally bound up, were at the point of collapse in Germany. Intellectual life was in an equally discouraging state. Almost without knowing it the nation had been divided by theReformation into two religious camps, and a large part of it had accepted a wholly differentfaith. The thoughts of the people were being concentrated more and more on this one fact. They were encouraged in this by the princes who had derived from theschism great advantages in position and possessions, and also by theclergy on either side. The still insurmountable prejudice of theLutherans of northern Germany againstCatholics can be traced to the sermons of their preachers in the sixteenth century. From an entirely different point of view theJesuits exhorted theCatholics to have as little as possible to do withProtestants. Sectarian strife controlled allminds. Thereby the common consciousness of nationality was just as obscured in the people as it was dulled in the princes by political selfishness.

From 1618 to 1713

1618 to 1648

The political life of the German nation was quickened into fresh activity by the strong character of several princes who in their respective states took up almost simultaneously the fight against the preponderating power of the petty landed nobility. Those among these princes who made their mark on German history were Ferdinand II ofAustria, Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, and, a generation later, Frederick William of Brandenburg, called the Great Elector. In 1617Frederick II was chosen by hisfamily, on account of the vigour he had shown as ruler ofStyria, to be the associate and successor of Matthias. No sooner had the nobles felt Ferdinand's strong hand than they revolted inBohemia, where they were most rebellious (1618). As Ferdinand did not have at his disposal the means to suppress it vigorously, the rebellion spread to the Danubian provinces, where it was supported by the rulers ofTransylvania. When Matthias died (1619) the insurgents, through the mediation of Christian of Anhalt, went to the extreme of raising the head of the Union, Frederick V of Palatinate, to the throne ofBohemia (August, 1619), in order to obtain the help of the GermanProtestants. At the same time, however, Ferdinand was chosen emperor by the electors, whereupon Maximilian ofBavaria and the Elector of Saxony promised to fight on his side. The issue at stake was the existence of the Hapsburg dynasty. The struggle was carried on chiefly by troops of the two Wittelsbach lines and the Elector Palatine was defeated by the Duke ofBavaria on 8 November, 1620, at the battle of the White Mountain (Weissenberg) before the gates of Prague. Ferdinand II followed up his victory vigorously and from 1621 to 1628 established a new basis of political administration in his dominions. The multiplicity of heterogeneous Hapsburg territories, bound together almost solely by dynastic unity, was to be replaced by a compact Austrian state. This was to be founded on a system of government based on one official language, the German, on uniformity of administrative principles, on the profession of theCatholicfaith by the entire population, and on the steady support of the reigning house by a body of great landed proprietors whose states were made up of the confiscated lands of the landed petty nobility. These great landowners, established in the various dominions of the Hapsburgs and free from separatist traditions, were to represent the principle of a single state as against the peoples of the several provinces.

The consequences of this change of system were soon felt all overEurope. The scheme had in view the organization of so extensive a state that the united Austrian dominion must needs become one of the great powers ofEurope. Hitherto great countries had developed only in WesternEurope, namelySpain andFrance. Their fields of conflict wereItaly andBurgundy. Now, however, a strong power was rising on the borders of centralEurope, which appeared to have unlimited room for expansion in the territories of easternEurope. By means of its dynastic connexion withSpain it was as well a menace toFrance. As early as 1623Austria andSpain supported each other inSwitzerland; in 1628 Ferdinand by his power as emperor protected the interests ofSpain in the War of the Mantuan Succession. As a resultFrance became the natural enemy ofAustria from the very beginning.

It was for this reason that the empire first became interested in the issue of thewar inBohemia. The greater portion of its territory lay betweenFrance andAustria. In the paralyzed condition of the empire awar between these two great countries would have to be fought out on imperial territory. It was remarkable that the clouds ofwar so quickly gathered. For the states of westernEurope were, first of all, hampered by internal troubles and by their relations to one another, while the Hapsburgs were occupied at home. Even Maximilian ofBavaria, after the battle of the White Mountain, expected to bring thewar to a speedy end by overcoming Christian of Anhalt and a few other adherents of the fugitive Elector Palatine. In order to bring the old Wittelsbachfamily feud to a final settlement, to seize the Upper Palatinate by way ofwar indemnity, and to secure the transfer of the electoral dignity from the palatine to theBavarian line of the house Maximilian occupied the entire Palatinate. Butwar once kindled in the empire could not be confined within limits, and it spread slowly but steadily (seeTHIRTY YEARS WAR). Too much inflammable material had been accumulated by the discontent of the petty princes of the empire, by the religious animosities, by the lack of employment that resulted from theeconomic decline, and by the occupation of the border provinces by foreign powers. Whenever Maximilian gained a victory his enemies with very little trouble enlisted fresh hosts of mercenaries; theNetherlands furnished the money. Very soon he wasobliged to send his army into northwestern Germany; thus thewar continued to spread.

Two events of the years 1624-29 increased animosities and, finally, in 1630, gave the struggle an international character.

(a) The historical development of the German Hapsburgs had led to so close a connexion between their dynastic power in their own dominions and the imperial authority that the recovery of the former immediately filled Ferdinand with theambition to restore the latter. When he drove the Elector Palatine out ofBohemia he had also outlawed him as a prince of the empire. Now that the territories in the empire occupied by Maximilian ofBavaria were growing in extent and thewar was becoming more general throughout Germany, Ferdinand could hardly avoid assuming its direction. He had not thenecessary funds for such an undertaking, because of the persistently blunderingeconomic administration ofAustria. But, he accepted Wallenstein's offer to maintain an army for him. Wallenstein was ambitious to be invested, as the head of an army, with extraordinary powers both military and diplomatic. He was a genius as an organizer and a remarkable man, but acondottiere rather than a statesman. Nevertheless the emperor placed him (1625) at the head of an army. Wallenstein did not act in conjunction with Maximilian's troops; moreover, he showed little respect either for the historically established relation between emperor and princes, or for the position of the latter in the empire. He quartered his troops in the territories of the princes, levied heavy contributions from their subjects and treated these sovereigns themselves with arrogance, while at the same time he was not a general who rapidly achieved decisive results. The blind jealousy that had animated the princes againstCharles V was now directed against Ferdinand. Once more the complaint resounded that the emperor was placing on them "the yoke of brutal servitude," was making himself "monarch" of the empire, and an autocrat.

(b) Maximilian followed up the victory of theBavarian and imperial forces by restoringCatholicism in the Upper Palatinate. TheCatholics demanded the restitution of the small territories in southern Germany of which they had been despoiled since 1550, despite theReservatum ecclesiasticum. Furthermore, overestimating their success in the field, they sought to regain thedioceses in northern Germany that had passed under Protestant administration. The emperor was impelled by his political interests to enforce the claims for restitution in the south, since this would greatly weaken theWürtemberg dynasty, which was an obstacle to the extension of the Hapsburg power in Swabia. In addition he also authorized the reclamation of thebishoprics of northern Germany in the district of the Elbe and at the mouth of the Weser, in order to place them in the hands of an Austrian archduke. Accordingly he issued the Edict of Restitution of 1629. TheCalvinistic party of the Palatinate had been totally defeated, and nowLutheranism was in danger of being confined to a comparatively narrow territory split up into detached districts byCatholicecclesiastical principalities. On this account all the Protestant states of the empire were filled with distrust and resentment, although ill-prepared to take up arms in self-defence.

Cardinal Richelieu had, meanwhile, overthrown theHuguenots inFrance and had laid plans to strengthen the French power inEurope by the occupation of desirable positions in upperItaly as well as inLorraine and on German soil. He saw a menace to his schemes in the growth of the imperial power in the empire and in Ferdinand's interference in the War of the Mantuan Succession. He reminded the princes thatFrance had formerly protected their liberties, impressed them with its peace-loving character, and urged them, especially Maximilian ofBavaria, to refuse to elect the emperor's son King of the Romans and to demand the dismissal of Wallenstein (1629-30). While he thus sought to deprive the emperor of his commander-in-chief and his main army,Richelieu also used every means to induce Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, to invade the empire. The appearance of Wallenstein on the Baltic coast and the invasion of theecclesiastical principalities on the Elbe by theCatholics disturbed the ambitious King of Sweden. He was the ablest of all the princes who, in the first half of the seventeenth century, sustained the authority of the sovereign against the encroachments of the petty nobility in central and easternEurope. After a speedily won success in Sweden itself, he set about the task of conquering all the territories on the Baltic in which the princes still suffered the inferior nobles to do as they pleased, thereby securing also for Sweden the control of this sea and a place as one of the great powers. If the Hapsburgs should accomplish their plans for the restoration ofCatholicism the schemes of Gustavus Adolphus would be completely frustrated. For, in order to control all the lands on the Baltic and to sever permanently the German provinces of this region from the empire, he must unite them in an organic political system and civilization; this would be impossible unless all of them were separated in religion from the greater part of the rest ofEurope by professingLutheranism. In the summer of 1630 the king landed inPomerania; in August the emperor sacrificed Wallenstein to the princes.

The success ofRichelieu's intrigues and of the invasion of Gustavus Adolphus appeared more alarming at first than the outcome warranted. They did not cause the dynastic power of the Hapsburgs to totter. Gustavus Adolphus was killed at Lützen (1632); his finest troops, the mainstay of his strength, were annihilated at Nördlingen (1634). Thereafter the Swedes could achieve only ephemeral successes by means of a few bold but spasmodic excursions from the coast into the interior of the empire. Years passed beforeRichelieu was able to replace the army of Gustavus Adolphus by French troops. During theSwedish invasion he had occupied (1630-34) the whole ofLorraine and the region between the Moselle and the Upper Rhine. After the battle of Nördlingen he openly declaredwar against the emperor (1635), but he did not venture far beyond the Rhine. Within the empire the first successes of the Swedes led to a reconciliation between Maximilian and the emperor, while the continued occupation of German soil by the Swedes and the French declaration ofwar afterRichelieu's assurances of peace influenced most of the other princes to ally themselves again with the emperor, Saxony leading the way. There was a burst of patriotic indignation, such as had not been known for a long time; men were again ready to sacrifice their interests to those of the empire. In the Peace of Prague (1635) emperor and princes agreed upon the future organization of the empire. This treaty made allowances both for the historical development of the empire and its necessities: the enforcement of the Edict of Restitution was suspended, the autonomy of the Austrian dominions, ofBavaria, and of the great states of northern Germany was recognized, and the exercise of the imperial authority, in so far as it extended to internal affairs, was confined to the smaller territories of the west and south. On the other hand, the administration by "circles" was to be revived and perfected. Against foreign foes all pledged themselves to act in common, no one desired any further separate leagues. In case ofwar a consolidated imperial army was to enter the field. As early as 1635 the offensive was taken againstFrance and the Swedes. In 1636 Ferdinand III was elected King of the Romans; he was emperor 1637-57.

