Magna Carta does not profess to be a charter of liberties for all Englishmen. Most of its sixty-three clauses merely guarantee to each member of the coalition against John—nobles, clergy, and commons—those special privileges which the Norman rulers had tried to take away. Very little is said in this long document about the serfs, who composed probably five-sixths of the population of England in the thirteenth century.
But there are three clauses of Magna Carta which came to have a most important part in the history of English freedom. The first declared that no taxes were to be levied on the nobles—besides the three recognized feudal aids [10]—except by consent of the Great Council of the realm. [11] By this clause the nobles compelled the king to secure their consent before imposing any taxation. The second set forth that no one was to be arrested, imprisoned, or punished in any way, except after a trial by his equals and in accordance with the law of the land. The third said simply that to no one should justice be sold, denied, or delayed. These last two clauses contained the germ of great legal principles on which the English people relied for protection against despotic kings. They form a part of our American inheritance from England and have passed into the laws of all our states.
The thirteenth century, which opened so auspiciously with the winning of the Great Charter, is also memorable as the time when England developed her Parliament [12] into something like its present form. The first steps in parliamentary government were taken during the reign of John's son, Henry III.
It had long been the custom in England that in all important matters a ruler ought not to act without the advice and consent of his leading men. The Anglo-Saxon kings sought the advice and consent of their Witenagemot, [13] a body of nobles, royal officers, bishops, and abbots. It approved laws, served as a court of final appeal, elected a new monarch, and at times deposed him. The Witenagemot did not disappear after the Norman Conquest. Under the name of the Great Council it continued to meet from time to time for consultation with the king. This assembly was now to be transformed from a feudal body into a parliament representing the entire nation.
The Great Council, which by one of the provisions of Magna Carta had been required to give its consent to the levying of feudal dues, met quite frequently during Henry III's reign. On one occasion, when Henry was in urgent need of money and the bishops and lords refused to grant it, the king took the significant step of calling to the council two knights from each county to declare what aid they would give him. These knights, so ran Henry's summons, were to come "in the stead of each and all," in other words, they were to act as representatives of the counties. Then in 1265 A.D., when the nobles were at war with the king, a second and even more significant step was taken. Their leader, Simon de Montfort, summoned to the council not only two knights from each county, but also two citizens from each of the more important towns.
The custom of selecting certain men to act in the name and on the behalf of the community had existed during Anglo-Saxon times in local government. Representatives of the counties had been employed by the Norman kings to act as assessors in levying taxes. As we have just learned, the "juries" of Henry II also consisted of such representatives. The English people, in fact, were quite familiar with the idea of representation long before it was applied on a larger scale to Parliament.
Simon de Montfort's Parliament included only his own supporters, and hence was not a truly national body. But it made a precedent for the future. Thirty years later Edward I called together at Westminster, now a part of London, a Parliament which included all classes of the people. Here were present archbishops, bishops, and abbots, earls and barons, two knights from every county, and two townsmen to represent each town in that county. After this time all these classes were regularly summoned to meet in assembly at Westminster.
The separation of Parliament into two chambers came in the fourteenth century. The House of Lords included the nobles and higher clergy, the House of Commons, the representatives from counties and cities. This bicameral arrangement, as it is called, has been followed in the parliaments of most modern countries.
The early English Parliament was not a law-making but a tax-voting body. The king would call the two houses in session only when he needed their sanction for raising money. Parliament in its turn would refuse to grant supplies until the king had corrected abuses in the administration or had removed unpopular officials. This control of the public purse in time enabled Parliament to grasp other powers. It became an accepted principle that royal officials were responsible to Parliament for their actions, that the king himself might be deposed for good cause, and that bills, when passed by Parliament and signed by the king, were the law of the land. England thus worked out in the Middle Ages a system of parliamentary government which nearly all civilized nations have held worthy of imitation.
Our narrative has been confined until now to England, which forms, together with Wales and Scotland, the island known as Great Britain. Ireland is the only other important division of the United Kingdom. It was almost inevitable that in process of time the British Isles should have come under a single government, but political unity has not yet fused English, Scotch, Welsh, and Irish into a single people.
The conquest of Britain by the Anglo-Saxons drove many of the Welsh, [14] as the invaders called the Britons, into the western part of the island. This district, henceforth known as Wales, was one of the last strongholds of the Celts. Even to-day a variety of the old Celtic language, called Cymric, is still spoken by the Welsh people.
In their wild and mountainous country the Welsh long resisted all attempts to subjugate them. Harold exerted some authority over Wales, William the Conqueror entered part of it, and Henry II induced the local rulers to acknowledge him as overlord, but it was Edward I who first brought all Wales under English sway. Edward fostered the building of towns in his new possession, divided it into counties or shires, after the system that prevailed in England, and introduced the Common law. He called his son, Edward II, who was born in the country, the "Prince of Wales," and this title has ever since been borne by the heir apparent to the English throne. The work of uniting Wales to England went on slowly, and two centuries elapsed before Wales was granted representation in the House of Commons.
[Illustration: CORONATION CHAIR, WESTMINSTER ABBEY Every English ruler since Edward I has been crowned in this oak chair. Under the seat is the "Stone of Scone," said to have been once used by the patriarch Jacob. Edward I brought it to London in 1291 A.D., as a token of the subjection of Scotland.]
Scotland derives its name from the Scots, who came over from Ireland early in the fifth century. [15] The northern Highlands, a nest of rugged mountains washed by cold and stormy seas, have always been occupied in historic times by a Celtic-speaking people, whose language, called Gaelic, is not yet extinct there. This part of Scotland, like Wales, was a home of freedom. The Romans did not attempt to annex the Highlands, and the Anglo- Saxons and Danes never penetrated their fastnesses. On the other hand the southern Lowlands, which include only about one-third of Scotland, were subdued by the Teutonic invaders, and so this district became thoroughly English in language and culture. [16]
[Illustration: Map, SCOTLAND in the 13th Century]
One might suppose that the Lowlands, geographically only an extension of northern England and inhabited by an English-speaking people, would have early united with the southern kingdom. But matters turned out otherwise. The Lowlands and the Highlands came together under a line of Celtic kings, who fixed their residence at Edinburgh and long maintained their independence.
