Читать книгу The American Encyclopedia of History, Biography and Travel - Thomas H. Prescott - Страница 13

Table of Contents

Under the title of the Middle Ages is comprehended that period of history which succeeded the destruction of the Roman western empire and extended to the end of the fifteenth or beginning of the sixteenth century, when learning was revived in Europe. This period of about eight hundred years may be said to divide ancient from modern times. The early portion of the middle ages is sometimes styled the Dark Ages; for during this time the ancient civilization of Rome, a bequest from Egypt and Greece, disappeared, and ancient institutions perished, without anything better being substituted. The middle ages altogether differ from any other period in history. They may be generally described as an era of universal disorder, in which was maintained a struggle between force and reason. Old governments were broken up, and new ones took their place, only to be dismembered in turn. Literature sunk into obscurity, and was confined to the cells of monks. Slavery was universal, and was modified alone by the benign influence of Christianity. Gradually, as it will be seen, nations assumed a settled character, arts were discovered, and for military turbulence were substituted peaceful institutions. Much, therefore, as there is to deplore in the history of the middle ages, there is not a little to commend and be grateful for. We must view these ages as being the cradle of modern civilization, the era whence sprung much that we venerate in our institutions, much that distinguishes modern from ancient manners.

THE EASTERN EMPIRE TO THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

It is necessary to begin a history of the middle ages with reference to the decline of the Roman Empire. This decline was caused by various circumstances, but chiefly by the weakened condition of society. Instead of rearing a respectable lower and middle class, the Roman aristocracy kept the mass of the people in slavery, so that at length society consisted of but a comparatively small number of privileged persons, including the military, and vast numbers of serfs or slaves—​the hangers-on of great men—​and in effect paupers. ‘The freedom of the ancient world expired in the course of ages,’ says Alison, ‘from the small number of those who enjoyed its benefits. The ruling citizens became corrupted from the influence of prosperity, or by the seduction of wealth; and no infusion of energy took place from the lower ranks to renovate their strength or supply their place.’ Besides this general, there was a special cause. In 321, Constantine transferred the imperial abode from Rome to Byzantium, a city situated on the Bosphorus, and afterwards called Constantinople. In his endeavors to make this city the seat of government, Constantine only partially succeeded; for it generally happened after his day that there was one emperor in the East and another in the West, and not unfrequently two or three different individuals in the provinces, at the head of considerable military forces, claiming partial and even universal empire. Rome itself, and the countries of western Europe, were soon taken posession of by barbarous intruders, and lost all the characteristics and individuality of empire; but Constantinople continued for a thousand years the abode of men who had still the name of emperors, reckoning themselves the descendants of the Cæsars, although they had long ceased to wield anything but the shadow of power. Constantine was himself instrumental in dismembering his empire, having before his death divided it among no fewer than five individuals—​namely, his three sons, Constantine, Constans, Constantius, and his two nephews, Dalmatius and Annipalianus, both of whom bore in addition the surname of Cæsar—​a name still popular among a people who wished themselves to be considered Roman.

Constantine II soon fell a sacrifice to the cruelty and ambition of his brother Constans, who in his turn lost his life in attempting to quell a revolt among his subjects; and Constantius, the youngest of the sons, having found means to destroy the two Cæsars, and five other cousins, and two uncles, found himself at an early period of life the undisputed master of the empire. He reigned twenty-four years, but left no monuments of goodness or of greatness, having wasted his time in the practice of vice, or in the equally unprofitable, if more innocent, employment of disputing with bishops on the abstrusest points of doctrinal theology; while a host of enemies, apparently from every side of his dominions, were engaged in undermining and laying waste the empire. It was in the West that these attacks were first made, though perhaps it was in the East that they were fiercest. Numberless and powerful barbarians now began to pour unceasingly upon Gaul, Spain, and latterly upon Italy itself, from the forests of the north, and in particular from those of Germany—​a country whose inhabitants have been remarkable in the history of the world, both as having originated many of the greatest movements in society, and as having laid open more of the sources of human thought than any people that could be named. The Franks, Saxons, Goths, and Alemanni, devastated the fine countries watered by the Rhine, and so effectually severed them from the Empire, that from this period their history becomes wholly separate. At the same time the Sarmatians, Persians, Scythians, and others, made dreadful incursions in the East. All that Constantius could do to stem this powerful tide was to raise his kinsman Julian, whom he surnamed Cæsar, to command in the army.

