284 Aragon and Castile-Ferdinand and Isabella.

them. Sometimes general cortes of the kingdoms and principality were convened; but the members did not, even in this case, sit together, and were no otherwise united, than as they met in the same city.

I do not mean to represent the actual condition of society in Aragon as equally excellent with the constitutional laws. Relatively to other monarchies, as I have already observed, there seem to have been fewer excesses of the royal prerogative in that kingdom. But the licentious habits of a feudal aristocracy prevailed very long. We find in history instances of private war between the great families, so as to disturb the peace of the whole nation, even near the close of the fifteenth century. The right of avenging injuries by arms, and the ceremony of diffidation, or solemn defiance of an enemy, are preserved by the laws. We even meet with the ancient barbarous usage of pay. ing a composition to the kindred of a murdered man. The citizens o. Saragosa were sometimes turbulent, and a refractory nobleman sometimes defied the ministers of justice. But owing to the remarkable copiousness of the principal Aragonese historian, we find more frequent details of this nature than in the scantier annals of some countries. The internal condition of society was certainly far from peaceable in other parts of Europe.

By the marriage of Ferdinand with Isabella, and by the death of John II. in 1479, the two ancient and rival kingdoms of Castile and Aragon were for ever consolidated in the monarchy of Spain. There had been some difficulty in adjusting the respective rights of the husband and wife over Castile. In the middle ages, it was customary for the more powerful sex to exercise all the rights which it derived from the weaker, as much in sovereignties as in private possessions. But the Castilians were determined to maintain the positive and distinct prerogatives of their queen, to which they attached the independence of their nation. A compromise therefore was concluded, by which, though, according to our notions, Ferdinand obtained more than a due share, he might consider himself as more strictly limited than his father had been in Navarre. The names of both were to appear jointly in their style, and upon the coin, the king's taking the precedence in respect of his sex. But, in the royal scutcheon, the arms of Castile were preferred on account of the kingdom's dignity. Isabella had the appointment of all civil offices in Castile; the nomination to spiritual benefices ran in the name of both. The government was to be conducted by the two conjointly when they were together, or by either singly, in the province where one or other might happen to reside. This partition was well preserved throughout the life of Isabel without mutual encroachments or jealousies. So rare an unanimity between persons thus circumstanced must be attributed to the superior qualities of that princess, who, while she maintained a constant good understanding with a very ambitious husband, never relaxed in the exercise of her paternal authority over the kingdoms of her ancestors.

Ferdinand and Isabella had no sooner quenched the flames of civil discord in Castile, than they determined to give an unequivocal proof to Europe of the vigour which the Spanish monarchy was to display under their government. For many years an armistice with the

Conquest of Granada-The Moors expelled.

285 Moors of Granada had been uninterrupted. Neither John II. nor Henry IV. had been at leisure to think of aggressive hostilities; and the Moors themselves, a prey, like their Christian enemies, to civil war, and the feuds of their royal family, were content with the unmolested enjoyment of the finest province in the peninsula. If we may trust historians, the sovereigns of Granada were generally usurpers and tyrants. But I know not how to account for that vast populousness, that grandeur and magnificence, which distinguished the Mohammedan kingdoms of Spain, without ascribing some measure of wisdom and beneficence to their governments. These southern provinces have dwindled in later times; and in fact Spain itself is chiefly interesting to most travellers, for the monuments which a foreign and odious race of conquerors have left behind them. Granada was, however, disturbed by à series of revolutions about the time of Ferdinand's accession, which naturally encouraged his designs. The Moors, contrary to what might have been expected from their relative strength, were the aggressors by attacking a town in Andalusia. Predatory inroads of this nature had hitherto been only retaliated by the Christians. But Ferdinand was conscious that his resources extended, in 1481, to the conquest of Granada, the consummation of a struggle protracted through nearly eight centuries. Even in the last stage of the Moorish dominion, exposed on every side to invasion, enfeebled by a civil dissension, that led one party to abet the common enemy, Granada was not subdued without ten years of sanguinary and unremitting contest. Fertile beyond all the rest of Spain, that kingdom contained seventy walled towns; and the capital is said, almost two centuries before, to have been peopled hy two hundred thousand inhabitants. Its resistance to such a force as that of Ferdinand is perhaps the best justification of the apparent negligence of earlier monarchs. But Granada was ultimately compelled to undergo the yoke. The city surrendered on the 2d of January 1492; an event glorious not only to Spain, but to Christendom; and which, in the political combat of the two religions, seemed almost to counterbalance the loss of Constantinople. It raised the name of Ferdinand, and of the new monarchy which he governed, to high estimation throughout Europe. Spain appeared an equal competitor with France in the lists of ambition. These great kingdoms had for some time felt the jealousy natural to emulous neighbours. The house of Aragon loudly complained of the treacherous policy of Louis XI. He had fomented the troubles of Castile, and given, not indeed an effectual aid, but all promises of support to the princess Joanna, the competitor of Isabel. Rousillon, a province belonging to Aragon, had been pledged to France by John II. for a sum of money. It would be tedious to relate the subsequent events, or to discuss their respective claims to its possession. At the accession of Ferdinand, Louis XI. still held Rousillon, and showed little intention to resign it. But Charles VIII., eager to smooth every impediment to his Italian expedition, restored the province to Ferdinand in 1493. Whether, by such a sacrifice, he was able to lull the king of Aragon into acquiescence, while he dethroned his relation at Naples,