Edward I, having conquered Wales, took advantage of the disturbed conditions which prevailed in Scotland to interfere in the affairs of that country. The Scotch offered a brave but futile resistance under William Wallace. This heroic leader, who held out after most of his countrymen submitted, was finally captured and executed. His head, according to the barbarous practice of the time, was set upon a pole on London Bridge. The English king now annexed Scotland without further opposition.
[Illustration: A QUEEN ELEANOR CROSS After the death of his wife Eleanor, Edward I caused a memorial cross to be set up at each place where her funeral procession had stopped on its way to London. There were originally seven crosses. Of the three that still exist, the Geddington cross is the best preserved. It consists of three stories and stands on a platform of eight steps.]
But William Wallace by his life and still more by his death had lit a fire which might never be quenched. Soon the Scotch found another champion in the person of Robert Bruce. Edward I, now old and broken, marched against him, but died before reaching the border. The weakness of his son, Edward II, permitted the Scotch, ably led by Bruce, to win the signal victory of Bannockburn, near Stirling Castle. Here the Scottish spearmen drove the English knighthood into ignominious flight and freed their country from its foreign overlords.
The battle of Bannockburn made a nation. A few years afterwards the English formally recognized the independence of the northern kingdom. So the great design of Edward I to unite all the peoples of Britain under one government had to be postponed for centuries. [17]
No one kingdom ever arose in Ireland out of the numerous tribes into which the Celtic-speaking inhabitants were divided. The island was not troubled, however, by foreign invaders till the coming of the Northmen in the ninth century. [18] The English, who first entered Ireland during the reign of Henry II, did not complete its conquest till the seventeenth century. Ireland by its situation could scarcely fail to become an appanage of Great Britain, but the dividing sea has combined with differences in race, language, and religion, and with English misgovernment, to prevent anything like a genuine union of the conquerors and the conquered.
Nature seems to have intended that France should play a leading part in European affairs. The geographical unity of the country is obvious. Mountains and seas form its permanent boundaries, except on the north-east where the frontier is not well defined. The western coast of France opens on the Atlantic, now the greatest highway of the world's commerce, while on the southeast France touches the Mediterranean, the home of classical civilization. This intermediate position between two seas helps us to understand why French history should form, as it were, a connecting link between ancient and modern times.
But the greatness of France has been due, also, to the qualities of the French people. Many racial elements have contributed to the population. The blood of prehistoric tribes, whose monuments and grave mounds are scattered over the land, still flows in the veins of Frenchmen. At the opening of historic times France was chiefly occupied by the Celts, whom Julius Caesar found there and subdued. The Celts, or Gauls, have formed in later ages the main stock of the French nation, but their language gave place to Latin after the Roman conquest. In the course of five hundred years the Gauls were so thoroughly Romanized that they may best be described as Gallo-Romans. The Burgundians, Franks, and Northmen afterwards added a Teutonic element to the population, as well as some infusion of Teutonic laws and customs.
France, again, became a great nation because of the greatness of its rulers. Hugh Capet, who became the French king in 987 A.D., [19] was fortunate in his descendants. The Capetian dynasty was long lived, and for more than three centuries son followed father on the throne without a break in the succession. [20] During this time the French sovereigns worked steadily to exalt the royal power and to unite the feudal states of medieval France into a real nation under a common government. Their success in this task made them, at the close of the Middle Ages, the strongest monarchs in Europe.
Hugh Capet's duchy—the original France—included only a small stretch of inland country centering about Paris on the Seine and Orléans on the Loire. His election to the kingship did not increase his power over the great lords who ruled in Normandy, Brittany, Aquitaine, Burgundy, and other parts of the country. They did homage to the king for their fiefs and performed the usual feudal services, but otherwise regarded themselves as independent in their own territories.
[Illustration: Map, UNIFICATION OF FRANCE DURING THE MIDDLE AGES]
The most considerable additions to the royal domains were made by Philip II, called Augustus. We have already referred to his contest with Pope Innocent III and to his participation in the Third Crusade. [21] The English king, John, was Philip's vassal for Normandy and other provinces in France. A quarrel between the two rulers gave Philip an opportunity to declare John's fiefs forfeited by feudal law. Philip then seized all the English possessions north of the river Loire. The loss of these possessions abroad had the result of separating England almost completely from Continental interests; for France it meant a great increase in territory and population. Philip made Paris his chief residence, and that city henceforth became the capital of France.
During the long reign of Philip's grandson, Louis IX, rich districts to the west of the Rhone were added to the royal domains. This king, whose Christian virtues led to his canonization, distinguished himself as an administrator. His work in unifying France may be compared with that of Henry II in England. He decreed that only the king's money was to circulate in the provinces owned directly by himself, thus limiting the right of coinage enjoyed by feudal lords. He restricted very greatly the right of private war and forbade the use of judicial duels. Louis also provided that important cases could be appealed from feudal courts to the king's judges, who sat in Paris and followed in their decisions the principles of Roman law. In these and other ways he laid the foundations of absolute monarchy in France.
The grandson of St. Louis, Philip IV, did much to organize a financial system for France. Now that the kingdom had become so large and powerful, the old feudal dues were insufficient to pay the salaries of the royal officials and support a standing army. Philip resorted to new methods of raising revenue by imposing various taxes and by requiring the feudal lords to substitute payments in money for the military service due from them.
Philip also called into existence the Estates-General, an assembly in which the clergy, the nobles, and representatives from the commons (the "third estate") met as separate bodies and voted grants of money. The Estates-General arose almost at the same time as the English Parliament, to which it corresponded, but it never secured the extensive authority of that body. After a time the kings of France became so powerful that they managed to reign without once summoning the nation in council. The French did not succeed, as the English had done, in founding political liberty upon the vote and control of taxation.
The task of unifying France was interrupted by a deplorable war between that country and England. It continued, including periods of truce, for over a century. The pretext for the war was found in a disputed succession. In 1328 A.D. the last of the three sons of Philip IV passed away, and the direct line of the house of Capet, which had reigned over France for more than three hundred years, came to an end. The English ruler, Edward III, whose mother was the daughter of Philip IV, considered himself the next lineal heir. The French nobles were naturally unwilling to receive a foreigner as king, and gave the throne, instead, to a nephew of Philip IV. This decision was afterwards justified on the ground that, by the old law of the Salian Franks, women could neither inherit estates nor transmit them to a son. [22]
[Illustration: ROYAL ARMS OF EDWARD III Edward III, having in 1340 A.D. set up a claim to the throne of France, proceeded to add the French lilies (fleurs-de-lis) to his coat of arms. He also took as his mottoDieu et mon Droit("God and my Right"). The lilies of France remained in the royal arms till 1801 A.D.; the motto is still retained.]