Julian had been early instructed in the Christian religion, but he is not known to have ever given it any credit, although he has been often called apostate. He had imbibed the philosophy of Plato in the schools of Athens; and with this learning, with the elements of a great character in his mind, and with the models of Cæsar, of Trajan, and of Marcus Antonius in his eye, he formed the design, and seemed to have the ability, to raise up and consolidate the glories of a falling Empire. His victories over the Alemanni in Gaul, although they preserved the Empire, excited only the envy of the emperor, and Constantius was about to depose him from his command, when his own death saved him from the ignominy to which the soldiery would certainly have subjected him for any attempt to degrade their favorite commander. Julian was himself declared emperor by the army, and the people had lost both the power and the will to resist. Unfortunately for his fame, Julian perished in battle with the Persians only three years after his accession. In that short period he had reformed many abuses in the state; and though personally hostile to the Christian religion, and though he used both arguments and ridicule against it, he not only advocated, but practiced universal toleration. It is creditable also to Julian, that in establishing the ancient orders of Roman priesthood, he was at pains to enforce a strict morality in all the relations of life. He was succeeded, after the fall of several candidates, by Valentinian, whose father had been a soldier from the Danube. This emperor took for colleague his brother Valens, to whom he assigned Constantinople and the government of the East. The reign of Valens was signalized by the irruption into Europe of an enemy till then unknown to the Romans; these were the Huns, a confederation of Tartar tribes, some of whom had obtained the ascendancy and control over the rest, and led them on to invade the nations of Europe. Their numbers and ferocity led the ancient writers to describe them in terms of consternation, which to moderns, who are no strangers to Calmucs, Cossacks, Tartars, and other tribes of similar origin, appear sufficiently ludicrous. They never lived in houses, slept under trees, ate raw flesh, and were altogether superior in war even to the Goths, who were now in alliance with the Romans, and had begun to relish the comforts of a settled life. They were, therefore, driven away before the Huns, and were forced, in search of a home, to invade the Roman territory. Here they were opposed by the Emperor Valens; but they defeated his army, and made his own life a sacrifice. He was succeeded by his nephew Gratian, who chose for his colleague Theodosius, a general of talents and celebrity. This emperor restored the confidence of his own army, and broke the power of the Goths, by his skill and caution; and was the first of the emperors who practiced the mode of dividing the barbarians against one another, by giving money to such of their tribes as he imagined would make useful auxiliaries. This system, which the wealth of the emperors (from their possession of all the maritime and trading cities) enabled them long to use against their poorer enemies, often saved the Empire at the expense of its dignity; for though the money was given at first as a gratuity, it was sometimes demanded in times of weakness as a tribute. This Theodosius (commonly called the Great) was the first who made Christianity the established religion of the Empire (390). He procured a senatorial edict in favor of the Christians and their religion, sanctioned the destruction of the heathen temples, and forbade the performance of sacrifices either in public or private. The Empire under this prince still preserved its original extent; but he divided it between his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius (394), and its parts were never afterwards reunited.

From the death of Theodosius II (449) to the reign of Justinian (527), the Eastern Empire continued without any considerable alteration, though there were many changes and intrigues in the court and army. The reign of the latter prince is memorable on several accounts: it was under his auspices that a knowledge of the silk manufacture was first brought to Europe, where it gave employment to much ingenious industry (900). Justinian also caused certain eminent lawyers to prepare a code of laws, and an abridgement of law decisions, etc. called the Pandects, which were used by all his successors, and have been adopted as the basis of their laws by several countries of Europe. With the single exception of the Code de Napoleon, these form the only complete and perfect abstract of national law which any government has given to its people. Whatever may have been Justinian’s errors in other respects, his having projected this work, and procured so many able ministers to execute it, must redound forever to his honor. The talents and virtues of his general Belisarius regained to the Empire Africa and a great part of Italy, from the Vandals and Ostrogoths; this conquest, however, only prevented the latter region from being united under one government, and has been the cause of its remaining a feeble and divided country ever since. In the reign of Tiberius shortly after (580), the people of Rome, though they entreated with great earnestness the aid and pity of the emperor, who now claimed to rule over them, were unable to obtain any relief, and remained distracted between their attachment to the ancient head of the Empire, and the claims of his enemies who occupied the rest of Italy.

The next emperor who merits attention is Heraclius (610), a native of Africa. The Eastern Empire had till now preserved its ancient boundaries in their full extent, and was mistress of Carthage, Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor, besides Greece, and the countries on the Danube. The Roman armies on the eastern frontier had, however, been lately driven in by Chosroes, king of Persia, who now occupied all the north of Africa and Syria. This was the first great violation of their territory sustained by the emperors of Constantinople; and Heraclius avenged it with a celerity and effect which made the Persians tremble. His triumph, however, was short, for the latter part of his reign was disturbed by the rise and victories of Mohammed. The successors of this signal impostor, after breaking the power of Persia (already weakened by the victories of Heraclius), immediately attacked the Roman Empire; then defeated its armies in two battles, occupied all Syria, and obliged the emperor (now an old man) to retire to Constantinople. He died in 641.