Thus the political unity of the German nation, sorely as it had suffered from the weakness of the imperial authority, the excessive growth of separatism, and the religiousschism, stood the test in the hour of danger. However, its resources, seriously weakened after a struggle of twenty years, were not adequate to carry out the compact made at Prague and to relieve the distress of the empire at one stroke;Austria, in particular, was not equal to its task. It was found impossible to drive the enemy by force out of the empire and to move all the estates to unite with the emperor. For the protection of the frontiers had been neglected and the individual states allowed to cultivate relations with foreign countries too long to permit the attainment of these ends. In western Germany the Landgravate ofHesse became a supporter of the French, while the young Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg, who had succeeded to his electorate in the latter part of 1640, concluded an armistice with the Swedes. From 1640 onRichelieu was finally able to send French armies into Germany. The inadequacy of the services thatAustria rendered the empire and the support it gave theSpaniards, who werehated throughout Germany, reawakened distrust in the emperor. Moreovereconomic conditions in the German states, after nearly a century of gradual decline, and the ravages since 1621 of the soldiery, became each year more pitiful. The need for rest excluded every other consideration. Even the antagonistic religious parties began to long for peace. The smaller estates of the empire felt no interest in thewar and demanded peace at any price with the foreign enemies; even the greater ones, becoming gradually exhausted, declared themselves neutral. In conjunction with the emperor, and even without him, they negotiated for peace at Münster and Osnabrück withFrance and Sweden, whose influence thereby naturally became much more powerful. But the consciousness that they were parts of the empire did not again die out. A dim perception thatAustria in its development as a great power partly belonged largely to easternEurope had deepened the conviction, which was encouraged byFrance, that the interests of the empire andAustria were not absolutely identical, that the policy of the one need not of necessity be the policy of the other, and that the empire had needs of its own which should be safeguarded by the estates. In order to meet these exigencies the estates claimed, on behalf of the empire, theright to seek the protection of other great powers as well as of the emperor, so as to find support in all emergencies either on one side or the other. Some declared that these needs were, above all, the restoration and maintenance of peace, and the preservation of the independence of the different estates of the empire, and of the varied forms of German governmental administration as opposed to the centralization of other countries. TheBishop ofWürzburg, John Philip of Schönborn, the most active representative of the inferior estates, was strongly imbued with these principles.

These views were officially recognized by the peace ofWestphalia (1648). To procure the evacuation of Germany by the foreign armiesFrance was indemnified by that part of Alsace that belonged toAustria, and Sweden by the territories at the mouths of the Oder and the Weser. The great possessions gained byAustria inBohemia and in the countries on the Danube were not touched, but it agreed to cease supportingSpain. Within the empire everyone was restored to his own possessions and his ownrights. At the same time, however, the possessions of the German princes having military resources were enlarged in such manner that the balance of power was maintained among them. To do this the lands of decadent principalities, especially the lands of thebishoprics of northern Germany which were ready for secularization, were allotted to them. The consolidation of northern Germany into an ever decreasing number of states thus made another great advance, as was evidenced by the fact that towards the end of thewar even the much divided possessions of theGuelphs in the northwest were combined to a large extent, like those of the other north German dynasties, under a single government. An attempt was made to assure the mutual recognition of the new territorial boundaries by establishing complete equality betweenProtestants andCatholics. TheCatholics were satisfied with a slight enlargement of their possessions over those they held in the year 1618, the year taken as the standard being 1624, and theCalvinistic Confession was recognized. The new order of things was protected, as regards the emperor, by proclaiming the sovereignty of the princes of the empire, by restoring to them theright to make alliances, and by makingFrance and Sweden the guarantors of the execution of the treaty. As against these two powers, however, it was most inadequately secured; the disturbances in the south-west, it istrue, were suppressed, but the division of that region into small states was maintained, and its development thereby impeded. The result was that the frontier bordering onFrance was ill-protected, while the occupation of the lands at the mouths of the Oder and Weser by the Swedes was a perennial danger to northern Germany.

1648 to 1673

Frightful as had been the devastation ofproperty and loss of life, the conclusion of peace did not find a ruined people. Both in political affairs and in the advance of civilization thewar had brought about the renewal of national vigour. In most of the states the governments gave themselves to arduous work. Some commercial centres gradually revived, and by untiring energy the agriculture of northern Germany recovered its working power. Intellectual life also reawakened and grew apace. Injurisprudence, politicalscience,education, the perfecting of theGerman language, and poetry, a succession of scholars, by a constantly increasing mastery of form andmatter, produced a series of great works. The study of these works during the next two decades matured the all-embracing genius of Leibniz (1646-1716).France, which reached the height of its literary culture in the following generation, was the teacher of Germany, andCatholicism derived especial advantage from the influence ofFrance. The reputation ofCatholicism rapidly increased, and it soon exerted a powerful force of attraction over many high-mindedProtestants in Germany which eventually led them into theChurch. Around Schönborn especially, who in 1647 had becomeArchbishop ofMainz and chancellor of the empire, was gathered a circle ofCatholics, converts, and well-intentionedProtestants, among the latter Leibniz. From Schönborn emanated an influence that permeated the entireintellectual life of Germany. In the domain of politicsCatholic hopes were founded on the military successes ofAustria andBavaria, which had shown themselves the strongest of the German states, on the efforts of Schönborn to infuse life into the administration by "circles," and on his attempt to form alliances among the princes with the ultimate aim of bringing about a general confederation of the estates. Schönborn desired, by means of such a general confederation, to make Germany under his own leadership independent of the favour of the great powers. Although this confederation was to be peaceful in character and could consequently only become a second grade power, he even hoped to make of it a means of establishing a balance of power inEurope betweenFrance andAustria, such as someItalians had sought to make of their country in the preceding century. Schönborn's policy was most successful in 1657-58, when Ferdinand III died without leaving an heir who had attained his majority and had been elected King of the Romans, thus givingFrance an opportunity to attempt to dictate the succession to the imperial crown. Schönborn, however, secured its bestowal upon another Hapsburg, Leopold I (1658-1705); at the same time he united a large number of princes in the Confederation of the Rhine (Rheinbund), which looked for support toFrance.

Still more powerful but not more advantageous for Germany was the influence exercised on the course of events by another reigning prince, Frederick William of Brandenburg, the Great Elector. His contemporaries looked upon him only as the most turbulent of the rulers in the empire. His chief object was the aggrandizement ofBrandenburg to the eastward of the Elbe, but in the Peace ofWestphalia he had been compensated by new territories in western Germany. Dissatisfied with this arrangement he openly avowed that as the greater part of his dominion bordered on easternEurope, he, likeAustria and even more unscrupulously, did not consider the interests of Germany as identical with those ofBrandenburg. When Sweden declaredwar onPoland in 1655 he took part on the side of the former country with all his resources. In 1658 the new emperor joined forces with him to drive Sweden out of Germany. In order to be more certain of the aid of the imperial troops Frederick William, at the election of the emperor, brought it about thatAustria was required to renew its pledges not to supportSpain, at whichFrance was preparing to strike the final blow. This threatened Germany once more with serious danger, forFrance, after forcingSpain into concluding the Peace of the Pyrenees in 1659, in 1660 dictated peace on the Baltic atOliva and Copenhagen on such terms thatSweden was protected against any diminution of its territories. Then when theTurks, after a long truce, renewed their advance onVienna in 1662France forced auxiliaries onAustria as soon as the latter began to offer a sturdy defence. Consequently, after the first victories, Leopold preferred to come to a secret understanding with theTurks at Vasvár (1664).France interfered in every quarrel among the states of the empire.

Aided by the personal charm of its young kingLouis XIV, who had assumed the government in 1661,France appeared to have obtained a dominant influence in Germany such asCharles V had formerly held inItaly. What it had vainly striven to gain bywarFrance now acquired during ten years of peace. Apparently in all parts of the empire, includingAustria, there was a continually growing need of peace. The subsidies that Louis poured into the exchequers of the impecunious princes, who were just beginning to devise a rational system of taxation, were intended to fetter them. The upper classes in Germany surrendered themselves completely to the influence of French culture and customs. Moreover, French statecraft,economic policy, and military system, which presented to the princes an example of effective administrative organisation, all promised to place Germany more and more under the spell of its western neighbour. The Houses ofGuelph and Wittelsbach and the rulers ofSaxony allowed themselves to be won over byFrance. In 1667-68 Louis was able to place a check upon the Elector of Brandenburg, and also uponAustria, the dynastic line of which was now reduced to oneperson, and threatened to become extinct like that ofSpain. Although the Peace ofWestphalia led theGermans to takeFrance as a model, yet in many unseen ways it prepared the emancipation of Germany. The national consciousness became quickened in proportion asintellectual life reawakened, and the national spirit once more found a voice. The princes gradually drew back fromFrance, and its friendship was only seriously sought by the House of Wittelsbach. When de Lionne, Louis's adviser in foreign affairs, warned him not to carry out his purpose of attacking theNetherlands until he was sure of the sympathy of the more important German princes, all the efforts of the able French diplomats did not avail to obtain this assurance. Louis, nevertheless, advanced against theDutch, and a storm of popular indignation broke out in Germany which carried along with it the German princes, with the exception of the Wittelsbach line. In 1674 the empire declaredwar againstFrance.

1674-1713

This was the signal for awar of forty years duration, which was divided into three periods. In the first the advantages of efficient generals, well-trained troops, and abundant means were all on the side ofFrance. The contingents of the German princes formed a motley body; in 1675 the Elector of Brandenburg withdrew, and marched intoPomerania against the Swedes. In addition, the allies of the emperor, theNetherlands andSpain,proved inefficient. Only a few isolated exploits, such as the battle of Fehrbellin (1675), revived the fame of German military prowess. In 1679 peace was made between the empire andFrance at Nimwegen. Louis, however, overestimated his success. On the one hand he calculated on detaching the Elector of Brandenburg permanently from the German cause by compelling him in 1660, to restore all the territory won from the Swedes and then to enter into an alliance withFrance that would reduce him almost to feudatory dependence. On the other hand, after peace had been signed,France seized various strips of territory on the western frontier of Germany (called the "Reunions"), this unwarranted procedure culminating in the occupation ofStrasburg (1781). Such conduct, however, only stimulated the patriotic indignation of the small western states (Alliance of Laxenburg, 1682), while at the same time the rising generation in the larger principalities, including the territories of the Wittelsbach line, was rallying enthusiastically around the emperor for theTurkishwar. The repulse of theTurks at the siege ofVienna (1683), followed by the glorious recovery ofHungary, gave a new, impulse toAustria's political power. With the increase of French interference in German affairs (succession to the Palatinate, 1685; election of theBishop ofCologne, 1688), German resistance to Louis, in which Brandenburg joined, became unanimous. Louis retorted by renewingwar. AlthoughAustria was still engaged in the struggle with theTurks, the military forces of the two sides were almost even. The Margrave Louis William of Baden organized the troops of the small south-western states of Germany in an efficient manner.Austria found in Eugene ofSavoy a general and statesman who, in a position similar to Wallenstein's, far surpassed the latter in genius and character. Moreover, the emperor found inEngland a far more efficient ally than theNetherlands had been. Both sides brought larger and larger armies into the field, until each of them maintained 400,000 men. By the Peace of Ryswick (1697) Louis restored part of the territory of which he had robbed the empire.Austria, by the brilliant victory of Zenta (1697), drove theTurks completely out ofHungary andTransylvania (Treaty of Carlowitz, 1699). The death of the last Spanish Hapsburg (1700) caused a fresh outbreak of thewar as early as 1701. This timeAustria was able to employ most of its forces againstFrance,England being again the ally of the empire. The allied powers won brilliant victories, some jointly, some separately (Blenheim, 1704, Ramillies andTurin, 1706, Oudenarde, 1708, Malplaquet, 1709). By straining its powers to the utmostFrance bettered its position after 1709. During the course of thewarAustria changed rulers twice, Joseph I reigning 1705-11, Charles VI, 1711-40. After Charles VI ascended the throneEngland desertedAustria. By the Treaties of Rastatt and Baden in 1713-14France retained only Alsace out of all its conquests on the German frontier. MeanwhileAustria, which had once more become embroiled with theTurks, again defeated the latter, and imposed terms at the Peace of Passarowitz in 1718 that were extremely favourable to Austrian trade in the Levant. At the same time awar was raging betweenRussia and Sweden, and the princes of northern Germany took advantage of it to drive Sweden completely out of Germany (treaty ofStockholm between Sweden andHanover in 1719; between Sweden andPrussia in 1720).