Edward III at first accepted the situation. Philip VI, however, irritated Edward by constant encroachments on the territories which the English still kept in France. Philip also allied himself with the Scotch and interfered with English trade interests in the county of Flanders. [23] This attitude of hostility provoked retaliation. Edward now reasserted his claim to the crown of France and prepared by force of arms to make it good.
[Illustration: ENGLISH ARCHERFrom an old manuscript.]
In 1346 A.D. Edward led his troops across the Channel and at Crécy gained a complete victory over the knighthood of France. Ten years later the English at Poitiers almost annihilated another French force much superior in numbers. These two battles were mainly won by foot soldiers armed with the long bow, in the use of which the English excelled. Ordinary iron mail could not resist the heavy, yard-long arrows, which fell with murderous effect upon the bodies of men and horses alike. Henceforth infantry, when properly armed and led, were to prove themselves on many a bloody field more than a match for feudal cavalry. The long bow, followed later by the musket, struck a deadly blow at feudalism.
Edward's son, the Prince of Wales, when only sixteen years of age, won his spurs by distinguished conduct at Crécy. It was the "Black Prince," [24] also, who gained the day at Poitiers, where he took prisoner the French king, John. Toward his royal captive he behaved in chivalrous fashion. At supper, on the evening of the battle, he stood behind John's chair and waited on him, praising the king's brave deeds. But this "flower of knighthood," who regarded warfare as only a tournament on a larger scale, could be ruthless in his treatment of the common people. On one occasion he caused three thousand inhabitants of a captured town—men, women and children—to be butchered before his eyes. The incident shows how far apart in the Middle Ages were chivalry and humanity.
The English, in spite of their victories, could not conquer France. The French refused to fight more pitched battles and retired to their castles and fortified towns. The war almost ceased for many years after the death of Edward III. It began again early in the fifteenth century, and the English this time met with more success. They gained possession of almost all France north of the Loire, except the important city of Orléans. Had the English taken it, French resistance must have collapsed. That they did not take it was due to one of the most remarkable women in history—Joan of Arc. [25]
Joan was a peasant girl, a native of the little village of Domremy. Always a devout and imaginative child, she early began to see visions of saints and angels and to hear mysterious voices. At the time of the siege of Orléans the archangel Michael appeared to her, so she declared, and bade her go forth and save France. Joan obeyed, and though barely seventeen years of age made her way to the court of the French king. There her piety, simplicity, and evident faith in her mission overcame all doubts. Clad in armor, girt with an ancient sword, and with a white banner borne before her, Joan was allowed to accompany an army for the relief of Orléans. She inspired the French with such enthusiasm that they quickly compelled the English to raise the siege. Then Joan led her king to Reims and stood beside him at his coronation in the cathedral.
Though Joan was soon afterwards captured by the English, who, to their lasting dishonor, burned her as a witch, her example nerved the French to further resistance. The English gradually lost ground and in 1453 A.D., the year of the fall of Constantinople, abandoned the effort to conquer a land much larger than their own. They retained of the French territories only the port of Calais and the Channel Islands. [26]
Few wars have had less to justify them, either in their causes or in their consequences, than this long struggle between England and France. It was a calamity to both lands. For England it meant the dissipation abroad of the energies which would have been better employed at home. For France it resulted in widespread destruction of property, untold suffering, famines, and terrible loss of life. From this time dates that traditional hostility between the two countries which was to involve them in future conflicts. One beneficial effect the war did have. It helped to make the two nations conscious of their separate existence. The growth of a national feeling, the awakening of a sentiment of patriotism, was especially marked in France, which had fought so long for independence.
Shortly after the conclusion of the Hundred Years' War the two branches of the English royal family became involved in desperate struggle for the crown. It was known as the War of the Roses, because the house of York took as its badge a white rose and the house of Lancaster, a red rose. The contest lasted 1485 A.D., when the Lancastrians conquered, and their leader, Henry Tudor, ascended the throne as Henry VII. He married a Yorkist wife, thus uniting the two factions, and founded the Tudor dynasty. The War of the Roses arrested the progress of English freedom. It created a demand for a strong monarchy which could keep order and prevent civil strife between the nobles. The Tudors met that demand and ruled as absolute sovereigns. It was more than a century before Parliament, representing the people, could begin to win back free government. It did this only at the cost of a revolution.
France also issued from the Hundred Years' War with an absolute government. Strengthened by victory over the English, the French kings were able to reduce both the nobility and the commons to impotence. During the reign of Louis XI (1461-1483 A.D.) the royal domains were enlarged by the addition of Anjou, Provence, and the duchy of Burgundy. His son, Charles VIII (1483-1498 A.D.), made Brittany a possession of the French crown. The unification of France was now almost complete.
The Spanish peninsula, known to the Romans as Hispania, is sharply separated from the rest of Europe by the Pyrenees Mountains. At the same time the nearness of the peninsula to Africa has always brought it into intimate relations with that continent. Just as Russia has formed a link between Asia and Europe, so Spain has served as a natural highway from Africa to Europe.
The first settlers in Spain, of whom we know anything, were the Iberians. They may have emigrated from northern Africa. After them came the Celts, who overran a large part of the peninsula and appear to have mingled with the Iberians, thus forming the mixed people known as Celtiberians. In historic times Spain was conquered by the Carthaginians, who left few traces of their occupation, by the Romans, who thoroughly Romanized the country, by the Visigoths, who founded a Germanic kingdom, and lastly by the Moors, who introduced Arabian culture and the faith of Islam. [27] These invaders were not numerous enough greatly to affect the population, in which the Celtiberian strain is still predominant.
The Moors never wholly conquered a fringe of mountain territory in the extreme north of Spain. Here a number of small Christian states, including León, Castile, Navarre, and Aragon, came into being. In the west there also arose the Christian state of Portugal. Geographically, Portugal belongs to Spain, from which it is separated only by artificial frontiers, but the country has usually managed to maintain its independence.