The continued victories of the followers of Mohammed (called Arabs or Saracens) soon deprived the Empire of Egypt, Africa, and Syria; and in 668 they followed up their success by attacking Constantinople itself. The city sustained two sieges, in the first of which the Saracens were encamped in its neighborhood, and carried on the operations of a siege at intervals, for seven years; and in the second, for nearly two. In both the Saracens wasted immense resources ineffectually.

The Empire had now lost all its provinces eastward of Mount Taurus, and the cities of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, were in the hands of the Mohammedans. There was little further change in its condition till the year 867, under the Emperor Basil, who gave new vigor both to the internal administration and to the military resources of the government. This prince, and his immediate predecessor Zimisces, made the Roman arms—​for they still wished to be called Romans—​respected on the Euphrates, and Tigris, and asserted the ancient warlike reputation and boundaries of the Empire. They were now, however, deprived of the resources they had enjoyed in the secure possession of the great commercial cities of the Mediterranean—​Alexandria, Carthage, Cæsarea, etc.; and the trade and revenues of those which remained were crippled and diminished, from the want of that free general intercourse which had existed when they were all under one government. Hence the armies were maintained with greater difficulty, and any victories that were gained could not be followed up with effect. The early enemies of the Empire—​the Goths, Vandals, and Huns—​had now settled into civilized communities, and were no longer formidable. The foes with whom it contended latterly were the Bulgarians and Seljukian Turks; the former of whom were rather troublesome than dangerous, but the latter, who had succeeded the Saracens in the dominion of Asia, aimed at nothing short of the destruction of the Roman name. They succeeded at last by defeating and taking prisoner the Emperor Romanus Diogenes, in tearing away almost the whole province of Asia Minor (1099); so that the emperors were now confined to the dominions in Europe, which, however, still formed a monarchy not much smaller than France or Spain.

The manners of the court of Constantinople during much of this period were dissolute and corrupt. We are told of one emperor who ordered a plate of human noses to be brought to his table; another was accustomed to seize the deputies of cities whose tribute was in arrear, and suspend them with their heads downwards over a slow fire; a third got up farces in mockery of the ceremonies of religion; and, in general, the appointment of officers, and even the succession to the Empire (where it was not seized by some successful general), were in the hands of the women and eunuchs of the palace. The cities and provinces generally acquiesced as to the choice of an emperor in the decision of the capital or army; this circumstance shows that the laws were attended to, and that there was a regular system of government, which were not much disturbed by the personal character of the reigning prince. The countries of Greece, however, which had formerly been the seat of knowledge and the arts, were now sunk in ignorance; and the little learning that was cultivated in Athens was only scholastic divinity, or the pedantry of law and grammar. There is no scholar, or philosopher, or poet, of the empire of Constantinople who is generally known to posterity.

A great change took place in the relations of the Empire after the eleventh century. It was still pressed by the Turks on the East, who now occupied Asia Minor, and were only separated from Constantinople by the Hellespont; while in Europe its territories were disturbed by the incursions of certain Norman adventurers who had settled in Sicily. Against these enemies the Emperor Claudius Comnenus, an active prince, and full of resources, made all the resistance which his diminished revenues allowed. He applied to the Christian sovereigns of Europe to aid him in expelling the Mohammedans from the territories of the Empire, but above all, to drive out the Turks from the land of Judea, which they occupied and profaned, and where they harassed the Christian pilgrims who desired to visit the scenes of Scripture history. His appeal was received in Europe at a time when many concurring causes had brought the mass of the people to a state of uneasiness which at once foreboded and rendered necessary some extensive change in their condition. Countrymen of their own, pilgrims from the shrine of the tomb of Chist, had returned and filled them with horror by a recital of indignities which Turkish infidels were casting on those scenes and subjects with which their own most sacred feelings were associated; and the result was that extraordinary outpouring of the inhabitants of Europe upon Asia, which has been termed the Crusades, and to which we shall afterwards advert.

ARABIA—​MOHAMMED—​EMPIRE OF THE SARACENS.