By the victories over theTurks and by its opposition toLouis XIV the Austrian monarchy became in the fullest sense a great power, whileFrance effected no substantial extension of its frontiers. In this way the plans of Ferdinand II were realized and secured for a long period. But at the same time Ferdinand's successors allowed the imperial power and the reorganization of the empire to decline. In the reign of Leopold I the Diet had, indeed, become a permanent body atRatisbon from 1663, and the empire took part as a whole in all three periods of thewar. The contemporary sovereign princes, however, were interested chiefly in the political development of the separate states. Their policies were based on the centralizing and absolutist principles of the government ofLouis XIV. These principles were susceptible of application to the individual principalities, but not to the empire, which, by its very nature, was federal and parliamentary. The empire could never have the same bureaucratic form of administration that the separate principalities had now received, nor could it be organized on a fiscal basis similar to theirs. ConsequentlyAustria,Prussia, which had become a kingdom in 1701, and the other larger German states detached themselves more and more from the empire. Some ruling houses, dissatisfied with the smallness of their territories, which did not admit of extension, were disposed, at the beginning of the new century, to seek new countries. The Elector of Saxony, belonging to the Wettin line, accepted the crown ofPoland (1697), while the main branch of theGuelphs ascended the throne ofEngland (1714). The branch of the House of Wittelsbach that ruledBavaria aspired to the crown ofSpain, or at least to the sovereignty of theSpanishNetherlands. When foiled in this they made an alliance withFrance in 1701; this doomed them to an unfruitful, separatist policy in their territories. Even among the people the conception of imperial unity no longer obtained. It istrue that the nation made steady progress towardsintellectual unity, as the development of its written language improved. Moreover between 1660 and 1690 the patriotic sentiment of the nation showed itself plainly, but it grew weak again at the very moment that was decisive for a constitutional policy. For the people took but little interest in the aims of the last period ofwar, the struggle over the Spanish succession while at the same time the entire organic life of a nation was undergoing a vital crisis. Economically the country made but little progress because its resources were too much exhausted and the constantwars permitted no recuperation. Consequently the social organization of the nation, in particular, lost its elasticity; the nobility became arrogant, the middle class decayed, the bureaucracy grew overweening and excluded all others from participation in state affairs. During this period theGermans made no effort to secure national unity. Under these circumstances, notwithstanding the German victories, foreign countries affected in large measure German politics.France continued to be the guaranteeing power. Two other great powers,England andRussia, had considerable influence, the former onHanover, with which it was connected by a common dynasty, the other on all the German states on the Baltic, especiallyPrussia.

Catholicism lost its preponderance once more owing both to the renewed decay of political and national life in Germany and to the decline ofFrance. At the beginning of the eighteenth century its progress lay in the field of art, especially in that of architecture. InVienna and the capitals of the spiritual and temporal lords of southern Germany many architecturally striking buildings were erected; among the great architects and frescopainters of the period were Hildebrand, Prändauer, Fischer of Erlach, Neumann, and the brothers Asam. Protestantism, however, led in learning, as was exemplified by the professors of the University of Halle, Thomasius, Christian Wolff, Francke. Moreover, the close relations ofEngland to Germany now began to make themselves felt, and German Protestantism found inEngland a powerful and progressiveintellectual aid thatSweden had not been able to afford.

From 1713 to 1848

1713 to 1763

Many petty differences were still left unsettled in 1713, many anambition was as yet unrealized. In Germany as well as in the rest ofEurope questions remained to be settled by diplomatic negotiations, but swords were sheathed. The people had an intense desire for peace. The industrial classes longed to emerge from the miserable hand-to-mouth existence which had been theirs for so many years, to rise again to the profitable exercise of trades and commerce, and to accumulate capital for larger undertakings. For several decades to come they wereobliged to work without visible results. But the strenuous effort produced the will and the strengthnecessary to achieve the phenomenaleconomic progress of the German people in the nineteenth century. The prevailing tendency among the princes and nobility was towards the voluptuous enjoyment of the social and artistic pleasures of life, which they gratified by the erection of magnificent buildings and by gorgeous court ceremonials; examples of the indulgence of such tastes were the rulers ofSaxony Augustus II (1694-1733) and Augustus III (1733-63), the latter being also King ofPoland; Maximilian II Emanuel ofBavaria (1679-1726); Eberhard Louis (1677-1733) and Charles Eugene (1737-93) ofWürtemberg. Men of higher aims were Maximilian III Joseph ofBavaria (1745-77), and, among thebishops, especially those of the Schönbornfamily. In the interior development of the states the princes sought to complete the reorganization of their territories according to the French absolutist and bureaucratic model, as: the introduction of state officials into local government, the collection of taxes in coin and a money basis for trade, the augmentation of the standing armies, repression of the privileges of the nobility, and the extinction of parliamentary and corporativerights. To perfect such a system both persistent and steady effort was needed; the majority of states fell short in this respect. InHanover the nobles gradually recovered control of the government; inAustria a perilous state of political inertia set in under Charles I. Frederick William I ofPrussia (1713-40) was the only sovereign who carried out the work ofeconomic reconstruction with energy. The ideal state which the statesmen of the age ofLouis XIV sought to attain, an ideal impracticable in larger countries, was to a great extent realized inPrussia. Small as wasPrussia's territory and backward as it was in civilization, it grew, nevertheless, into a power influential out of all proportion to the size of its population and area, thanks to the high efficiency of the administration, to the utilization of all resources for the benefit of the state, and to the unflagging energy of the king himself. Shortly after 1740Prussia was able to maintain a standing army of more than 100,000 men ready forwar, and with this army it could turn the scale in a conflict between the equally balanced forces of the great countries.

In 1740Frederick II, the Great, succeeded to the throne ofPrussia. In the period just passedAustria andFrance had exhausted themselves in awar begun in 1733 over issues that had not been settled in 1713, namely, the Polish Succession, and the right ofFrance to Lorraine. By the Peace ofVienna in 1738France obtained Lorraine;Austria, moreover in 1739 lost Belgrad to theTurks. Soon after Frederick's accession inPrussia, the Emperor Charles VI died, leaving a daughter,Maria Theresa (1740-80).France andBavaria took up arms to prevent her coming to the throne ofAustria; this was in direct violation of the promises made to Charles when these countries recognized thePragmatic Sanction. At the instigation ofFrance the electors chose Charles Albert ofBavaria emperor under the title of Charles VII (1742-45). Frederick the Great took full advantage ofMaria Theresa's difficulties; he occupied Silesia and, upon her refusal to surrender it, concluded an alliance withFrance andBavaria; thewars that followed upon this were the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-48), the First Silesian War (1740-42), and the Second Silesian War (1744-45). Impaired in strength during the weak government of Charles VI,Austria seemed ready to fall to pieces under the force of the shock. But the hesitation of Frederick the Great, the aid ofEngland,Austria's ally after 1742, and above allMaria Theresa's political energy and inspiritingpersonality helpedAustria to withstand the shock. Silesia, it istrue, was not recovered, butMaria Theresa kept all the other provinces and in 1745 her husband,Francis I, was elected emperor. She found inKaunitz a most valuable guide in matters of foreign policy and a wise assistant in the direction of home affairs. The internal administration was steadily perfected in imitation ofPrussia, the army was reorganized by Daun, Laudon, and Lacy. Further, by the new alliance between the three greatEuropean powers,Austria,France andRussia,Austria was once more established in a commanding position inEurope. However, Frederick, with the aid ofEngland as ally, prevented the consequences of these measures from becoming immediately apparent. In 1756 he made a fresh attack onAustria whileEngland simultaneously went towar withFrance for the purpose of acquiring the latter's colonies. The ensuing struggle was the Seven Years War, which exposed the weak points of the schemes ofKaunitz and especially the decline in the military strength ofFrance before their excellences could be turned to use. MoreoverMaria Theresa, by summoning as empress the French to enter the country, stifled in the princes all feeling ofobligation to the empire, while Frederick by his victory over the French at Rossbach (1757) became a national hero despite the unpopularity ofPrussia. In addition, the sturdy resistance that thePrussian king offered to the three powers, even though he failed of victory, made an impression on the political world inPrussia's favour no less great in results than were the consequences in northern Germany of his alliance withEngland.

1761 to 1815

After the Treaty of Hubertusburg (1763)Prussia was not only an independent state, it had as well an independent policy. From this time on the rest of northern Germany also became alienated fromAustria and southern Germany. These states now received an impulse fromEngland such as they had never had from the empire and CentralEurope, forEngland in this period was rapidly advancing in commerce, industries, andintellectual life, and exhibited an energetic and far-seeing political policy. The mining of the coal and ore deposits in the Rhenish-Westphalian district and in Silesia was undertaken on a large scale, the number of factories increased, the Hanseatic towns took advantage of the American Declaration of Independence to establish transoceanic trade relations that were pregnant with rich results for the future of German commerce, while agriculture east of the Elbe adopted larger methods involving the use of capital in order to develop export trade in grain withEngland. In addition to Halle otheruniversities in northern Germany became noted as centres ofintellectual life; among these were Göttingen, founded in 1737, which had the historians and writers on politicalscience, Schlözer and Spittler, as professors, and Königsberg, whereKant and Kraus taught. Most of the precursors of the classical age of German poetry, as Klopstock and Lessing, were North Germans, so were many of the writers of the Storm and Stress (Sturm und Drang) period. And although Goethe and Schiller, the great poets of the classic era, were South Germans, yet they made their homes in the north, the centre from which their influence was exerted being the Court of Weimar.Herder and the two Humboldts werePrussians. The Romantic School also under the leadership of North Germans, the Schlegels, Hardenberg, Tieck, Schleiermacher, developed around two northern cities,Berlin and Jena. It was through theintellectual ascendancy exerted by northern Germany thatDenmark andHolland were brought almost completely within the sphere of German culture. From northwestern Germany proceeded the chief influences that in a periodical press created German public opinion (Schlözer's criticisms on contemporary politics in his "Staatsanzeigen," the political writings of Gentz), and encouraged the sense of nationality (Möser,Count Stolberg). It was in this part of Germany that Freiherr vom Stein received his earlyeducation and his training in official life. The relatively large area of the states of northern Germany, the result of the last two hundred and fifty years of political evolution, encouragedintellectual progress and was in turn promoted thereby. For the first time northern Germany undertook to outstrip southern Germany in development; along with this, however, the Protestant states once more took the lead of theCatholic states.