Acting sometimes singly and sometimes in concert, the Christian states fought steadily to enlarge their boundaries at the expense of their Moslem neighbors. The contest had the nature of a crusade, for it was blessed by the pope and supported by the chivalry of Europe. Periods of victory alternated with periods of defeat, but by the close of the thirteenth century Mohammedan Spain had been reduced to the kingdom of Granada at the southern extremity of the peninsula.
The long struggle with the Moors made the Spanish a patriotic people, keenly conscious of their national unity. The achievements of Christian warriors were recited in countless ballads, and especially in the finePoem of the Cid. It deals with the exploits of Rodrigo Diaz, better known by the title of the Cid (lord) given to him by the Moors. The Cid of romance was the embodiment of every knightly virtue; the real Cid was a bandit, who fought sometimes for the Christians, sometimes against them, but always in his own interest. The Cid's evil deeds were forgotten, however, and after his death in 1099 A.D. he became the national hero of Spain.
Meanwhile the separate Spanish kingdoms were coming together to form a nation. León and Castile in 1230 A.D. combined into the one kingdom of Castile, so named because its frontiers bristled with castles against the Moors. But the most important step in the making of Spain was the marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon to Isabella of Castile, leading in 1479 A.D. to the union of these two kingdoms. About the same time the Castilian language began to crowd out the other Spanish dialects and to become the national speech.
[Illustration: Map, UNIFICATION OF SPAIN DURING THE MIDDLE AGES]
The new sovereigns of Spain aimed to continue the unification of the peninsula by the conquest of Granada. No effort was made by the Turks, who shortly before had captured Constantinople, to defend this last stronghold of Islam in the West. The Moors, though thrown upon their own resources, made a gallant resistance. At least once Ferdinand wearied of the struggle, but Isabella's determination never wavered. In 1492 A.D. Granada surrendered, and the silver cross of the crusading army was raised on the highest tower of the city. Moslem rule in Spain, after an existence of almost eight centuries, now came to an end.
Ferdinand and Isabella belong in the front rank of European sovereigns. Like their contemporaries, Henry VII and Louis XI, they labored with success to build up an absolute monarchy. Spain had found, as England and France had found, that feudalism spelled disorder, and that only a strong central government could keep the peace, repress crime, and foster trade and commerce. Ferdinand and Isabella firmly established the supremacy of the crown. By the end of the fifteenth century Spain had become a leading European power. Its importance in the councils of Europe was soon to be increased by the marriage of a daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella to the heir of the Austrian house of Hapsburg.
The name Austria—in German Oesterreich—means simply the eastern part of any kingdom. It came to be applied particularly to the territory on the Danube east of Bavaria, which Otto the Great had formed into a mark or border province for defense against the Magyars. [28] This mark, soon to be known as Austria, gained an important place among German states. The frontiers were pushed down the Danube valley and the capital was finally located at Vienna, once a Roman city. Frederick Barbarossa raised Austria to the rank of a duchy. Rudolf of Hapsburg, who became emperor in 1273 A.D., first brought the country into the hands of the Hapsburg family. [29]
The Hapsburgs founded the power of the present Austrian monarchy. At the end of the fourteenth century their dominions included a large part of eastern Germany, [30] reaching from beyond the Danube southward to the Adriatic. Early in the sixteenth century they secured Bohemia, a Slavic land thrust like a wedge into German territory, as well as part of the Magyar land of Hungary. The possession of these two kingdoms gave Austria its special character of a state formed by the union under one ruler of several wholly distinct nations. Meanwhile the right of election as Holy Roman Emperor became hereditary in the Hapsburg family.
[Illustration: Map, GROWTH OF THE HAPSBURG POSSESSIONS]
Switzerland, during the earlier period of the Middle Ages, formed a part of the German duchy of Swabia and belonged to the Holy Roman Empire. [31] About two-thirds of the population of Switzerland remain German in speech and feeling, though now the country includes districts in which French or Italian are spoken. All Swiss laws are still proclaimed in the three languages.
Swiss history is closely bound up with that of Austria. The little mountain communities of Schwyz, [32] Uri, and Unterwalden, on the shores of beautiful Lake Lucerne, were possessions of the counts of Hapsburg. In 1291 A.D., the year when Rudolf of Hapsburg died, these three "Forest Cantons" formed a confederation for resistance to their Hapsburg overlords. Additional cantons joined the league, which now entered upon a long struggle, dear to all lovers of liberty, against Austrian rule. Nowhere did the old methods of feudal warfare break down more conspicuously than in the battles gained by Swiss pikemen over the haughty knights of Austria. The struggle closed in 1499 A.D., when Switzerland became practically a free state. [33]
[Illustration: Map, THE SWISS CONFEDERATION, 1291-1513 A.D.]
Switzerland has two heroes of her war for independence. William Tell is a wholly mythical character, for the story of a skillful marksman who succeeds in striking off some small object placed on a child's head is found in England, Norway, Denmark, and other countries. The Swiss have localized it in Uri. Another popular hero has a better claim to historical existence. It is said that at a critical moment in the battle of Sempach, when the Swiss with their short weapons failed to break the Austrian ranks, Arnold von Winkelried, a man of Unterwalden, came to the rescue. Rushing single-handed upon the enemy, he seized all the spears within reach and turned them into his own body. He thus opened a gap in the line, through which the Swiss pressed on to victory. Winkelried's deed might well have been performed, though the evidence for it is very scanty.
Little Switzerland, lying in the heart of the Alps and surrounded by powerful neighbors, is one of the most interesting states in Europe. The twenty-two communities, or cantons, which make up the Swiss Confederation, differ among themselves in language, religion (Roman Catholic or Protestant), and customs, according to their nearness to Germany, France, or Italy. Nevertheless the Swiss form a patriotic and united nation. It is remarkable that a people whose chief bond of union was common hostility to the Austrian Hapsburgs, should have established a federal government so strong and enduring.
An examination of the map shows how deficient Germany is in good natural boundaries. The valley of the Danube affords an easy road to the southeast, a road which the early rulers of Austria followed as far as Vienna and the Hungarian frontier. Eastward along the Baltic no break occurs in the great plain stretching from the North Sea to the Ural Mountains. It was in this direction that German conquests and colonization during the Middle Ages laid the foundation of modern Prussia.