It was not before the sixth century that Arabia became peculiarly remarkable in the history of the world. The wild Arabs, as they have been generally called, had already signalized themselves by incursions on the Empire of the East, when Mohammed was born, in the year 569 (some say, 571) of the Christian era, at Mecca, the principal city of their country. He is said to have been descended from some great families; but it is certain that his immediate progenitors were poor, and he had little education but what his own means and his own mind could give him. Yet this man became the founder of a great empire, and the fabricator of a religion which has continued to our own day to affect greater numbers of mankind than Christianity itself. At an early period of life, we are told, ‘he retired to the desert, and pretended to hold conferences with the Angel Gabriel, who delivered to him, from time to time, portions of a sacred book or Koran, containing revelations of the will of the Supreme Being, and of the doctrines which he required his prophet (that is, Mohammed himself) to communicate to the world.’ The Mohammedan religion, as the so-called revelations of this great imposter have since been designated, was a strange mixture of the superstitions of Arabia, the morality of Christ, and the rites of Judaism. It was to this happy mixture of tenets, usages, and traditions already existing among his countrymen, and to the applicability of the precepts of the Koran to all legal transactions and all the business of life, that Mohammed seems to have owed his extraordinary success. Others, indeed, have attributed this to certain indulgences allowed in the Koran; but in reality these indulgences existed before, and the book breathes upon the whole an austere spirit. This extraordinary work inculcated elevated notions of the Divine nature and of moral duties: it taught that God’s will and power were constantly exerted towards the happiness of His creatures, and that the duty of man was to love his neighbors, assist the poor, protect the injured, to be humane to inferior animals, and to pray seven times a day. It taught that, to revive the impression of those laws which God had engraven originally in the hearts of men, He had sent his prophets upon earth—​Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed—​the last, the greatest, to whom all the world should owe its conversion to the true religion. By producing the Koran in detached parcels, Mohammed had it in his power to solve all objections by new revelations. It was only after he was well advanced in years that his doctrines began to be received. At first, indeed, they were so violently opposed by his fellow-citizens of Mecca, that the prophet was obliged to flee from the city to save his life. This event is called by his followers Hegira, or the Flight: it occurred in the 622d year of the Christian era; and they reckon dates from it as we do from the birth of Christ. Mohammed took refuge in the city of Medina, and by the aid of his disciples there, he was soon able to return to Mecca at the head of an armed force. This enabled him to subdue those who would not be convinced; and henceforward he proceeded to make proselytes and subjects together, till at length, being master of all Arabia and of Syria, his numerous followers saluted him king (627). This extraordinary man died suddenly, and in the midst of successes, at the age of sixty-one (632). Abubeker, his father-in-law and successor, united and published the books of the Koran, and continued and extended the empire which Mohammed had left him.

A more powerful caliph (such was the title given to this series of monarchs) was Omar, the successor of Abubeker (635). Barbarity, ferocity, and superstition seem to have been mingled and to have reached their height in the person of Omar. It was by his order that the most magnificent library of antiquity, that of Alexandria, consisting of 700,000 volumes, was burned to ashes. The reason which he gave for this act is worth preserving:—​‘If these writings,’ he said, ‘agree with the Koran, they are useless, and need not be preserved; if they disagree, they are pernicious, and ought to be destroyed.’ By himself and his generals this ferocious conqueror added Syria, Phœnicia, Mesopotamia, Chaldea, Egypt, Lybia, and Numidia, to his empire. Next came Otman, and then Ali, the son-in-law of Mohammed himself. The name of Ali is still revered by Mussulmans. His reign was short, but glorious. ‘After some internal troubles,’ says Hallam, ‘the Saracens won their way along the coast of Africa, as far as the pillars of Hercules, and a third province was irretrievably torn from the Greek empire. These Western conquests introduced them to fresh enemies, and ushered in more splendid successes. Encouraged by the disunion of the Visigoths [in Spain], and invited by treachery, Muza, the general of a master who sat beyond the opposite extremity of the Mediterranean Sea, passed over into Spain, and within about two years the name of Mohammed was invoked under the Pyrenees.’

Nineteen caliphs of the race of Omar succeeded Ali, and after these came the dynasty of the Abassydæ, descended by the male line from Mohammed. The second caliph of this race, named Almanzor, removed the seat of empire to Bagdad (762), and introduced learning and the culture of the sciences, which his successors continued to promote with zeal and liberality. This was some recompense for those indignities which had been cast upon literature by the brutal Omar. Perhaps the obligations of modern Europe to Arabia at this time have been overstated; but it is not to be denied that learning, almost totally excluded and extinct in Europe during the eight and ninth centuries, found an asylum here. It has been matter of dispute how the tastes of these fierce Arabians became thus first directed. They probably owed it to the Greeks; but it is certain that what they got they returned with interest. We are said to derive our present arithmetical figures from this strange people; and geometry, astronomy, and alchemy were their favorite pursuits. The graces of light literature were not neglected, as is shown by the One Thousand and One Nights’ Entertainments, a production of this period, which still continues to solace the hours of childhood and old age among ourselves, and attests the extent of fancy and the variety of genius among those that gave it birth. Haroun al Raschid, who flourished in the beginning of the ninth century, is celebrated as a second Augustus. He was cotemporary with Charlemagne, and communications of a friendly nature are said to have passed between them.