It istrue that southern Germany immediately strove to compete with northern Germany, but the division of the former section into so many small principalities paralyzed commerce and retardedintellectual progress and the development of industries.Joseph II, joint-ruler withMaria Theresa from 1760 and sole ruler ofAustria from 1780 to 1790, desired to remedy this disintegration by annexingBavaria toAustria and by extending the Austrian power in Swabia and on the Upper Rhine. The latter result he desired to attain by making the city ofConstance a great emporium of trade betweenItaly and Germany. InAustria he set on foot far-reaching projects of reform. On the non-material side he and other rulers strove to infuse new strength into theintellectual and civilizing influence ofCatholicity as opposed to Protestantism.Catholicity in southern Germany, which remained closely in touch with Frenchintellectual life, suffered from the paralyzing influence of Frenchrationalism and its destructive critical tendencies. The champions of theChurch, foremost among them being the Prince-Abbot Martin Gerbert of St. Blasien, gave it a more national basis again and infused into it a more positive spirit. But they failed, almost without exception, to renounce in principle therationalistic movement; this failure led many men, asJoseph II, andWessenberg, into grievouserrors. Progress in southern Germany depended ultimately upon progress inAustria. Not only, however, did all the political plans for Germany ofJoseph II break down before the opposition of Frederick the Great, as shown in the War of theBavarian Succession (1778-79) and in the league of princes formed by Frederick against Joseph (1785), but towards the end of Joseph's reign serious revolutionary movements sprang up against him even in his own dominions. A complete reversal of the relative strength of northern and southern Germany seemed imminent. Nevertheless northern Germany did not fully utilize the pre-eminence it had obtained inintellectual progress. In spirit Frederick the Great was not in sympathy with recent developments. The English political system rested on principles differing widely from French absolutism, the methods and aims of which Frederick, following in hisfather's footsteps, clung to tenaciously. He even carried these somewhat further, especially in regard toeconomic administration. Taken altogether his political achievements were the greatest and most effective development of the French system. After 1763 by the annexation of WestPrussia, obtained through the First Partition ofPoland in 1722, he extended his dominions in the district of the Oder and Weichsel Rivers, and by adopting the policy of Catherine II ofRussia he secured for his kingdom a strong position among the states of EasternEurope. Moreover he declared his intention to give special weight to the eastern orPrussian part of his monarchy by making its nobility, theJunker, his principal instruments both in the military and civil administration. From the time of their arrival in these districts these nobles had been trained to fight and to colonize. The impulse towards a united northern Germany could in this era only come from Frederick the Great, the middle class of northwestern Germany had not as yet made itself felt. In 1786 Frederick died, whereuponPrussia's prestige declined once more. Bereft of a strong political stimulus theintellectual life of Germany, both north and south, took on a cosmopolitan and purely humanitarian character.

Even the outbreak of theFrench Revolution at first produced in Germany not progress but a shock. Theideas of 1789 were greeted with approval, but when theRevolution became radical in 1792 and involved Germany inwar, the people, craving peaceful development, without exception rejected it.Austria, reorganized by Leopold II (1790-92), took up again underThugut, prime-minister of Francis II, who was Francis I ofAustria (1792-1835), the policy of expansion initiated byJoseph II.Thugut, however, preferred to make conquests inItaly rather than in southern Germany, andNapoleon's victories in 1796 compelled him to desist even from these (Treaty of Campo-Formio, 1797). The princes of southern Germany, being left to themselves, now turned to the French government and byhumble supplication obtained from it the aggrandizement of their territories at the expense of theecclesiastical rulers whose dominions were to be secularized. At the Congress of Rastatt (1797-99)France was willing to grant their petitions, butRussia,England, andAustria brought the congress to a premature end by renewing thewar withFrance. Previous to this, in 1792,Prussia had joinedAustria in taking up arms against theFrench Revolution. At he Treaty of Basle (1795), however, it had desertedAustria and, influenced by French diplomacy, disclosed for the first time itsambition to become the ruling power of northern Germany, to annexHanover and to carry out the secularization ofecclesiastical lands. But Frederick the Great's successors, Frederick William II (1786-97) and Frederick William III (1797-1840), were men of little energy. Moreover at the Second (1793) and Third (1795) Partitions ofPolandPrussia had assumed more Polish territory than it could assimilate; its administrative resources, unable to bear the strain put upon them, were paralyzed. Thus the end of the eighteenth century left Germany in complete disorder.

South-western Germany, brought into constant contact withFrance by active commercial relations, now manifested a desire for comprehensive and efficient political organization. For, by the impetuosity with which theFrench Revolution preached the principle of nationality and therights of the individual in the State, the German mind had again become accessible to nationalideas and strong political convictions. From the beginning of the nineteenth century the Romantic School extolled the glories of German nationality and the empire, and the younger generation of officials in the several states, especially inPrussia, promoted drastic measures of reform.Napoleon, as the instrument of the times, contributed to the realization of these ideals. DefeatingAustria again, both in 1800 (Treaty of Luneville, 1801), and in 1805 (Treaty of Presburg),Napoleon proceeded to make a new distribution of German territory. By the Treaty of Luneville he annexed the left bank of the Rhine toFrance. By the partition compacts withPrussia andBavaria in 1802 and by the Imperial Delegates Enactment of 1803, he secularized suchecclesiastical states as still existed, and in 1805-06 he abolished the rest of the decadent petty principalities in the south, including the domains of the freeknights of the empire and of the free cities. He was to retain only three territorial divisions in southern Germany:Bavaria,Würtemberg, and Baden. These his creative genius built up into secondary states, similar to those of northern Germany both in area and in their capacity for internal development. The South Germans had at last a clear course for renewed progress.Napoleon hoped thereby to put them under lastingobligation toFrance; in 1806 he bound them, as well as the central German states, more strongly to himself by the Confederation of the Rhine (Rheinbund). In the abolition of the small principalities he gave the death-blow to the Holy Roman Empire, which ceased to exist, 6 August, 1806. The administration andeconomic condition of the secondary states now rapidly improved, but, contrary toNapoleon's expectations, the sympathies of their inhabitants did not turn toFrance.Napoleon then overthrewPrussia at the battles of Jena and Auerstädt (1806) and by the Treaty of Tilsit (1807) left toPrussia only its original provinces between the Elbe and the Russian frontier. After this, by means of far-reaching, liberal reforms instituted under the enlightened guidance of Freiherr vom Stein aided by Gneisenau and Scharnhorst, both state and army inPrussia became stronger and more progressive than ever before. In all the German lands on the right bank of the Rhine theeducated classes were full of fervid patriotism, and inAustria andPrussia as well the people bore the foreign yoke with impatience. In 1809 a nationalwar againstNapoleon broke out inAustria. The Tyrolese under Hofer made a heroic struggle, and Archduke Charles won a victory over the French at Aspern. It istrue thatNapoleon, notwithstanding all this, finally maintained his ascendancy (Treaty of Schoenbrunn, also called ofVienna, 1809), andAustria, thereafter, by the advice ofMetternich, who was prime-minister from 1809 to 1848, adopted a policy of inaction. Pursuing an opposite course, thePrussian people rose in a body in 1813 afterNapoleon's disastrous campaign inRussia. This revoltNapoleon did not succeed in crushing; on the contrary, he himself was now defeated in the Wars of Liberation by the coalition ofRussia,Austria,Prussia, andEngland.

The interior of Germany, thetrue home of Teutonic national life, had been forced almost completely into the background during the eighteenth century byAustria andPrussia. During the Napoleonic era it advanced materially in influence as a result of the formation of the secondary states and the growth of national political opinions. NeverthelessAustria andPrussia re-established their military ascendancy over the interior during the Wars of Liberation. In the Treaties ofParis (1814) and at the Congress ofVienna (1814-15) efforts were made to dojustice to both of these circumstances. UnderMetternich's guidanceAustria reached the climax of its power at the Congress ofVienna. It became the leading state inEurope, but at the same time it made the Danube and the territory east of the Alps the centres of its power and withdrew completely from southern Germany.Prussia, now likewise recognized as a great power and a leading state of Germany, received, on condition of surrendering a part of its Polish possessions, a strong position in the extreme northwest, but it did not attain the hegemony of northern Germany. The Napoleonic system of secondary states was ratified and amplified, as in the four kingdoms ofBavaria,Würtemberg,Hanover, and Saxony, etc. It was hoped that this settlement would be permanent since it was founded on the joint liability of all theEuropean states, a principle recognized by theVienna Congress and the maintenance of which was guaranteed both byPrussia andAustria. Moreover the political rivalry between the different faiths was supposed to have been overcome, since of the great powersAustria wasCatholic andPrussia Protestant, and both were now on friendly terms. By the award of manyCatholic districts to Protestant sovereignsCatholicity had, it istrue, sustained great losses in central Germany,Würtemberg being one-third, Baden two-thirds andPrussia almost one-halfCatholic. It was thought, however, that none of these states, not evenPrussia, could be able thereafter to retain an entirely Protestant character. MoreoverCatholicity gained greater influence over the minds of men owing to the Romantic movement and the spread of anti-revolutionaryideas.Metternich, continuing the policy decided upon in 1548 and 1635, committed himself to the following programme: to give a new guarantee to the reawakened national feeling by establishing a German Confederation; that each German state must belong to the Confederation, though without prejudice to its autonomy; that the primary object of the Confederation was to be the defence of the independence and stability of Germany against external foes as well as against revolutionary agitation; but it was also to be allowed to develop into a confederated state by gradually enlarging its authority over the internal affairs of the individual states, such as commerce,economic administration civil and constitutional law. The organ of this confederation was to be a permanent assembly composed of plenipotentiaries appointed by the reigning princes, as in the Imperial Diet prior to 1806. This body was authorized to enact fundamentallaws for the Confederation and to organize its administrative machinery (Federal Acts of the Congress ofVienna, 9 June, 1815).

1815 to 1848

The Federal Diet was in session from 1816 to 1848 and again from 1850 to 1866 without, however, enacting any fundamentallaws or creating any administrative machinery. The only result of the deliberations was a fuller and more detailed but not a more definite statement of the problems to be solved by the confederation (Final Federal Act ofVienna, 1820), and this in spite ofMetternich's pressure for the working out of these problems.Prussia and the secondary states opposed all progress in the work of the Diet. EvenMetternich was no longer really in earnest about it. In the autumn of 1815 he had concluded the Holy Alliance with the Czar and the King ofPrussia and had thereby bound himself to a common policy with the great powers of EasternEurope, the three countriesRussia,Austria, andPrussia being then called the eastern powers. This policy, in view of the possibility of revolutionary agitation, opposed the national and constitutional current of the times. Moreover, as Premier ofAustria,Metternich's course had to be directed by the fact that, after the troubles of the reign ofJoseph II and the losses sustained inwar during the last twenty-five years, the country stood in need of absolute rest.Austria kept its people from all foreign commercial competition and in politics avoided contact with foreign nations. Consequently its policy within the confederation was restricted substantially to the safeguarding of its own interests.