1 For these transactions, see Garnier, or Gaillard. The latter is the most impartial French writer I have ever read, in matters where his own country is concerned.

286

The Carlovingian and Saxon Rulers of Germany.

and alarmed for a moment all Italy with the apprehension of French dominion, it is not within the limits of the present work to inquire.

CHAPTER V.

HISTORY OF GERMANY TO THE DIET OF WORMS IN 1495.

AFTER the deposition of Charles the Fat in 888, which finally severed the connexion between France and Germany,1 Arnulf, an illegitimate descendant of Charlemagne, obtained the throne of the latter country, in which he was succeeded by his son, Louis.2 But upon the death of this prince in 911, the German branch of that dynasty became extinct. There remained, indeed, Charles the Simple, acknowledged as king in some parts of France, but rejected in others, and possessing no personal claims to respect. The Germans therefore wisely determined to choose a sovereign from among themselves. They were at this time divided into five nations, each under its own duke, and distinguished by difference of laws, as well as of origin; the Franks, whose territory, comprising Franconia, and the modern Palatinate, was considered as the cradle of the empire, and who seem to have arrogated some superiority over the rest, the Swabians, the Bavarians, the Saxons, under which name the inhabitants of Lower Saxony alone and Westphalia were included, and the Lorrainers, who occupied the left bank of the Rhine as far as its termination. The choice of these nations in their general assembly, in 911, fell upon Conrad, duke of Franconia, according to some writers, or at least a man of high rank, and descended through females from Charlemagne.3

Conrad dying without male issue, the crown of Germany was bestowed, in 919, upon Henry the Fowler, duke of Saxony, ancestor of the three Othos, who followed him in direct succession. To Henry, and to the first Otho, Germany was, in 936, more indebted than to any sovereign since Charlemagne. The conquest of Italy, and recovery of the imperial title, are indeed the most brilliant trophies of Otho the Great; but he conferred far more unequivocal benefits upon his own country by completing what his father had begun, her liberation from the inroads of the Hungarians. Two marches, that of Misnia, erected by Henry the Fowler, and that of Austria, by Otho, were added to the Germanic territories by their victories.4

1 There can be no question about this in a general sense. But several German writers of the time assert that both Eudes and Charles the Simple, rival kings of France, acknowledged the feudal superiority of Arnulf. Charles, says Regino, regnum quod usurpaverat ex manu ejus percepit. Struvius.

The German princes had some hesitation about the choice of Louis, but their partiality to the Carlovingian line prevailed. Quia regis Francorum semper ex uno genere procedebant, says an archbishop Hatto, in writing to the pope.

Schmidt. Struvius. The former of these writers does not consider Conrad as duke of Franconia.

Many towns in Germany, especially on the Saxon frontier, were built by Henry I., who is said to have compelled every ninth man to take up his residence in them. This had a remarkable tendency to promote the improvement of that territory, and, combined with the

assent.

The Four Dukes and the Three Archbishops.

287

A lineal succession of four descents without the least opposition seems to show that the Germans were disposed to consider their monarchy as fixed in the Saxon family. Otho II. and III. had been chosen each in his father's lifetime, and during infancy. The formality of election subsisted at that time in every European kingdom; and the imperfect rights of birth required a ratification by public If at least France and England were hereditary monarchies in the tenth century, the same may surely be said of Germany; since we find the lineal succession fully as well observed in the last as in the former. But upon the immature and unexpected decease of Otho III., a momentary opposition was offered to Henry duke of Bavaria, a collateral branch of the reigning family. He obtained the crown, however, by what contemporary historians call an hereditary title,í and it was not until his death, in 1024, that the house of Saxony was deemed to be extinguished.