Within fifty years from the death of Mohammed, the Saracens had raised an empire, not only temporal, but also spiritual, more extensive and more powerful than what remained of the empire of Constantinople; and within a hundred, they had subdued not only Persia, Syria, Asia Minor, and Arabia, but also Egypt, North Africa, and Spain. It seemed, indeed, in the course of the eight century, as if Asia and Europe both should yield to their victorious arms, and become one great Mohammedan dominion. But the mighty fabric, of mushroom growth, crumbled into dust with equal speed. After the first extension of their conquests, they ceased to acknowledge any one head of their empire, and the successful generals of the provinces contented themselves by paying a religious respect to the caliphs of Bagdad, as the successors of the prophet, while they retained the power of conquerors for themselves. In the year 732 they sustained a great defeat in France from Charles Martel, who became the father of an illustrious race of kings. No fewer than 375,000 Saracens are said to have been left dead on the field of this battle, and it is certain that they never after cherished the hope of subduing Europe. About the middle of the ninth century (848), they projected the conquest of Italy, and even laid siege to Rome itself. But they were entirely repulsed by Pope Leo IV; their ships were dispersed by a storm, and their army cut to pieces. Spain was the only European country in which they were able to obtain a permanent footing, and in it alone have they left traces of their existence.

FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF ROME TO THE AGE OF CHARLEMAGNE—​ORIGIN OF THE FEUDAL SYSTEM.

The Empire of the Cæsars fell in the West only by degrees, and the changes introduced by the northern tribes were gradual, though they proved great. Province after province yielded to the invaders; and before the end of the fifth century, every country in Europe had undergone extensive changes, and received fresh accessions to the number of its inhabitants. The Visigoths had seated themselves in Spain, the Franks in Gaul, the Saxons in the Roman provinces of South Britain, the Huns in Pannonia, and the Ostrogoths in Italy and the adjacent provinces. And not only had they been enabled to take up their abode, but in general they became masters, and changed the face of all that they touched: ‘new governments, laws, languages; new manners, customs, dresses; new names of men and of countries, prevailed; and an almost total change took place in the state of Europe.’ That change has been called a change from light to darkness, and it assuredly led to the extinction of that taste for literature and that regular administration of government which were the relieving features of the Roman despotism. But if it thus produced an immediate evil, it led to an ultimate good. The population was reinvigorated by the admixture of the new races, and from the fresh elements it had acquired there sprung institutions which might be considered as in many respects an improvement upon those that formerly prevailed.

It was out of these new circumstances that what has been called the Feudal System took its rise. This was a feature in society unknown in former ages. Hitherto men had been the slaves of individual masters, or, as in the more celebrated states of antiquity, they were bound together by the common tie of citizenship, and owed allegiance to none. Patriotism was their highest virtue, and all looked upon the state as a parent, to which, having got support from it, they were bound to give support in their turn. But in these times the rude inhabitants of the north had formed little or no conception of what a state was, and at first they were not prepared to relinquish their much-cherished individual freedom in exchange for rights which they thought they did not need. Changes at length came over them; and society gradually took new forms. Those who had led them on to battle, began to be looked upon as their guardians in peace. Victorious armies, cantoned out into the countries which they had seized, continued arranged under their officers, each of whom had a separate territory allotted to him, on which he could retain and support his immediate followers, while the principal leader had the largest; and in this way all were bound in allegiance, both to their immediate superiors and to their chief, and all were in readiness to be called out to arms whenever their services were thought to be required. This ‘military chieftainship,’ infusing itself as an element in the barbarian societies, was the first advance to anything like civil or social government since the extinction of the Roman power. Nations, indeed, were still far from having the advantage of a regular government. The method of conducting judicial proceedings, and of administering justice, was still peculiarly unsettled and uncertain. The authority of the magistrate was so limited, and the independence assumed by individuals so great, that they seldom admitted any umpire but the sword. It was then that trial by ordeal became universal, and men’s guilt or innocence was thought to be proved by the capacity of their bodies to withstand the influences of red-hot iron or boiling water applied to them, or by their overcoming their accuser in single combat.

These observations are applicable, with scarcely any variation, to all the nations which settled in Europe during the fifth and sixth centuries. Speaking of this subject, Dr. Robertson says—​‘Though the barbarous nations which framed it [the Feudal System], settled in their new territories at different times, came from different countries, spoke various languages, and were under the command of separate leaders, the feudal policy and laws were established, with little variation, in every kingdom of Europe. This amazing uniformity hath induced some authors to believe that all these nations, notwithstanding so many apparent circumstances of distinction, were originally the same people. But it may be ascribed, with greater probability, to the similar state of society and of manners to which they were accustomed in their native countries, and to the similar situation in which they found themselves on taking possession of their new domains.’ We shall now offer a few remarks respecting them individually.