The Germans, in descending upon the Roman Empire, had abandoned much of their former territories to the Slavs. In the reign of Charlemagne all the region between the Elbe and the Vistula belonged to Slavic tribes. To win it back for Germany required several centuries of hard fighting. The Slavs were heathen and barbarous, so that warfare with them seemed to be a kind of crusade. In the main, however, German expansion eastward was a business venture, due to the need for free land. It was the same need which in the nineteenth century carried the frontiers of the United States from the Alleghanies to the Pacific.
German expansion began early in the tenth century, when Henry the Fowler annexed Brandenburg between the Elbe and the Oder. [34] Subsequently much of the territory between the Oder and the Vistula, including Pomerania on the southern coast of the Baltic, came under German control. The Slavic inhabitants were exterminated or reduced to slavery. Their place was taken by thousands of German colonists, who introduced Christianity, built churches and monasteries, cleared the woods, drained the marshes, and founded many cities destined to become centers of German trade and culture.
Between the Vistula and the Niemen lay the lands of the Prussians, a non- Teutonic people closely related to the Slavs. The Prussian language and religion have disappeared, the Prussians themselves have been completely absorbed by the Germans who settled in their country, but the Prussian name is borne to-day by one of the great states of modern Europe.
The conquest and conversion of the Prussians was accomplished by the famous order of Teutonic Knights. It had been founded in Palestine as a military-religious order, at the time of the Third Crusade. [35] The decline of the crusading movement left the knights with no duties to perform, and so they transferred their activities to the Prussian frontier, where there was still a chance to engage in a holy war. Throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the Teutonic Order flourished, until its grand master ruled over the entire Baltic coast from the Vistula to the gulf of Finland. The knights later had to relinquish much of this region to the Slavs, but they sowed there the seeds of civilization. Russia's Baltic provinces [36] are to-day the richest and most advanced in the empire.
Germany at the close of the Middle Ages was not a united, intensely national state, such as had been established in England, France, and Spain. It had split into hundreds of principalities, none large, some extremely small, and all practically independent of the feeble German kings. [37] This weakness of the central power condemned Germany to a minor part in the affairs of Europe, as late as the nineteenth century. Yet Germany found some compensation for political backwardness in the splendid city life which it developed during the later Middle Ages. The German cities, together with those of Italy and other European lands, now call for our attention.
[Illustration: Map, GERMAN EXPANSION EASTWARD DURING THE MIDDLE AGES]
1. On an outline map indicate (a) William the Conqueror's French dominions and (b) additional dominions of the Plantagenet kings in France.
2. Prepare a chart showing the leading rulers mentioned in this chapter. Arrange your material in parallel columns with dates, one column for England, one for France, and one for the other European countries.
3. Locate the following places: Crécy; Calais; Poitiers; Salisbury; Stirling; Edinburgh; Orléans; and Granada.
4. What happened in 987 A.D.? in 1066 A.D.? in 1215 A.D.? in 1295 A.D.? in 1346 A.D.? in 1453 A.D.? in 1485 A.D.?
5. Distinguish between a nation, a government, and a state.
6. Are unity of race, a common language, a common religion, and geographical unity of themselves sufficient to make a nation? May a nation arise where these bonds are lacking?
7. "The thirteenth century gave Europe the nations as we now know them." Comment on this statement.
8. Account for the rise of national feeling in France, Spain, Scotland, and Switzerland.
9. "Good government in the Middle Ages was only another name for a public- spirited and powerful monarchy." Comment on this statement.
10. What advantages has trial by jury over the older forms of trial, such as oaths, ordeals, and the judicial duel?
11. Explain the difference between a grand jury and a trial, or petty jury.
12. Compare the extent of territory in which Roman law now prevails with that which follows the Common law.
13. Why was the Parliament of 1295 A.D. named the "Model Parliament"?
14. Why has England been called "the mother of parliaments"?
15. Distinguish between England and Great Britain. Between Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
16. What were the Roman names of England, Scotland, and Ireland?
17. "Islands seem dedicated by nature to freedom." How does the history of Ireland illustrate this statement?
18. Trace on the map the main water routes in France between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.
19. Show that Paris occupies an exceptionally good location for a capital city.
20. What French kings did most to form the French nation?
21. Why have queens never ruled in France?
22. Compare the Hundred Years' War and the Peloponnesian War as needless conflicts.
23. Compare Joan of Arc's visions with those of Mohammed.
24. "Beyond the Pyrenees begins Africa." What does this statement mean?
25. Why was Spain inconspicuous in European politics before the opening of the sixteenth century?
26. Look up in an encyclopedia the story of William Tell and prepare an oral report upon it.
27. Why was the German system of elective rulers politically less advantageous than the settled hereditary succession which prevailed in England and France?
[1] Webster,Readings in Medieval and Modern History,chapter xiv, "St. Louis"; chapter xv, "Episodes of the Hundred Years' War"; chapter xvi, "Memoirs of a French Courtier."
[2] The name comes from that of the broom plant (Latinplanta genesta), a sprig of which Henry's father used to wear in his hat. The family is also called Angevin, because Henry on his father's side descended from the counts of Anjou in France.
[3] See page 419.
[4] Latinverum dictum, "a true statement."
[5] Latinjuro, "I take an oath."
[6] See pages 475-476.
[7] See page 514.
[8] See page 461.
[9] A term which refers to all freemen in town and country below the rank of nobles.
[10] See page 418.
[11] Made up of the chief lords and bishops.
[12] The word "parliament," from Frenchparler,"to speak," originally meant a talk or conference. Later, the word came to be applied to the body of persons assembled for conference.
[13] See page 407 and note 1.
[14] See page 319.
[15] See page 246.
[16] See the map, page 321.
[17] In 1603 A.D. James VI of Scotland ascended the throne of England as James I. In 1707 A.D. the two countries adopted a plan of union which gave them a common Parliament and one flag.
[18] See page 397.
[19] See page 403.
[20] From 987 A.D. to 1328 A.D. France had only fourteen kings. The average length of their reigns was, therefore, something more than twenty- four years.
[21] See pages 461, 475.
[22] Hence the name "Salic law" applied to the rule excluding women from succession to the French throne.
[23] See page 550.