Between 1815 and 1848Prussia and the secondary states also devoted themselves exclusively to the solution of problems within their own boundaries. Up to 1848 Germany witnessed the most complete autonomy of the individual states in its entire history. The need of national unity was once more entirely ignored. In most of the secondary states much was done to improve the administration and theeconomic policy.Prussia, the self-reliance of which had been still further intensified by the Wars of Independence waged againstNapoleon, completed the reforms that had been started in the period before 1815, although not in the German national spirit of their authors but rather in accordance with antiquatedPrussianideas. Even the new western provinces were as far as possible subjected to the oldPrussian law as well as the oldPrussianecclesiastical policy and methods of government. At theUniversity ofBerlin, founded in 1909 by William von Humboldt,Hegel raised thePrussian conception of the state, filled with the spirit of Protestantism and rooted in absolutism, to the dignity of aphilosophical system. He gave this position to the state as the highest and all-controlling form ofsociety. Nevertheless the individual German states had clearly passed the limit of their capacity for organization. Routine dominated state administration. A well-trained but arrogant bureaucracy seized control of the government inPrussia as well in the secondary states and while it carried to excess the traditional political principles, yet it did not enforce them with the firm hand of the rulers of an earlier era. This was especially the case in the conflict concerningmixed marriage in the fourth decade of the century when thePrussian government arrestedArchbishop Droste-Vischering of Cologne as an "insubordinate servant of the state" (1837). Its weakness was also plainly shown when the people of western and southern Germany objected to the interfering supervision of the government officials.

The middle class was indebted toMetternich for more than thirty years of uninterrupted peace, during which he protected it from all disturbances both at home and abroad, and they owed toPrussialaws more favourable to commerce than had ever before existed. These were the moderately protectivePrussian customs law of 1818 and the founding (1833) of the customs-union (Zollverein), which made a commercial unit ofPrussia, central and southern Germany. Now for the first time the exertions of the commercial classes during the eighteenth century brought forth ample fruit, and Germany regained the financial ability to undertake large commercial enterprises. Important industries flourished and traffic was increased many-fold, while the middle class gained a clearer perception of the influence of foreign and domestic policies oneconomic conditions. The leaders (Hansemann, Mevissen, and von der Heydt) in the manufacturing district of the Lower Rhine, the most promising region in Germany from aneconomic point of view, were ready as early as 1840 to guide the fortunes ofPrussia, provided they could obtain politicalrights. Holding radical views in politics and religion, they adopted also the political demands of theirintellectual kinsmen inFrance, theLiberals: the creation of a constitutional parliament and the remodelling of the body politic in accordance with their social andeconomic principles. AsPrussia likeAustria had not granted its subjects a constitution, the struggle of these men for influence was conducted under difficulties. Their efforts, however, were aided by the existence of constitutional government in some of the smaller states since 1819, whereby a number of men, mostlyuniversity professors, were enabled in the several Diets to attack the bureaucratic administrations. These men were alsoLiberals, but their primary demand was the substitution of popular government for that of the bureaucracy; the leaders were Rotteck and Welcker of Baden; and of the moderates, Dahlmann. As early as 1837 matters came to a crisis inHanover, while in Baden the contest lasted from 1837 to 1844. In answer to the opposition they called forth theLiberals raised the battle-cry of national unity, claiming that union would be the strongest guarantee of civic liberty. Their programme, as well as the appeal to the moral feeling of the people made by many of their leaders, aroused universal sympathy. As champions both of the principle of national unity and ofeconomic and social progress, they hoped soon to be able to lead the entire people in a struggle against the reactionary administrations of the individual states. The latter, blinded by their particularistic prejudices, did not rally their forces to meet the threatening attack. As early as the forties differences on politico-economic questions weakened the customs-union betweenPrussia and the states of southern Germany.Metternich had repeatedly urged thatAustria become a member of the customs-union. But it now appeared that the social andeconomic differences, always existing betweenAustria and the rest of Germany, had been so accentuated by the selfish policy pursued byAustria since 1815 that a strong opposition to its entering the customs-union came from withinAustria itself.

The position of theCatholicChurch also became critical. The expectations of the Congress ofVienna had not been realized.Catholicity, it istrue, owing to the splendid abilities of a number of men, partly the sons of theChurch and partly converts, exercised a leading influence in the field of politicalsciences (Haller, Adam Müller, Frederick von Schlegel, Görres,Jarcke,Radowitz), in history (Buchholtz,Hurter), in art (Cornelius,Overbeck,Veit), and intheology (Möhler,Döllinger,Kuhn, Hefele). But in actual political life and in connexion with the life of the masses it fared ill. The bureaucratic state administration so fettered theCatholicChurch that it was hardly able to stir, whileLiberalism, for the most part anti-Catholic, threatened to place a gulf between theChurch and the people. The deeppiety of the people, however, was manifested both in 1844, on the occasion of thepilgrimage toTrier, and in the rejection of GermanCatholicism (1844-46). The attempt, however, to build up aChristian and anti-revolutionary party in conjunction with a few conservativeProtestants (the two von Gerlachs, and the periodical "Politisches Wochenblatt" in Berlin; Görres and his circle of friends inMunich), on the basis ofHaller's political teaching, was unpopular and altogether out of sympathy with the actual politico-social and politico-economic development of the nation. Nevertheless a fewcourageous politicians attacked at the same time the bureaucratic administration andLiberalism; thus Görres published his "Athanasius" in 1837, and founded with friends the periodical "Historisch-politische Blätter" in 1838; others wereAndlaw andBuss inBaden,Kuhn and Hefele inWürtemberg,Moritz Lieber in Nassau. InBavaria theCatholics were represented by the Abel ministry (1837-47). InAustriaMetternich favoured them.

From 1848 to 1871

The wide-spread political agitation in WesternEurope, which from 1846 had been undermining the foundations of the system of government established by the Congress ofVienna, culminated in Germany in March, 1848. The reigning princes, unprepared for the emergency, turned the governments over to theLiberals and ordered elections for a German Parliament on the basis of universal suffrage.Austria andPrussia, in addition, now granted constitutions to their peoples and, besides the national, summoned local parliaments. On 18 May the German National Parliament was opened atFrankfurt, Heinrich von Gagern presiding. Archduke Johann ofAustria was elected provisional imperial administrator. The success ofLiberalism was apparently complete, the individual existence of the separate states practically annulled, and the establishment of a constitutional German national State, as opposed to the development as a confederation, seemed assured. The only difficult question was, apparently, howPrussia was to be "merged" into Germany. However, as Frederick William IV ofPrussia (1840-61) had expressed his sympathy with German unity, while theLiberals were prepared to make it as easy as possible forPrussia, as the head of the customs-union and the leading Protestant power in Germany, to surrender its individuality as a state, and were ready to offer toPrussia the hereditary imperial crown, the Parliament made light of this obstacle.Austria, rent by grievous national dissensions, seemed ready to step aside of its own accord.

In the autumn of 1848, however, the situation became complicated. The draft of a new constitution made by theLiberals awakened the distrust of theCatholics by its provisions regarding theChurch and theschools. At the suggestion of the Pius Association (Piusverein) ofMainz, theCatholics flooded the Parliament with petitions, while in October theCatholicsocieties assembled atMainz and the Germanbishops atWürzburg. TheLiberals gave way but conditions remained strained. The great mass ofCatholics repudiated the proposed settlement of the German question in the "Little German" (Kleindeutsche) sense, which advocated the exclusion ofAustria from German and the conferring of the imperial dignity uponPrussia; they demanded thatAustria should remain part of Germany and should be its leader. This was called the "Great German" (Grossdeutsche) view. Simultaneously a radical reaction broke out against theLiberals.Liberalism stood forethical and political progress only, not for social progress; nevertheless it had received the support of the labouring classes, who were impoverished by the recent industrial development but not ready to become a political organization, because of the Liberal opposition to the existing state of things. Now that the Parliament did nothing to better their condition they flocked to the standards of radical agitators. Before the spring of 1849 repeated disturbances resulted, especially in Southern Germany; furthermore Radicalism obtained a majority in the constitutional assembly ofBerlin. TheLiberals were not able to make any headway against this movement.Prussian troops had to re-establish the authority of the state, and in the interim the reigning princes had also regained confidence.Austria, now under the leadership of Schwarzenberg (Francis Joseph having been emperor since November, 1848), declared in December, 1848, that it would not suffer itself to be forced out of Germany. TheCatholic agitation as well as the politico-economic movements were inAustria's favour. The industrial classes of Southern Germany, inspired by the fear thatPrussia would adopt free-trade, desired to secure a politico-economic alliance withAustria, while the great merchants of the Hanseatic cities preferred for the field of their commercial operations Germany withAustria included, an area extending from the Baltic Sea to the Levant, to the lesser Germany alone. Having imposed a constitution on his kingdom in December, 1848, the King ofPrussia refused to accept the imperial crown at the hands of the Frankfurt Parliament (April, 1849). Maximilian II ofBavaria (1848-64), by a strange recourse to theideas of the seventeenth century, advocated a union of the secondary states, which in conjunction withPrussia but not in subjection to it, should control the policy of Germany (the "Triad").

In May, 1848, the Frankfort Parliament came to an inglorious end. An attempt was made immediately afterwards byPrussia with the aid of theLiberals and the secondary states to agree on a German constitution maintaining the federal principle (The Union, Diet of Erfurt, 1850), and to form merely an offensive and defensive alliance withAustria; this was foiled byAustria. But althoughAustria forcedPrussia to yield in the negotiations atOlmütz in December, 1850, it failed to effect either the renewal of the German Confederation under conditions that would strengthen itself or to gain admission to the customs-union. The German Diet, still unreformed, resumed its deliberations in 1851, while by the treaty of February, 1853 (Februarvertrag) the negotiations forAustria's entrance into the customs-union were postponed for six years.Austria andPrussia neutralized each other's influence and nothing was done, either in the customs-union or in the Diet. Consequently the central states,Saxony andBavaria, von Beust being prime-minister inSaxony and von der Pfordten ofBavaria, regarded themselves as the balance of power. Maximilian II summoned toCatholicMunich Liberal and Protestant professors, nicknamed the "Northern Lights, in order to win the public opinion of all Germany for his "Triad" project. Both of the great powers strove to secure the support of the German press. The failure to secure German unity once more gave the bureaucracy of the individual states the control. It was, however, no longer able to check the growth of democraticideas among the people, and the masses were more and more influenced by the political and social movement of the times. In 1849-50Liberalism underwent defeat; it then changed its programme and pursued chieflyeconomic aims. These were attained partly by founding countless politico-economic associations, such as consumers' leagues, unions of dealers in raw products, and loan associations (Schulze-Delitzsch); partly, and more largely, by controlling the use of capital on a large scale. During the fifties the representatives of great capital were able, by founding large joint-stock banks, principally for the purpose of building railroads and of financing mining enterprises, to attain a leading position in Germaneconomic life. The large landed proprietors of thePrussian provinces east of the Elbe had also in 1848 formed aneconomic, the Conservative, party. They watched over agrarian interests and also aimed at restoring the old Prussian-Protestant character of thePrussian monarchy, and the absolute sovereignty of the king. For a time incompetent leadership hindered their growth. On the other hand theCatholic movement soon spread among the people, though it did not constitute as yet an organized political party. TheCatholics, undeceived at last as to thetrue character ofLiberalism, but without entering into relations with the Conservatives, devoted themselves chiefly to the interests of the suffering masses whose social andeconomic needs had interested Radicalism merely as a pretext for agitation, and who had been neglected by the other parties. Thus arose the organization of journeymen's unions (Gesellenvereine) by Kolping of farmers' associations by Schorlermer-Alst, and the attempts to solve the labour question, which was taken up especially byKetteler and Jörg. At the same time theCatholics fought against the restoration of Protestant supremacy inPrussia ("Catholic Fraction," 1852,Mallinckrodt, theReichenspergers), and in the South-West against the unwarranted control of theChurch by the bureaucracy. The beginnings of Socialism resembled those of theCatholic movement. The feeling of a community of interests awoke in the labouring classes; but it was not until about 1864 that Lassalle utilized this sentiment for political purposes. Throughout the fifties and sixties theLiberals retained the lead. As early as 1859 they deemed the time propitious for seeking to attain again to political power, without, however, any such revolutionary disturbances as in 1848. The decline ofAustria's influence since Schwarzenberg's death (1852) encouraged them. In the Crimean War the temporizing policy ofAustria, which offendedRussia and did not satisfy the western powers, brought upon that country a serious diplomatic defeat, while in theItalianwar it suffered military disaster. In both casesAustria had opposedNapoleon III who by thesewars laid the foundation of his prestige inEurope.