No people at this period exhibited a more energetic character than the Franks, a Teutonic race originally settled on the Lower Rhine and Weser, and who had acquired their name (freemen) while successfully resisting the Roman power in an earlier age. About the year 486, they were under the rule of Clovis, who achieved the conquest of Gaul by the defeat of the Roman governor, and afterwards added Burgundy and Aquitaine to his dominions—​the former by marriage, and the latter by the forcible expulsion of the Visigoths. This may be considered as the foundation of the French monarchy. Clovis adopted the Christian faith, and caused his people to follow his example. It is remarkable that while in war he exercised unlimited power over his subjects, they shared with him the legislative authority, meeting annually in the Champs de Mars to suggest and deliberate upon public measures, in the settlement of which the meanest soldier had equally a voice with his sovereign.

At the death of Clovis in 511, his four sons divided the kingdom, which was afterwards reunited, divided again, and again united, amidst scenes of tumult and bloodshed. The line of kings proceeding from Clovis (called Merovignian from his grandsire Meroveus) dwindled in time into utter insignificance, while the chief power was wielded by an important officer, called the Mayor of the Palace. Among the most remarkable of these was Pepin Heristal, Duke of Austrasia, who ruled France for thirty years with great wisdom and good policy. His son, Charles Martel, who succeeded to his power, distinguish himself by that great victory over the Saracens (A. D. 732), which checked their career in Europe.

An appeal by Pepin le Bref, the son of Charles Martel, to the pope of Rome, whose authority had by this time become great, ruled that he who had the power should also have the title of king, and this put an end to the reign of the descendants of Clovis (752). Pepin remunerated the pope for this service by turning his arms against the Lombards in Italy, some of whose dominions he conferred upon the Holy See; and these, it is said, were the first of the temporal possessions of the church. Pepin died (768), leaving two sons, Carloman and Charles, who succeeded him in the empire. Carloman died at an early period of life, but Charles (subsequently Charlemagne) survived to achieve for himself a fame far greater than that of any other individual during the middle ages, with perhaps the single exception of Mohammed. We shall proceed to speak of him and of his times, after making one or two observations on some other European countries.

Spain was among the earliest countries lost to the Roman Empire. From about the year 406, this country, in whole or in part, had been successively invaded and subdued by Suevi, Alans, Vandals, and Visigoths. The last-named people were in possession of the greater part of the country before the year 585, and erected a monarchy which existed till 712, when they were subdued by the Saracens or Moors. The Saracens made their descent on Spain from Africa, where Nuza, a viceroy of the caliph of Bagdad, had already made extensive conquests. They easily overran Spain and vanquished Don Rodrigo, or Roderic, the last of the Gothic kings. Abdallah, son of Muza, married the widow of Roderic, and the two nations entered into union. Before the conclusion of the eighth century, Abdalrahman, one of the Moorish generals, had laid aside all temporal subjection to the caliph of Bagdad, and formed Spain into an independent kingdom. His residence was at Cordova, and this city became renowned as one of the most enlightened in Europe under several succeeding reigns. Those parts of Spain which were under the Moorish kings embraced also their religion. The northern provinces never owned their dominion.

Towards the conclusion of the sixth century, Italy was in the possession of the Longobeards, or Lombards, who continued master of the greater part of it for two centuries. Of their rule, history has recorded little besides murders and confusion.

It was during this period that the Saxon Heptarchy was formed in Britain.

CHARLEMAGNE—​THE NEW WESTERN EMPIRE.

By far the greatest character who appeared in Europe at this period was Charles, the son of Pepin le Bref, and known in history by the name of Charlemagne, or Charles the Great. ‘In the course of a reign of forty-five years,’ says Mr. Tytler, ‘Charlemagne extended the limits of his empire beyond the Danube, subdued Dacia, Dalmatia, and Istria, conquered and subjected all the barbarous tribes to the banks of the Vistula, made himself master of a great portion of Italy, and successfully encountered the arms of the Saracens, the Huns, the Bulgarians, and the Saxons. His war with the Saxons was of thirty years’ duration; and their final conquest was not achieved without an inhuman waste of blood. At the request of the pope, and to discharge the obligations of his father Pepin to the holy see, Charlemagne, though allied by marriage to Desiderius, king of the Lombards, dispossessed that prince of all his dominions, and put a final period to the Lombard dominion in Italy (774).

When Charlemagne made his first entry into Rome, he was crowned king of France and of the Lombards by Pope Adrian I; and afterwards, on a second visit, he was consecrated Emperor of the West by the hands of Pope Leo III (800). He probably attached some importance to these rites, but it is to be remarked that, as yet, the pontiff was not in the enjoyment of that high influence by which he afterwards could confer or withdraw sovereignty at his pleasure.