No person had now any pretensions that could interfere with the unbiassed suffrages of the nation; and accordingly a general assembly was determined, in 1024, by merit to elect Conrad, surnamed the Salic, a nobleman of Franconia.2 From this prince sprang three successive emperors, Henry III., IV., and V., 1039, 1056, 1106. Perhaps the imperial prerogatives over that insubordinate confederacy never reached so high a point as in the reign of Henry III., the second emperor of the house of Franconia. It had been, as was natural, the object of all his predecessors not only to render their throne hereditary, which, in effect, the nation was willing to concede, but to surround it with authority sufficient to control the leading vassals. These were the dukes of the four nations of Germany, Saxony, Bavaria, Swabia, and Franconia, and the three archbishops of the Rhenish cities, Mentz, Treves, and Cologne. Originally, as has been more fully shown in another place, duchies, like counties, were temporary From this first governments, bestowed at the pleasure of the crown. stage they advanced to hereditary offices, and finally to patrimonial fiefs. But their progress was much slower in Germany than in France. Under the Saxon line of emperors, it appears probable, that although it was usual, and consonant to the prevailing notions of equity, to confer a duchy upon the nearest heir, yet no positive rule enforced this upon the emperor, and some instances of a contrary proceeding occurred.3 But, if the royal prerogative in this respect stood higher than in France, there was a countervailing principle, that prohibited the emperor from uniting a fief to his domain, or even retaining one which he had possessed before his accession. Thus Otho the Great granted away his duchy of Saxony, and Henry II. Otho the Great endeavoured to counteract the that of Bavaria. effects of this custom, by conferring the duchies that fell into his hands discovery of the gold and silver mines of Goslar under Otho I., rendered it the richest and most important part of the empire.

1 A maximâ multitudine vox una respondit; Henricum, Christi adjutori, et jure hæreditario, regnaturum. Schmidt.

* Conrad was descended from a daughter of Otho the Great, and also from Conrad I. His first cousin was duke of Franconia.

3 Schmidt. Struvius supposes the hereditary rights of dukes to have commenced under Conrad I.; but Schmidt is perhaps a better authority; and Struvius afterwards mentions the refusal of Otho I. to grant the duchy of Bavaria to the sons of the last duke, which, however, excited a rebellion.

288 Henry IV. excommunicated by Gregory VII.

upon members of his own family. This policy, though apparently well conceived, proved of no advantage to Otho, his son and brother having mixed in several rebellions against him. It was revived, however, by Conrad II. and Henry III. The latter was invested by his father with the two duchies of Swabia and Bavaria. Upon his own accession, he retained the former for six years, and even the latter for a short time. The duchy of Franconia, which became vacant, he did not re-grant, but endeavoured to set a precedent of uniting fiefs to the domain. At another time, after sentence of forfeiture against the duke of Bavaria, he bestowed that great province on his wife, the empress Agnes. He put an end altogether to the form of popular concurrence, which had been usual when the investiture of a duchy was conferred; and even deposed dukes by the sentence of a few princes, without the consent of the diet. If we combine with these proofs of authority in the domestic administration of Henry III., his almost unlimited control over papal elections, or rather the right of nomination that he acquired, we must consider him as the most absolute monarch in the annals of Germany.

These ambitious measures of Henry III. prepared fifty years of calamity for his son. It is easy to perceive that the misfortunes of Henry IV. were primarily occasioned by the jealousy with which repeated violations of their constitutional usages had inspired the nobility. The mere circumstance of Henry IV.'s minority, under the guardianship of a woman, was enough to dissipate whatever power his father had acquired. Hanno, archbishop of Mentz, carried the young king away by force from his mother, and governed Germany in his name, till another archbishop, Adalbert of Bremen, obtained greater influence over him. Through the neglect of his education, Henry grew up with a character not well fitted to retrieve the mischief of so unprotected a minority; brave indeed, well-natured, and affable, but dissolute beyond measure, and addicted to low and debauched company. He was, in 1073, involved in a desperate war with the Saxons, a nation valuing itself on its populousness and riches, jealous of the house of Franconia, who wore a crown that had belonged to their own dukes, and indignant at Henry's conduct in erecting fortresses throughout their country.

In the progress of this war, many of the chief princes evinced an unwillingness to support the emperor. Notwithstanding this, it would probably have terminated, as other rebellions had done, with no permanent loss to either party. But, in the middle of this contest, another, far more memorable, broke out with the Roman see, concerning ecclesiastical investitures. The motives of this famous quarrel will be explained in a different chapter of the present work. Its effect in Germany was ruinous to Henry. A sentence, in 1077, not only of excommunication, but of deposition, which Gregory VII. pronounced against him, gave a pretence to all his enemies, secret as well as avowed, to withdraw their allegiance.2 At the head of these was

In the very first year of Henry's reign, while he was but six years old, the princes of Saxony are said by Lambert of Aschaffenburg to have formed a conspiracy to depose him, out of resentment for the injuries they had sustainedí rom his father. Struvius.

3 A party had been already formed, who were meditating to depose Henry. His excommunication came just in time to confirm their resolutions. It appears clearly, upon a little consideration of Henry IV.'s reign, that the ecclesiastical quarrel was only secondary in the eyes of Germany. The contest against him was a struggle of the aristocracy, jealous of the