[24] Probably so called from the black armor which he wore. It may still be seen above his tomb in Canterbury Cathedral.
[25] In French, Jeanne d'Arc.
[26] Calais went back to the French in 1558 A.D. The Channel Islands are still English possessions.
[27] See pages 164, 169, 244, 378. The Arabs and Berbers who settled in Spain are generally called Moors.
[28] See page 316.
[29] See page 462.
[30] The duchies of Upper and Lower Austria, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, and the county of Tyrol.
[31] See the map facing page 462.
[32] From Schwyz comes the name Switzerland.
[33] The independence of the country was not formally recognized till 1648 A.D.
[34] See page 315.
[35] See page 473.
[36] Courland, Livonia, and Esthonia.
[37] See pages 319, 462.
Civilization has always had its home in the city. [1] The statement applies as well to medieval times as to the present day. Nothing marks more strongly the backwardness of the early Middle Ages than the absence of large and flourishing cities throughout western Europe. The growth of trade in the later Middle Ages led, however, to a civic revival beginning in the eleventh century. This change from rural to urban life was scarcely less significant for European history than the change from the feudal to the national state.
A number of medieval cities stood on the sites, and even within the walls, of Roman municipalities. Particularly in Italy, southern France, and Spain, and also in the Rhine and Danube regions, it seems that some ancientmunicipiahad never been entirely destroyed during the Germanic invasions. They preserved their Roman names, their streets, aqueducts, amphitheaters, and churches, and possibly vestiges of their Roman institutions. Among them were such important centers as Milan, Florence, Venice, Lyons, Marseilles, Paris, Vienna, Cologne, London, and York.
Many medieval cities were new foundations. Some rose to importance because of advantages of situation. A place where a river could be forded, where two roads met, or where a good harbor existed, would naturally become the resort of traders. Some, again, started as fortresses, behind whose ramparts the peasants took refuge when danger threatened. A third group of cities developed from villages on the manors. A thriving settlement was pretty sure to arise near a monastery or castle, which offered both protection and employment to the common people.
The city at first formed part of the feudal system. It grew upon the territory of a feudal lord and naturally owed obedience to him. The citizens ranked not much higher than serfs, though they were traders and artisans instead of farmers. They enjoyed no political rights, for their lord collected the taxes, appointed officials, kept order, and punished offenders. In short, the city was not free.
[Illustration: WALLS OF CARCASSONNE The fortifications of Carcassonne an ancient city of southwestern France are probably unique in Europe for completeness and strength. They consist of a double line of ramparts protected by towers and pierced by only two gates. A part of the fortifications is attributed to the Visigoths in the sixth century, the remainder, including the castle, was raised during the Middle Ages (eleventh to thirteenth centuries)]
But the city from the first was the decided enemy of feudalism. [2] As its inhabitants increased in number and wealth, they became Revolt of conscious of their strength and refused to submit the cities to oppression. Sometimes they won their freedom by hard fighting, more often they purchased it, perhaps from some noble who needed money to go on a crusade. In France, England, and Spain, where the royal power was strong, the cities obtained exemption from their feudal burdens, but did not become entirely self-governing. In Germany and Italy, on the other hand, the weakness of the central government permitted many cities to secure complete independence. They became true republics, like the old Greek city-states. [3]
The contract which the citizens extorted from their lord was known as a charter. It specified what taxes they should be required to pay and usually granted to them various privileges, such as those of holding assemblies, electing magistrates, and raising militia for local defense. The revolt of the cities gradually extended over all western Europe, so that at the end of the fourteenth century hardly any of them lacked a charter.
The free city had no room for either slaves or serfs. All servile conditions ceased inside its walls. The rule prevailed that anyone who had lived in a city for the term of a year and a day could no longer be claimed by a lord as his serf. This rule found expression in the famous saying: "Town air renders free."
The freedom of the cities naturally attracted many immigrants to them. There came into existence a middle class of city people, between the nobles and clergy on the one side and the peasants on the other side—what the French call thebourgeoisie.[4] As we have [5] learned, the kings of England and France soon began to summon representatives of this middle class to sit in assemblies as the "third estate," by the side of the nobles and the clergy, who formed the first two estates. Henceforth the middle class, thebourgeoisie,the "third estate," distinguished as it was for wealth, intelligence, and enterprise, exerted an ever-greater influence on European affairs.
* * * * *
The visitor approaching a medieval city through miles of open fields saw it clear in the sunlight, unobscured by coal smoke. From without it looked like a fortress, with walls, towers, gateways, drawbridges, and moat. Beyond the fortifications he would see, huddled together against the sky, the spires of the churches and the cathedral, the roofs of the larger houses, and the dark, frowning mass of the castle. The general impression would be one of wealth and strength and beauty.
Once within the walls the visitor would not find things so attractive. The streets were narrow, crooked, and ill-paved, dark during the day because of the overhanging houses, and without illumination at night. There were no open spaces or parks except a small market place. The whole city was cramped by its walls, which shut out light, air, and view, and prevented expansion into the neighboring country. Medieval London, for instance, covered an area of less than one square mile. [6]
[Illustration: A SCENE IN ROTHENBURG]
A city in the Middle Ages lacked all sanitary arrangements. The only water supply came from polluted streams and wells. There were no sewers and no sidewalks. People piled up their refuse in the backyard or flung it into the street, to be devoured by the dogs and pigs which served as scavengers. The holes in the pavement collected all manner of filth, and the unpaved lanes, in wet weather, became deep pits of mud. We can understand why the townspeople wore overshoes when they went out, and why even the saints in the pictures were represented with them on. The living were crowded together in many-storied houses, airless and gloomy; the dead were buried close at hand in crowded churchyards. Such unsanitary conditions must have been responsible for much of the sickness that was prevalent. The high death rate could only be offset by a birth rate correspondingly high, and by the constant influx of country people.
Numerous petty regulations restricted the private life of the townspeople. The municipal authorities sometimes decided how many guests might be invited to weddings, how much might be spent on wedding presents, what different garments might be owned and worn by a citizen, and even the number of trees that might be planted in his garden. Each citizen had to serve his turn as watchman on the walls or in the streets at night. When the great bell in the belfry rang the "curfew," [7] at eight or nine o'clock, this was the signal for every one to extinguish lights and fires and go to bed. It was a useful precaution, since conflagrations were common enough in the densely packed wooden houses. After curfew the streets became deserted, except for the night watch making their rounds and the presence of occasional pedestrians carrying lanterns. The municipal government spent little or nothing on police protection, so that street brawls, and even robbery and murder, were not infrequent.