‘It is probable,’ continues the authority above quoted, ‘that had Charlemagne chosen Rome for his residence and seat of government, and at his death transmitted to his successor an undivided dominion, that great but fallen empire might have once more been restored to lustre and respect; but Charlemagne had no fixed capital, and he divided, even in his lifetime, his dominion among his children (806).’ Charlemagne died in the year 814, aged seventy-two. His last days were employed in consolidating, rather than extending, his empire, by the making of laws which have rendered his name famous, and his memory even blessed. ‘Though engaged in so many wars,’ says Dr. Russell, ‘Charlemagne was far from neglecting the arts of peace, the happiness of his subjects, or the cultivation of his own mind. Government, manners, religion, and letters, were his constant pursuits. He frequently convened the national assemblies for regulating the affairs both of church and state. In these assemblies he proposed such laws as he considered to be of public benefit, and allowed the same liberty to others; but of this liberty, indeed, it would have been difficult to deprive the French nobles, who had been accustomed, from the foundation of the monarchy, to share the legislation with their sovereign. His attention extended even to the most distant corners of his empire, and to all ranks of men. He manifested a particular regard for the common people, and studied their ease and advantage. The same love of mankind led him to repair and form public roads; to build bridges where necessary; to make rivers navigable for the purposes of commerce; and to project that grand canal which would have opened a communication between the German Ocean and the Black Sea, by uniting the Danube and the Rhine.’ Amidst all his greatness, his personal habits were simple; his dress was of the plainest sort, and such even as to shame his own courtiers; his hours of study set apart, and seldom omitted even in the busiest times of his life; his daughters were taught spinning and housewifery, and his sons trained by himself in all the accomplishments of the age. Charlemagne was fond of the company of learned men, and greatly encouraged their residence in his dominions. In this respect he resembled his cotemporary Haroun Raschid, so famous in Arabian history, and Alfred the Great, who appeared in England shortly after this period. Superior to all national prejudice, he elevated an Englishman named Alcuin to the head of his royal academy. He was zealous for the extension of Christianity; and one of the few blots upon his name arises from his having, in the spirit of his age, caused 4000 Saxon prisoners to be beheaded in one day, because they would not submit to be baptized. Charlemagne established schools in the cathedrals and principal abbeys, for the teaching of writing, arithmetic, grammar, logic, and music.

Of the sons of Charlemagne, Louis, the youngest, surnamed the Debonnaire, or gentle, was the only one who survived. He succeeded to all his father’s dominions, except Italy, which fell into the hands of Bernard, a grandson of Charlemagne. Louis, deficient in vigor of character, was unable to hold together the great empire left to him by his father. Having, among the first acts of his reign, given large portions of it to his children, the remainder of his life was spent in disgraceful quarrels with them; and after his death (840), the empire was formally divided—​Lothaire, his eldest son, obtaining Lorraine and Provence; while Charles the Bald, a younger son, continued sovereign of the western parts of France; and Louis became king of Germany. Thus abruptly terminates the history of the second western empire.

FRANCE FROM THE TIME OF CHARLES THE BALD TO THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.

During the reign of Charles the Bald, France first suffered from the attacks of the Normans, a race of bold and needy adventurers from the north of Europe. Their plundering invasions were continued for upwards of seventy years; till at length (912) the French king was compelled to purchase their amity by yielding to Rollo their leader the country afterwards from them called Normandy, of which Rouen was the capital. The first successor of Charles the Bald with whose name history has associated anything worth remembering, was Charles, surnamed the Fat (885). He was the son of that Louis to whom Germany had been before assigned, and was thus enabled to bring that country and France for a short time once more under a single ruler. In the turbulence of the times Charles was soon deposed; and during the century which followed, France, so lately the centre of an empire little less than that of Rome in the days of its Cæsars, was split up into a multitude of independencies, by nobles who would own only a very slender subjection to the kings. Out of these nobles at last sprang Hugh Capet (987), who was enabled, on the death of Louis V, to place himself on the throne. He was already possessed of great property, and proved to be also a prince of much ability and penetration. He established the royal residence at Paris, which his predecessors had deserted, and became the founder of a family which, in one of its branches, occupied the throne of France till the overthrow of monarchy in 1848. He deserves to be mentioned with honor, as being among the first of European kings who trusted to prudence, counsel, and moderation, rather than force of arms, in effecting his purposes. On his death (996), in the fifty-seventh year of his age and the tenth of his reign, he was succeeded by his son Robert, who had all his father’s equitable disposition without his vigor of character. He was subjected to a degree of tyranny on the part of the church of which perhaps the history of the world does not afford such another example. Robert had been guilty of marrying a cousin in the fourth degree without a dispensation from the Holy See—​that is, without paying a fine for what was only an imaginary offense. Gregory V, who then occupied the pontifical chair, threatened to excommunicate Robert if he should not dismiss his wife, and, on Robert’s refusal, actually did so, and laid all his dominions under an interdict. This punishment proved tremendous in its effects; for though the king himself showed sense and courage enough to despise the wrath of the pontiff, yet his subjects deserted him in terror. The priests, in consequence of the interdict, refused sacrament to the sick all over the country, and the dead were everywhere left unburied, when mass was no longer said. In these circumstances the unfortunate king submitted. A second marriage, contracted with the consent of the church, proved very unhappy. The new queen, Constantia, or Constance, made many efforts to embroil her husband and his family, and in the midst of these Robert died (1031). His son Henry succeeded, and it was during his reign that those pilgrimages to the Holy Land, which were so soon to end in the Crusades, took their rise. Of these we shall speak by themselves. In the meantime we take leave of France by mentioning that Henry’s successor was Philip (1060), whose reign is remarkable as having witnessed the beginning of those contests with England which continued at intervals till the early part of the nineteenth century.