The growth of large commercial enterprises in Germany widened the breach between it andAustria so that in 1859 the latter wasobliged to consent to a further postponement of its admission into the customs-union. Inecclesiastical politicsAustria sought to satisfy the "Great German" aspirations of theCatholics of southern and western Germany by signing the Concordat (1855).Würtemberg and Baden also negotiated withRome on the subject of a Concordat; but when, in 1859,Austria was defeated they relinquished the project.Austria's discomfiture in 1859 and its failure to form an alliance withPrussia againstNapoleon, greatly excited public opinion in Germany, for the impression prevailed that Germany was menaced byFrance. TheLiberals took advantage of this to renew their agitation for the union of Germany into a single constitutional state. In 1860 the Grand Duke Frederick of Baden (1852-1907), whose land was exposed to the attacks ofFrance, entrusted theLiberals with the ministry of Baden. In 1861 theLiberals undertook to force parliamentary government uponPrussia so as to obviate all further opposition on the part of the king to the creation of a consolidated German state. They encountered, indeed, an obstinate resistance from King William I (1861-88), but the prevailing antagonism between the bureaucracy and the people caused the sympathies of almost the entire German nation to be enlisted on the side of theLiberals. The smaller states, becoming anxious, proposed reforms, leading to greater unity, in the constitution of the German Confederation.Austria, where since 1860 von Schmerling had been prime minister, also made advances to theLiberals in order to strengthen its position in Germany (Austrian Constitution, 1861; congress of the princes atFrankfurt, 1863). However, the appointment ofBismarck to the presidency of thePrussian ministry in the autumn of 1862, and the political organization in 1864 of Socialism by Lassalle, again checked the rising tide ofLiberalism as early as 1863-64. This was followed by Bismarck's determination to settle once and for all with the sword the antagonism existing since 1848 in German affairs betweenPrussia andAustria. AsPrussian envoy to the Federal Diet in the fifties Bismarck had observed the instability of the lesser German states and the decline ofAustria's strength, as well as the methods ofNapoleon, especially the use the latter made of the principle of nationalities; but he was also able to see that since 1860Napoleon's star was on the wane. To a certain extent he appropriatedNapoleon's views in order thatPrussia might reap the fruits of what the French emperor had sown inEurope. At the same time he preserved an independent judgment so as to fit his measures to German conditions andproved that his genius contained greater qualities and more elements of success. In theDanish War (1864), fought to settle whether Schleswig and Holstein belonged toDenmark or Germany, he forced the Austrian minister of foreign affairs, Rechberg, to adopt his policy. He then manoeuvredAustria into a position of diplomatic isolation inEurope and, after forming an alliance withItaly, made a furious attack uponAustria in 1866. After two weeks ofwarAustria was completely defeated atKöniggrätz (3 July), and by the middle of JulyPrussia had occupied all Germany. In the meanwhileNapoleon had intervened. Bismarck put him off with unmeaning, verbal concessions, and in like manner pacified the GermanLiberals whose continued opposition might hinder the carrying out of his solution of the question of German unity. He then concluded withAustria the Treaty of Prague (23 August, 1866) which partook of the nature of a compromise.Austria separated itself entirely from Germany, the South German states were declared internationally independent,Prussia was recognized as the leader of North Germany, whileHanover, Hesse-Cassel (ElectoralHesse), Hesse-Nassau, Schleswig-Holstein, and Frankfurt were directly annexed toPrussia, and preliminaries were arranged for the adoption of a federal constitution by the still-existing North German states. The constitution of the North-German Confederation, established, 1 July, 1867, was framed by Bismarck so that the federal development of German constitutional law should be guarded, thus the constitution was adopted by treaties with the several sovereign princes, the autonomy of the individual states was assured, and a federal council (Bundesrat) was to be the representative of the various governments. Thenecessary unity of the government was guaranteed (1) by endowingPrussia with large authority in administration, giving it especially the command of the army and direction of diplomatic relations; (2) by assigning foreign affairs, formation of the army,economic interests, traffic and means of communication to the authority of the confederation, the competence of which was to be gradually enlarged (the model here taken being the Federal Acts of the Congress ofVienna of 1815); (3) by creating the Reichstag (Parliament), elected by universal, direct and equal suffrage, as the exponent of the national desire for unity. In the years immediately following the Reichstag passedlaws regulating the administration ofjustice.

Bismarck considered the absence from the confederation of the South German states to be merely temporary. As early as August, 1866, he had secretly made sure of their co-operation in case ofwar. In 1867 he re-established the customs-union with them; politico-economic questions of common interest were, in future, to be laid before the Reichstag of the North German Confederation which, for this purpose, was to be complemented by delegates from Southern Germany so as to constitute a customs parliament. In all other respects he left diplomatic relations with the states of South Germanyin statu quo. Attempts on their part to found a southern confederation failed. In like manner Bismarck postponed as long as possible the accounting withFrance in regard to the unification of Germany, although he foresaw that such an accounting was unavoidable. At a conference held inLondon, in 1867, he secured the neutralization of Luxembourg. In 1868 he desired to secure a resolution in favour of national unity from the customs parliament. To attain this he relied on theeconomic progress which, in consequence of the gradual unification of Germany, continually grew more marked and caused a complete change in a Liberal direction in the legislation on social andeconomic questions, and in that on the administration of law, both in the North German Confederation andBavaria. Illustrations of these more liberal changes are: the organization of the postal system by Henry Stephan; introduction of freedom of trade and theright to reside in any part of Germany; enactment of the penal code, 1870. Notwithstanding these results of the efforts towards union, the opposition, led byLudwig Windthorst, succeeded in obtaining a majority against him.

On 19 July, 1870,war broke out withFrance, the cause being the candidature of Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern for the Spanish throne.Napoleon had not been able to secure the help ofAustria andItaly; furthermore, his army was not prepared forwar. Bismarck, on the contrary, fanned to white heat the national enthusiasm of Germany. The German armies quickly crossed the Rhine, and gained a firm footing on the other side by a rapid succession of victories at Weissenburg, Wörth, and the Heights of Spicheren. The main French army under Bazaine was defeated atMetz and shut up inside the city, 14-18 August. The army of relief underMacMahon was defeated at Sedan, 1-2 September. Thewar became a series ofStrasburg fell, 28 September; Metz, 27 October; andParis, not until 28 January. Meanwhile Gambetta had organized a national militia, 600,000 strong, which, in conjunction with the remains of the standing army, harassed and obstructed theGermans on the Loire and in the North-West from October to January. On 10 May, 1871, by the Peace ofFrankfurt, Alsace-Lorraine was restored to Germany as an imperial territory (Reichsland). The southern states had already joined the Confederation, which had become the German Empire (with an area of 208,748 sq. miles). The Constitution of the North German Confederation was adopted, with the reservation of certain privileges in favour ofBavaria andWürtemberg. The Constitution was proclaimed 16-20 April, 1871,Prussia being entitled to 17 of the 58 votes in the Bundesrat or Federal Council, and to 236 of the 397 deputies in the Reichstag or Imperial Parliament. William I assumed the title of "German Emperor" atVersailles, 18 January, 1871; the office was made hereditary.

The new German empire

1871-1888

A development that had been in progress for many centuries and had been attended by many complications had practically reached its culmination; the political union of theGermans in a single body politic, without any relinquishment of the federal principle, so far as the relations among the ruling houses were concerned, had been accomplished, advantage being taken of the popular movement towards the unification of the several States into one organic whole.Austria had been excluded from Germany, the political consolidation of Northern Germany was almost complete, andPrussia'seconomic superiority over the south had been established beyond question. For while Southern and Central Germany (with the exception ofSaxony and Nassau), as well asHanover, experienced an increase in population of only about 22 to 36 per cent between 1830 and 1880, that ofPrussia grew about 60 per cent; and nearly all the coal and ore deposits of Germany were located within the borders of the latter kingdom. Withal, during the ensuing years the united people did not devote themselves exclusively to peaceful pursuits. It istrue these received great attention; German commercial andeconomic interests throughout the world were developed; uniformity was established in weights and measures (1872),coinage (1875), the administration ofjustice (1879); thelaws of the empire were codified; and after a short time close attention was also given to social problems. On the other hand, military preparations (September, 1874), in caseFrance should renew thewar, were pushed forward with increasingzeal. Furthermore, the old internal feuds among the religious creeds and parties were resumed with greater passion than ever in consequence of the proclamation of thedogma ofInfallibility and of the organization of theCentre party. In all this Bismarck was the leader, while theLiberals constituted the government party (seeKULTURKAMPF).

It was not until 1875 that there was any degree of tranquillity and stability. Bismarck recognized that he was lessening the extraordinary esteem in which he was held by the whole world, by his excessive intimidation ofFrance. Moreover, the defeat inFrance of the Royalists andCatholics by the Radicals andProtestants freed him from apprehension of danger from that quarter.Russia having been estranged from the empire by his anti-French policy, Bismarck sought the friendship ofAustria-Hungary. In 1879 he brought about an alliance withAustria, which, when joined byItaly in 1883, became the Triple Alliance, which still subsists — the league of the great powers of CentralEurope. He re-established better relations withRussia by means of the secret treaty with that country in 1887. The election ofLeo XIII, the "pope of peace" (1878), disposed Bismarck to come to an understanding with theCatholicChurch. But as a preliminary condition he demanded either that the centre party be dissolved or that it become a government party. At the same time he contemplated sweeping changes in internal politics. The Liberal ascendancy, beginning in 1871, had been responsible for the inauguration of an excessive number ofeconomic undertakings, resulting in the financial depression of 1873; in political finance it brought about an almost complete stagnation in the development of the systems of taxation both of the empire and the component states; in social politics it had led to a rapid increase in the ranks of the Social Democrats, who after Lassalle's death had become under Bebel and Liebknecht an international party, in which numerousanarchistic elements were blended. In 1875 there had been a fusion of the Lassalle and Bebel factions; the Gotha programme was drawn up; at the elections of 1877 they scored their first important success.Liberalism had also failed completely in its opposition to the Centre; the latter party had so grown that it controlled more than a quarter of the votes in the Reichstag. Bismarck determined to restrict once more the influence of theLiberals in domestic politics. The transformation of the Conservative faction from an old-Prussian party of landed proprietors into a German Agrarian party (1876) made it capable of further development and useful as a support for Bismarck. He purposed forming a majority by combining this Conservative party with the moderate NationalLiberals (under Bennigsen and Miquel), while at the same time, theCentre party having refused to disband, there was the possibility of forming a majority of the Conservatives and the Centre.