The inhabitants of the city took a just pride in their public buildings. The market place, where traders assembled, often contained a beautiful cross and sometimes a market hall to shelter goods from the weather. Not far away rose the city hall, [8] for the transaction of public business and the holding of civic feasts. The hall might be crowned by a high belfry with an alarm bell to summon citizens to mass meeting. Then there would be a number of churches and abbeys and, if the city was the capital of a bishop's diocese, an imposing cathedral.
The small size of medieval cities—few included as many as ten thousand inhabitants—simplified the problem of governing them. The leading merchants usually formed a council presided over by a head magistrate, the burgomaster [9] or mayor, [10] who was assisted by aldermen. [11] In some places the guilds chose the officials and managed civic affairs. These associations had many functions and held a most important place in city life.
The Anglo-Saxon word "guild," which means "to pay," came to be applied to a club or society whose members made contributions for some common purpose. This form Of association is very old. Some of the guilds in imperial Rome had been established in the age of the kings, while not a few of those which flourish to-day in China and India were founded before the Christian era. Guilds existed in Continental Europe as early as the time of Charlemagne, but they did not become prominent till after the crusades.
A guild of merchants grew up when those who bought and sold goods in any place united to protect their own interests. The membership included many artisans, as well as professional traders, for in medieval times a man often sold in the front room of his shop the goods which he made in the back rooms. He was often both shopkeeper and workman in one.
The chief duty of a merchant guild was to preserve to its own members the monopoly of trade within a town. Strangers and non-guildsmen could not buy or sell there except under the conditions imposed by the guild. They must pay the town tolls, confine their dealings to guildsmen, and as a rule sell only at wholesale. They were forbidden to purchase wares which the townspeople wanted for themselves or to set up shops for retail trade. They enjoyed more freedom at fairs, which were intended to attract outsiders.
[Illustration: HOUSE OF THE BUTCHERS' GUILD, HILDESHEIM, GERMANY Hildesheim, near Hanover, is perhaps the richest of all German towns in fine wooden-framed houses. The house of the Butchers' Guild has recently been restored, with all its original coloring carefully reproduced.]
After a time the traders and artisans engaged in a particular occupation began to form an association of their own. Thus arose the craft guilds, composed of weavers, shoemakers, bakers, tailors, carpenters, and so on, until almost every form of industry had its separate organization. The names of the various occupations came to be used as the surnames of those engaged in them, so that to-day we have such common family names as Smith, Cooper, Fuller, Potter, Chandler, and many others. The number of craft guilds in an important city might be very large. London and Paris at one time each had more than one hundred, and Cologne in Germany had as many as eighty. The members of a particular guild usually lived in the same street or quarter of the city, not only for companionship but also for better supervision of their labor. [12]
Just as the merchant guild regulated town trade, so the craft guilds had charge of town industry. No one could engage in any craft without becoming a member of the guild which controlled it and submitting to the guild regulations. A man's hours of labor and the prices at which he sold his goods were fixed for him by the guild. He might not work elsewhere than in his shop, because of the difficulty of supervising him, nor might he work by artificial light, lest he turn out badly finished goods. Everything made by him was carefully inspected to see if it contained shoddy materials or showed poor workmanship. Failure to meet the test meant a heavy fine or perhaps expulsion from the guild. Thus the industrial monopoly possessed by the craft guild gave some protection to both producer and consumer.
Full membership in a guild was reached only by degrees. A boy started as an apprentice, that is, a learner. He paid a sum of money to his master and agreed to serve him for a fixed period, usually seven years. The master, in turn, promised to provide the apprentice with food, lodging, and clothing, and to teach him all the secrets of the craft. At the end of the seven years the apprentice had to pass an examination by the guild. If he was found fit, he then became a journeyman and worked for daily wages. As soon as he had saved enough money, he might set up as a master in his own shop. A master was at once workman and employer, laborer and capitalist.
Like the old Roman guilds, those of the Middle Ages had their charitable and religious aspects. Each guild raised large benefit funds for the relief of members or their widows and orphans. Each guild had its private altar in the cathedral, or often its own chapel, where masses were said for the repose of the souls of deceased members, and where on the day of its patron saint religious services were held. The guild was also a social organization, with frequent meetings for a feast in its hall or in some inn. The guilds in some cities entertained the people with an annual play or procession. [13] It is clear that the members of a medieval craft guild had common interests and shared a common life.
DISSOLUTION OF CRAFT GUILDS As the craft guilds prospered and increased in wealth, they tended to become exclusive organizations. Membership fees were raised so high that few could afford to pay them, while the number of apprentices that a master might take was strictly limited. It also became increasingly difficult for journeymen to rise to the station of masters; they often remained wage-earners for life. The mass of workmen could no longer participate in the benefits of the guild system. In the eighteenth century most of the guilds lost their monopoly of industry, and in the nineteenth century they gave way to trade unions.
Nearly every town of any consequence had a weekly or semiweekly market, which was held in the market place or in the churchyard. Marketing often occurred on Sunday, in spite of many laws against this desecration of the day. Outsiders who brought cattle and farm produce for sale in the market were required to pay tolls, either to the town authorities or sometimes to a neighboring nobleman. These market dues still survive in the "octroi" collected at the gates of some European cities.
People in the Middle Ages did not believe in unrestricted competition. It was thought wrong for anyone to purchase goods outside of the regular market ("forestalling") or to purchase them in larger quantities than necessary ("engrossing"). A man ought not to charge for a thing more than it was worth, or to buy a thing cheap and sell it dear. The idea prevailed that goods should be sold at their "just price" which was not determined by supply and demand but by an estimate of the cost of the materials and the labor that went into their manufacture. Laws were often passed fixing this "just price," but it was as difficult then as now to prevent the "cornering of the market" by shrewd and unscrupulous traders.