At this period (1066) the Normans invaded and conquered England, where their leader, William, Duke of Normandy, became the founder of an important dynasty.

THE GERMAN EMPIRE BEFORE THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.

Germany had no political existence until the time of Charlemagne, when it was formed by him into part of the western empire. Towards the conclusion of the ninth century it became an empire of itself. In the year 887, Arnold, a natural son of Charloman, and nephew of Charles the Fat, was declared emperor by an assembly of bishops and nobles. These assemblies in Germany always retained a voice in the election of their emperors; and though they often made their choice from the line of succession, they never acknowledged any hereditary rights whatever. After the death of Arnold’s son, called Louis III, their choice fell upon Conrad, Duke of Franconia (912). Conrad’s successor was Henry I, surnamed the Fowler. He was a prince of great abilities, and introduced order and good government into the empire. ‘He united the grandees and curbed their usurpations; built, embellished, and fortified cities; and enforced with great rigor the execution of the laws in the repression of all enormities. He had been consecrated by his own bishops, and maintained no correspondence with the see of Rome. His son, Otho the Great, who succeeded him (938), united Italy to the Empire, and kept the popedom in complete subjection. He made Denmark tributary to the imperial crown, annexed the crown of Bohemia to his own dominions, and seemed to aim at a paramount authority over all the sovereigns of Europe.’

In these times the papacy was much disordered. ‘Formosus, twice excommunicated by Pope John VIII, had himself arrived at the triple crown. On his death, his rival, Pope Stephen VII, caused his body to be dug out of the grave, and after trial for his crimes, condemned it to be flung into the Tiber. The friends of Formosus fished up the corpse, and had interest to procure the deposition of Stephen, who was strangled in prison. A succeeding pope, Sergius III, again dug up the ill-fated carcase, and once more threw it into the river. Two infamous women, Marosia and Theodora, managed the popedom for many years, and filled the chair of St Peter with their own gallants or their adulterous offspring.’—​Tytler. It was amidst this confusion and these disturbances that Otho was induced to turn his arms on Italy. He shortly became master of it all, and had himself declared emperor by the Holy See, with all the pomp that had attended the same ceremony to Charlemagne (962). Pope John XII, whom Otho had been the means of raising to the pontifical chair, rebelled soon after. Otho returned to Rome in fury, had John deposed, hanged one-half of the senate before he left the city, and wrung a solemn acknowledgement from an assembly of reluctant bishops, that the emperor had a right not only to nominate to vacant bishoprics, but also to elect the pope himself. Otho died (972), and was followed in succession by Otho II, Otho III, St. Henry, Conrad II, and Henry III, the history of whose reigns exhibits nothing instructive, or upon which the mind can rest with pleasure. Henry IV (1056) was a distinguished victim of papal tyranny. The celebrated Hildebrand, known as Gregory VII, was in this age the means of raising the power of the church to a height which it had never reached before. During Henry’s contest with this daring and ambitious pontiff, he made him twice his prisoner, and twice did the thunders of the Vatican excommunicate and depose him in consequence. As a specimen of the power and insolence of this pope, we may mention that Henry, dispirited by the effect which his excommunication had upon his friends and followers, having resolved to go to Rome and ask absolution from Gregory in person, did so; and presenting himself as a humble penitent at the palace of St Peter, was there stripped of his robes, and obliged to remain in that condition, in an outer court, in the month of January (1077), barefooted, among snow, and fasting, for three successive days, before he was allowed to implore forgiveness for his offences! On the fourth day he was permitted to kiss the toe of his holiness, and then received absolution! Henry died in 1106.

FROM THE NINTH TO THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.

Italy. The state of Italy during this period has been already partially noticed in the preceding section. From the time of Lothaire, to whom it was nominally assigned as a separate kingdom (843), to that of Otho the Great (964), the country was ravaged by contending tyrants. Between the invasions of the Normans on the one hand, and the claims of the German emperors on the other, it became much distracted, and was ultimately split up into several independent states. Some of these, particularly Venice, Genoa, Pisa, and Florence, became afterwards independent and powerful republics. It was during this period that the foundation of the temporal power of the popes was laid.