Between 1876 and 1879 to organize the administration of the empire, the Reichstag created, subordinate to the chancellor, who under the Constitution was the only responsible official, the following imperial authorities or secretariats of State: Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Imperial Home Office, Imperial Ministry of Justice, Imperial Treasury, Administration of Imperial Railways, Imperial Post Office, Imperial Admiralty, Secretariat for the Colonies (1907). A number of non-political departments were also established, in part under the various secretaries of State, the chief of which was the Imperial Insurance Department; military affairs were placed under thePrussian Minister of War. In 1879 the imperial territory ofAlsace-Lorraine was granted autonomy, though this was of a limited character. In 1878, after the attempts made by Hoedel and Nobiling on the life of William I, Bismarck carried out temporary measures for the suppression of Social Democratic agitation, e.g., the Socialist Law forbidding all Social Democratic organizations and newspapers. In the following year, encouraged by the increase in the sense of national unity due above all to the growth of German commerce and industry, he effected the financial and economic-political reform, his battle cry being: "Protection for German Labour!" Small protectiveduties were imposed upon agricultural and industrial imports, and a tariff for revenue only on colonial wares. The proceeds of bothduties were to constitute the chief revenue of the empire, but of these only 130 million marks were to go to the imperial treasury, the rest being divided among the federal states, in return for which the latter, by means of federal contributions (Matrikularbeiträge), were to make good the contingent deficits of the empire. During the eighties theduties on agricultural products were gradually raised (especially in 1887), besides which several profitable indirect taxes, e.g., on brandy, tobacco, and stamps, were sanctioned, in order to meet the growing expenditures of the empire. In 1881 an imperial message to the Reichstag announced the inauguration of a policy of social reform in favour of theworking classes. Between 1881 and 1889 the compulsory insurance of working-men against sickness, accident, disability, and old age was provided for by legislation. This was Bismarck's greatest achievement in domestic politics. The empire was now for the first time made the centre of the civil interests of theGermans, who up to this time had been occupied chiefly with the doings of their restive states, the management of Church andschool having been retained by these. Bismarck, now at the zenith of the second creative period of his life, conceived theidea of organizing labour insurance on the basis of the community of interests of those engaged in the same work. By this means he proposed to establish in the empire self-government in social politics, which would equal in importance the local self-government of communities subordinated to the individual states, and which would complement the establishment of universal suffrage byeducating the people for the administration of public affairs.

Bismarck also gave his support to the great German commercial interests which insisted upon the acquisition of colonies; in 1884 South-West Africa, Kamerun, and Togo were acquired; in 1885-86 German East Africa, GermanNew Guinea, and the Bismarck Archipelago. He even went so far as to risk being embroiled withEngland, although it was an inviolable fundamental principle of his policy not to encroach on that country's privileges. It appeared as if Bismarck, though he had grown up under wholly different conditions and had been schooled in wholly differentideas, entered into the spirit of the democratic German of the future, with its world-wide commerce and its world-wideeconomic interests. But the first step taken, he retreated. He did not carry out his scheme of co-operative organization. It was in the fight against the growth of the German democratic tendencies within the empire that he exhausted his strength in the eighties. Domestic peace was promoted in Germany by the final though belated close of theKulturkampf (1886-87); the beneficial effects of this were greatly lessened by the severity andviolence of the measures with which Bismarck had begun (1885-86) to break up the national movement of thePrussian Poles, which was the consequence of constantly increasing prosperity and a rise of a middle class among them. Exile, efforts to suppress the Polish language, the expenditure of State funds to colonizePoland with German peasants were the means used. Incapable of respecting political parties and working in harmony with them, he became involved in incessant parliamentary contests with them. Particularly the demands of the Government for an increase in the strength of the army, which was levied by general conscription, brought him into conflict with the Centre and the Left, because of his insistence that the appropriation for army purposes should be made for a period of seven years, instead of for one year, according to the Constitution, or for the term of a parliament. Bitter quarrels also marked the debates on social questions, because Bismarck refused to agree to state protection of workmen, though he had conceded state insurance.

The political parties, all of which had been organized before the creation of the empire, now began to adapt themselves to new conditions, to cast aside issues resulting from the division of Germany into separate states, and to alter their positions to conform to new points of view; but their development was seriously hampered by these conflicts. In 1879 theLiberals had resigned the presidency of the Reichstag in consequence of the adoption of financial and tariff reform. The president was now chosen from the Conservatives, marking the Conservative era of the empire, which down to the present time has been uninterrupted with the exception of the supremacy of the Centre from 1895 to 1906. After their fall from power, theLiberals repeatedly split into factions according to their differences of opinion on commercial policy. The most important section, the National Liberal party, was reorganized in 1884 by Miquel. It became reconciled with Bismarck and regained some seats in the Reichstag, but not its former power. The Conservatives energetically took up the demands for the protection of theworking classes. Eventually the Agrarian element among them got the upper hand. They failed, however, to attract into their ranks the smaller middle class, i.e., the small retail traders who had combined to resist the great industrial interests; nor did they win over the officials of the civil service, nor the Christian Socialists among their Evangelical constituents. Consequently, small parties sprang up in the west and south of Germany that were fundamentally Conservative in character but had no connexion with the great Conservative party. The attempt that von Kleist-Retzow made to found a Protestant party of the Centre in the hope of winning over the heir to the throne, Prince William, to its cause, was frustrated by Bismarck's intrigues, by which the prince was alienated from the Conservatives. The Centre maintained its strength and directed its attention to social politics in the empire and to theschool question in the individual states. It became the leading party in the Reichstag, represented by Hitze and von Hertling. In 1890 the "People's Union for Catholic Germany" (Volksverein für das katholische Deutschland) was founded. The Social Democrats, prevented by the Socialist Law from agitating their cause publicly, kept up their strength by secret recruitment. By dissolving the Reichstag in 1887, Bismarck secured the most favourable electoral results that had ever fallen to his lot, inasmuch as an overwhelming majority of Conservatives and NationalLiberals (so-called Kartell-Reichstag) was returned. But he was unable to work harmoniously even with this majority.

From 1888 to 1909

In 1888 William I died. Frederick III, the hope of theLiberals, followed him to the grave in ninety-nine days, and the reign of William II began. The youthful and able ruler wished to make Germany as speedily as possible a sharer in the world's commerce. He realized that, to attain this end, internal tranquillity was asnecessary as external peace. He dismissed Bismarck in March 1890 and replaced him by Caprivi (1890-94). Then he saw to it that the all but unanimous desire of the Reichstag to complete the compulsory insurance legislation by comprehensive factory legislation was satisfied. An international conference for the protection of working men was held, March, 1890, and a supplementary law (Gewerbsordnungs-Novelle) was passed 1 June, 1891. He moderated the repressive measures against the Poles. He intended to give theCatholics a guarantee that the nationalschools would continue to beChristian by the proposed National School Law in 1892, but withdrew the bill when theLiberals assumed a hostile attitude, and his pacific aims were thwarted. In foreign affairs he came to an understanding withEngland in regard to the difficulties that had arisen from the colonial expansion of Germany, e.g., the exchange ofZanzibar for Heligoland in 1890. In the interests of peace likewise he succeeded in concluding commercial treaties withAustria,Italy,Russia, and several smaller states, by lowering the agriculturalduties which had become very high. WithFrance he sought to establish relations that were at least free from bitterness. Because of its sovereignty over the Balkans and the East, he devoted special attention to Germany's political relations to Turkey. For he saw that these countries were the best markets for German trade. But trouble soon began. The emperor's autocratic proclivities and his sudden changes of opinion aroused bitter criticism among the people. The new Army Bill of 1893, which proposed to reduce the period of military service to two years, was well-meant on his part, but was so badly managed that it brought him into collision with the Centre (Dissolution of the Reichstag, 1893). On the other hand, the commercial treaties, which were opposed by the agricultural party, got the emperor into difficulties with the Conservatives. In 1895 the Reichstag turned a deaf ear to his demands for renewal of sharp repressive measures against agitations that were "hostile to the state" (the so-called "Umsturzvorlage"). His views subsequently became liberalized, his following being recruited mainly from the commercial, industrial, andintellectual classes (Krupp, Ballin, Harnack).

The success of the emperor's policy during the next few years dispelled the clouds of opposition, especially as Caprivi's successor, Chlodwig Hohenlohe (1894-1901), was a man of astute and conciliatory nature, while in Count Posadowsky, Secretary of State for Home Affairs, the emperor had the support of an extremely competent and energetic man. Germany became Turkey's chief counsellor. The maintenance of friendly relations with the rapidly developingUnited States of America, despite the opposition of their economical interests and isolated instances of friction between officers, strengthened public confidence in the international situation. By the occupation of Kiao-chau in 1898, Germany secured a footing in EasternAsia, while the partition of the Samoan Islands and the acquisition of the Carolines (1898-9) gave her a much-desired increase of stations in the Pacific. The German transatlantic merchant marine held for a long period the record for the race across the Atlantic, and, even inAfrica andAsia, Germany promised to become a very serious rival ofEngland. The last decade of the nineteenth century was a period of exceptional prosperity throughout the country. From forty-one millions in 1871, the population increased to sixty millions in 1905. The increased national well-being will be realized from the fact that at present the gross value of the agricultural produce amounts to some $3,525,000,000, and of the industrial output to about $8,460,000,000. In 1871, two-thirds of the population still lived in the country, whereas in 1900 54.3 per cent lived in towns of more than 2000 inhabitants, and in 1905 19 per cent lived in cities of more than 100,000 inhabitants. In the agricultural districts, however, conditions continued to be healthy — 31 per cent being cultivated by peasants, 24 per cent being held in large estates, and the remainder in lots of less than 20 hectares (roughly 50 acres). The woodland area still includes one-fourth of the total area.