Besides markets at frequent intervals, many towns held fairs once or twice a year. The fairs often lasted for a month or more. They were especially necessary in medieval Europe, because merchants did not keep large quantities or many kinds of goods on their shelves, nor could intending purchasers afford to travel far in search of what they wanted. The more important English fairs included those at Stourbridge near Cambridge, Winchester, St. Ives, and Boston. On the Continent fairs were numerous and in some places, such as Leipzig in Germany and Nijni-Novgorod in Russia, they are still kept up.
A fair gave opportunity for the sale of commodities brought from the most distant regions. Stourbridge Fair, for instance, attracted Venetians and Genoese with silk, pepper, and spices of the East, Flemings with fine cloths and linens, Spaniards with iron and wine, Norwegians with tar and pitch from their forests, and Baltic merchants with furs, amber, and salted fish. The fairs, by fostering commerce, helped to make the various European peoples better acquainted with one another.
[Illustration: Map, TRADE ROUTES BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN EUROPE INTHE 13TH AND 14TH CENTURIES]
Commerce in western Europe had almost disappeared as a result of the Germanic invasions and the establishment of feudalism. What little commercial intercourse there was encountered many obstacles. A merchant who went by land from country to country might expect to find bad roads, few bridges, and poor inns. Goods were transported on pack-horses instead of in wagons. Highway robbery was so common that travelers always carried arms and often united in bands for better protection. The feudal lords, often themselves not much more than highwaymen, demanded tolls at every bridge and ford and on every road. If the merchant proceeded by water, he must face, in addition to the ordinary hazards of wind and wave, the danger from the ill-lighted coasts and from attacks by pirates. No wonder commerce languished in the early Middle Ages and for a long time lay chiefly in the hands of Byzantines [14] and Arabs. [15]
Even during the dark centuries that followed the end of the Roman Empire, some trade with the Orient had been carried on by the cities of Italy and southern France. The crusades, which brought East and West face to face, greatly increased this trade. The Mediterranean lands first felt the stimulating effects of intercourse with the Orient, but before long the commercial revival extended to the rest of Europe.
Before the discovery of the Cape of Good Hope the spices, drugs, incense, carpets, tapestries, porcelains, and gems of India, China, and the East Indies reached the West by three main routes. All had been used in ancient times. [16] The central and most important route led up the Persian Gulf and Tigris River to Bagdad, from which city goods went by caravan to Antioch or Damascus. The southern route reached Cairo and Alexandria by way of the Red Sea and the Nile. By taking advantage of the monsoons, a merchant ship could make the voyage from India to Egypt in about three months. The northern route, entirely overland, led to ports on the Black Sea and thence to Constantinople. It traversed high mountain passes and long stretches of desert, and could profitably be used only for the transport of valuable articles small in bulk. The conquests of the Ottoman Turks greatly interfered with the use of this route by Christians after the middle of the fifteenth century.
Oriental goods, upon reaching the Mediterranean, could be transported by water to northern Europe. Every year the Venetians sent a fleet loaded with eastern products to Bruges in Flanders, a city which was the most important depot of trade with Germany, England, and Scandinavia. Bruges also formed the terminus of the main overland route leading from Venice over the Alps and down the Rhine. But as the map indicates, many other commercial highways linked the Mediterranean with the North Sea and the Baltic.
It is important to note that until late in the Middle Ages trade existed, not between nations, but between cities. A merchant of London was almost as much a foreigner in any other English city as he would have been in Bruges, Paris, or Cologne. Consequently, each city needed to make commercial treaties with its neighbors, stipulating what were the privileges and obligations of its merchants, wherever they went. It was not until the kings grew strong in western Europe that merchants could rely on the central government, rather than on local authorities, for protection.
[Illustration: Map, MEDIEVAL TRADE ROUTESLand RoutesWater RoutesMarco Polo's Route]
We have seen that business in the Middle Ages was chiefly of a retail character and was conducted in markets and fairs. The artisan who manufactured the goods he sold and the peddler who carried his goods about from place to place were the leading types of medieval traders. Little wholesale business existed, and the merchant prince who owned warehouses and large stocks of goods was an exceptional figure.
One reason for the small scale of business enterprise is found in the inadequate supply of money. From the beginning of the Christian era to the twelfth century there seems to have been a steady decrease in the amount of specie in circulation, partly because so much moved to the Orient in payment for luxuries, and partly because the few mines in western Europe went out of use during the period of the invasions. The scarcity of money, as has been shown, [17] helped directly to build up the feudal system, since salaries, wages, and rents could be paid only in personal services or in produce. The money supply increased during the latter part of the Middle Ages, but it did not become sufficient for the needs of business till the discovery of the New World enabled the Spaniards to tap the wealth of the silver mines in Mexico and Peru. [18]
Medieval currency was not only small in amount but also faulty in character. Many great nobles enjoyed the privilege of keeping a mint and issuing coins. Since this feudal money passed at its full value only in the locality where it was minted, a merchant had to be constantly changing his money, as he went from one fief to another, and always at a loss. Kings and nobles for their own profit would often debase the currency by putting silver into the gold coins and copper into the silver coins. Every debasement, as it left the coins with less pure metal, lowered their purchasing power and so raised prices unexpectedly. Even in countries like England, where debasement was exceptional, much counterfeit money circulated, to the constant impediment of trade.
The prejudice against "usury," as any lending of money at interest was called, made another hindrance to business enterprise. It seemed wrong for a person to receive interest, since he lost nothing by the loan of his money. Numerous Church laws condemned the receipt of interest as unchristian. If, however, the lender could show that he had suffered any loss, or had been prevented from making any gain, through not having his money, he might charge something for its use. In time people began to distinguish between interest moderate in amount and an excessive charge for the use of money. The latter alone was henceforth prohibited as usurious. Most modern states still have usury laws which fix the legal rate of interest.
The business of money lending, denied to Christians, fell into the hands of the Jews. In nearly all European countries popular prejudice forbade the Jews to engage in agriculture, while the guild regulations barred them from industry. They turned to trade and finance for a livelihood and became the chief capitalists of medieval times. But the law gave the Jews no protection, and kings and nobles constantly extorted large sums from them. The persecutions of the Jews date from the era of the crusades, when it was as easy to excite fanatical hatred against them as against the Moslems. Edward I drove the Jews from England and Ferdinand and Isabella expelled them from Spain. They are still excluded from the Spanish peninsula, and in Russia and Austria they are not granted all the privileges which Christians enjoy.