During this period the national standard of living became more luxurious; revolutionary and anarchistic tendencies began appreciably to disappear. The whole nation was seized by a burning tendency towards the formation of new associations, a spirit to which we owe the foundation of theCatholic People's Union (der Volksverein: members in 1908, 600,000), the Farmers' League (1908: 300,000 members), the free (Socialistic) guilds (1908: over 750,000 members), the Christian Endeavour guilds (1908: over 200,000 members), etc. In Parliament, the great political parties (Conservatives, NationalLiberals, and the Centre) drew closer together; the presidency devolved on the Centre in consequence of its numerical preponderance and the ability of its leaders. In 1899, the constantly recurring conflict between the Crown and the Reichstag on the subject of appropriations for military expenditure was settled by an agreement on the part of the legislative assembly to vote supplies henceforth for the parliamentary period, which had been increased from three to five years in 1888. Among the important measures passed were the completion of the unified legal codes (1896) and the Naval Acts (1898, 1901), which had in view the raising of Germany to a maritime power of the first rank. In 1902 the resolution to restore the high protectiveduties on agricultural products was passed in the face of the bitter opposition maintained by the Social Democrats for many months (Tariff Bills, on the basis of which the commercial treaties were renewed in 1905).Prussia's project of constructing a canal through her own territory from the Oder to the Rhine met with obstinate resistance, not indeed in the Reichstag, but in thePrussian Diet (rejected in 1899, approved in 1903). In the midst of this era of prosperity Bismarck died (1898).

In foreign politics, however, there came a change for the worse afterEngland's subjugation of the Boers. Under Edward VII, Great Britain forced Germany back from almost all the positions which she had recently occupied. Meanwhile, William II devoted himself to a line of policy calculated to win temporary favour (journey to Jerusalem, 1898; intervention in the Chinese complications, 1900; landing in Tangier, 1905). Prince Buelow, who replaced Hohenlohe in 1900, was unable to stem the ebbing tide. In the Moroccan controversy between Germany andFrance, Germany, who appealed to an international conference (at Algeciras, 1906), suffered a severe rebuff. By his efforts to separateAustria andItaly from the Triple Alliance and by his ententes with the other Powers ofEurope, Edward VII isolated his rival (1907, Triple-Entente betweenEngland,Russia, andFrance). Buelow's Polish policy, which was more drastic even than Bismarck's (cf. the Expropriation Act of 1908), resulted only in disappointments without effectually checking the Polish disturbances. In 1907, owing in part to the financial crisis in America, Germany's commercial prosperity markedly declined. Favoured by the customs tariff, agriculture alone continued to flourish. The revenue of the empire decreased with the commercial profits. At the same time the rising of the Herreros in South-Western Africa in 1904 called for large unforeseen expenditures, while the troubled aspect of the foreign situation necessitated a tremendous increase in the outlay on armaments (cf. Naval statutes of 1908. The "ordinary" expenditure in 1907 was 2329 millions of marks; Nationaldebt in 1873: 1800 millions, and in 1908, 4400 millions of marks.) One attempt after another was made at fiscal reform [1904, relaxation of the Franckenstein clause; 1906, 150 million marks ($35,250,000) yearly taxes were voted; in 1908-09, 500 millions were demanded by the government], but the government is still carried on with a deficit. Thorough recovery has been prevented by the renewed violent dissensions in the nation by party spirit (since 1892) and the clash of opposing ideals.

The coalition, which had formed the majority during the nineties, broke up in 1903. Its most important factor was the Centre, the number of whose seats in the Reichstag and supporters in the constituencies remained stationary even during the period of its parliamentary ascendancy. Therein lay its weakness, since meanwhile its allies, the official Liberal and Conservative parties, gained ground. TheLiberals gained in consequence of a movement towards concentration among theLiberals of the Left soon after the beginning of the century (Fusion of the Liberal of the Left, 1906), and of a reconciliation between the NationalLiberals and theLiberals of the Left by means of a "Young Liberal" movement in their ranks. The Conservatives, who had been growing as a party almost uninterruptedly since 1876, especially after the founding of the "Farmers' League" in 1893, gained by gradually invading the agrarian territory in the west and south-west.

Up to 1906, the Protestant League, founded in 1886, maintained a fanatical agitation amongst the populace to frustrate the endeavours of theCatholics, directed through the Centre, to secure recognition of their equalrights as citizens in the public life of the nation. Yielding to this agitation, first the NationalLiberals then the Conservatives dissociated themselves from the Centre. Despite its utmost efforts, the Centre failed in 1906 to secure the repeal of the remainder of theKulturkampf Laws, except to the extent of the two paragraphs of theJesuit law (i.e., the expulsion clauses). Furthermore, the so-called "toleration bills," in which the Centre strove by imperial legislation to fix the minimum ofrights to be conceded toCatholics in the separate states, although repeatedly presented to the Reichstag after 1900, always met with defeat. When, in 1906, theChristian character of the nationalschools was finally established by statute inPrussia after an interval of 13 years, the Government drafted the bill in accordance with the wishes of the Conservatives and the NationalLiberals, and left to the Centre only the right of voting for it.

Another important factor in bringing about the cleavage between the parties was the spread among the wealthier classes, both Liberal and Conservative, of a strong feeling of opposition to further social legislation. This feeling found an outlet in the formation of influential syndicates, and was most bitterly directed against the Centre, as the principal promoter of social remedial measures. An open breach between the parties took place on the question of a relatively insignificant colonial budget. The Government immediately disowned the Centre, and dissolved the Reichstag (13 December, 1906). Since then the situation has been very complicated. As a result of the elections the Centre retained its former voting strength, but was isolated. The Government formed a new coalition, called "the Block," consisting of the Conservatives and the united Liberal party — theLiberals of the Left had hitherto been in opposition. In this it relied on the feelings of hostility towards the Centre which animated theProtestants and the propertied classes. When the administration, however, made concessions to Liberal principles (extension of the right of association, partial repeal of the stock exchange legislation, promise to introduce popular suffrage intoPrussia), the Conservatives, after some hesitation, decided to oppose the Government so again sought an alliance with the Centre. They are stronger than theLiberals, but the sympathies of the Government and of the Anti-Catholic portion of the population will help theLiberals in their contests with the Conservatives. The quarrel amongst the civil parties prevents the further loss of parliamentary seats by the Social Democrats, whose voting power has been steadily increasing since 1890 (in 1907 they cast 3,259,000 votes, 29 per cent of the total, although they won only forty-three seats in the Reichstag as compared with eighty-one in 1903). It also prevents the reconstruction of the programme of the Socialists, many of whom — especially in South Germany — favour a peaceful transformation ofsociety. The difference of opinions existing among the Socialist party was clearly evidenced by the violent quarrel between the opposing sections at the Dresden Convention in 1903.

The position of the Government in view of its relations with the parties is at present (Jan., 1909) not very favourable. The administrative organization of the empire hardly suffices. Besides, the shock given to the power of the emperor in November, 1908, in consequence of the popular resentment of his personal interference in politics as revealed in the "Daily Telegraph" interview, has not served to strengthen the Government. On the other hand, its prestige was greatly enhanced by the re-establishment of German influence in international politics, owing to its firm support ofAustria-Hungary in the Balkan crisis (1908-9). It has put an end to the isolation of Germany, strengthened the bonds of the Triple Alliance, and promises to result in a rapprochement withRussia.

In dealing with the present situation of GermanCatholicism, relations betweenChurch and State must be separated from the question of the civicrights of the GermanCatholics. The authorities of theChurch and State work together in a spirit of mutual benevolence, the chief credit for which is due to Cardinal Kopp, since 1886 Prince-Bishop ofBreslau. Ecclesiastically speaking, Germany is divided into 5 archbishoprics, 14 suffragan and 6 exemptbishoprics, 3 Apostolic vicariates, and 2 Apostolic prefectures. Theclergy are trained for the most part by 15theologicaluniversity or lyceum faculties (the most recently established being atStrasburg, 1902), a smaller number inseminaries. Ecclesiastical affairs are not regulated by the empire but by the individual state. InPrussia they rest on theBull "De Salute Animarum" and the explanatory brief "Quodde Fidelium" of 1821 (although the promise of land endowment for thebishoprics has not been kept), on the constitution of 1850, and on thelaws of 1886-87 regulatingecclesiastical polity. InWürtemberg, they rest on the Statute of 1862, in Baden on the Statutes of 1860, inBavaria on the Concordat of 1817, which has not actually been enforced and which consequently creates a state of legal uncertainty. In these divisions of the empire, theChurch has therights of a privileged corporation. In the Kingdom of Saxony and in Saxe-Weimar, allecclesiastical ordinances and appointments, even those issued fromRome, as well as the erection of new churches, etc., are subject to the approval of the Government. Appeal toRome is forbidden. In the other small Thuringian states, and inBrunswick and Mecklenburg, theCatholics even recently had to submit theirparochial affairs to the authority of the Protestantpastors, and in partCatholics even now paytithes to the Protestantpastors for this unsought-for service. The building of churches and establishment ofschools are also subject to galling restrictions.

Thebishops are elected by thecathedral chapters, except inBavaria (where they are chosen by agreement between the Government andRome); in the Upper Rhenish church province, inOsnabrück, and inHildesheim, theIrish method of election obtains; elsewhere exists the customary submission of a list of candidates to the Government. The establishment ofconvents is everywhere subject to the approval of the State. InWürtemberg and Baden onlyfemale orders are allowed; inSaxony and the smaller Protestant States only nursing sisterhoods.Jesuit institutions are not permitted anywhere. The primaryschools are mostly denominational, but are neutral inBaden, in part ofBavaria, and in two provinces ofPrussia. They are founded by the State and by the communities, but the localpastors supervise the religious instruction and are generally the localschool inspectors. The system of intermediate and higherschools for boys is undenominational almost without exception, and is under either state or municipal control; theschools for girls are mostly under private and denominational management, being largely conducted bynuns. Thecivil marriageceremony takes precedence of the religious by an imperial law of 1875;divorce is regulated by the civil code. ForCatholic couples separationa mensâ et thoro may be granted. Charitable relief work is admirably regulated and carefully stimulated by the focusing of charitable impulses in theCharitasverband (Charity Organization Society), founded atFreiburg in 1897. It is working more and more in harmony with social relief work. There is a large number of religioussocieties; the throngs who assist at all religious festivals are impressive, and the numbers who receive thesacraments are gratifying. Pilgrimages are numerously attended, the most famous place ofpilgrimage inPrussia being Kevelaer, inBavaria Altötting. Considerable anxiety is inspired by the prevalence of Social Democracy in certain districts, and by the irreligious indifference of the rising generation of the propertied classes.

The civil status ofCatholics is not so good. Of the 60,641,272 inhabitants of Germany in 1905, about 36.00 per cent wereCatholic (in 1900 only 36.1 per cent as compared with 36.2 per cent in 1871). At present, as formerly, unity infuses life into theCatholicChurch. TheCatholics are splendidly organized (for politics by the Centre and insociological respect by theChristian guilds and by Volksverein). They are making persistent efforts to secure equal recognition in public life (cf. the agitation afoot inPrussia since 1890 in favour of equalrights forCatholics; the so-called "Self-examination Movement" throughout the empire, that is to say, the general investigation into the injustices suffered byCatholics in theeducational and economical life of the country). Recently, the number ofCatholic pupils in the intermediate and higherschools has increased, but only on thehumanistic side. Their representation in the poly-technicschools as well as in the student bodies at theuniversities continues to be weak, out of all proportion to those of the other communions. Only in isolated instances are the leading positions in the states and communities filled byCatholics. NoPrussian state minister, and only one state secretary isCatholic. Their share in the public wealth does not at all correspond with their numerical strength.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT