|
|
Innocent
III and the Hohenstaufen
Ryan Renfro
26 November 2001
Innocent III is perhaps the most well known of all medieval
popes. Elected to head Peter’s bishopric on 8 January
1198, he is widely remembered for his youth – he was 55
years younger than Celestine V, his predecessor – as well as
for his vigour, education, defence and expansion of the papal
position, and for his political skills. Such a man would
leave a strong mark on any age, but Innocent’s seems to have
been tailored for his abilities. The succession to the
empire was up in the air with the two claimants being elected in
the year of Innocent’s own election. Furthermore,
Constance of Sicily died, leaving the kingdom of Sicily to the
infant Frederick II. What followed was twenty years of
warfare, political negotiations, and confusion, until finally
Frederick II, first elected Christmas 1196 then again in 1212,
was crowned at Aachen in 1215. During this period Innocent
III both supported and quarrelled against various representatives
and members of the Hohenstaufen dynasty depending on their
position relative to his goals for the papacy. Although a
continuation of the Hohenstaufen possession of both the Empire
and Sicilian kingdom represented the greatest threat to Innocent,
he does not show himself to be inherently anti-Hohenstaufen.
Innocent rather manoeuvred politically in relation to the
Hohenstaufen and the succession based on two primary goals: the
permanent division of the empire and kingdom of Sicily and the
expansion of the Papal State in central Italy.
To properly grapple with matters of empire and papacy in the
early thirteenth century, one must consider what came before.
Of utmost importance to Innocent’s dealing was the fact that
Leo II crowned Charlemagne in 800, in the mind of those in the
west transferring the title of Roman emperor to the Frankish king
by the pope’s hand, or what is called the theory of translatio
imperii. This was important because it was the pope who
crowned emperors, a process that by this period was well
established as the crowning of the properly elected king of the
Germans. Also central is the idea that the pope controlled
an area of land in central Italy that under Innocent III really
became what is referred to as the Papal State. The papacy
had received territorial donations from secular lords such as
Constantine and Matilda, and desired to expand it to a small
kingdom with enough power to protect them from external forces.[1] The popes
desperately needed this land to secure their position among an
often hostile Roman populace and also to insure their political
clout and, in theory, independence. The importance of
territorial independence can be seen as late as the last century,
in which the pontiff found himself surrounded by a sea of fascism
under a leader who scoffed at the Vicar’s lack of divisions.
It was the assurance of political power deriving from the papal
territory that motivated Innocent to before all defend papal
claims in central Italy against any imperial candidate who
threatened them. It is also no surprise that within a year
of Henry VI’s death, the imperial governors had fled from
Tuscany, Spoleto, and Sicily.[2]
The other main issue at hand in 1198 besides the papal territory
was the Hohenstaufen claim to Sicily. Henry VI acquired it
through his marriage to Constance of Sicily, and had conquered it
and established imperial rule there before his death in 1197.
This ended what Sayers called the ‘checking’ alliance
in Italy in which the pope could play the two secular powers in
Italy against one another.[3] Once
acquired by the emperor, it became a permanent and pressing goal
for the papacy to separate the two regions. Following the
death of Henry VI, Frederick was taken to Sicily to rule under
the regency of his mother, Empress Constance. Having had
troubles with her husband and the Germans in the past, who were
resented by ministeriales Sicily, Constance renounced the
already elected Frederick’s claims to the empire. This
suited Innocent just fine, as it would break up the kingdoms and
allow for a different ruler in Germany. Anxious for support
in Sicily, Constance turned to Innocent for help. According
to his desires and in line with the history of the kingdom she
recognized his right as overlord and allotted the pope 30,000
tari per year for running the kingdom in absentia.[4] The
opportunity to control this region was a wonderful one for
Innocent.
When considering the Hohenstaufen dynasty in the two decades
following Henry VI’s death, it must be noted that the term
Hohenstaufen is not always clear. Although Frederick II was
the rightful heir to the dynasty, his mother had rejected that
claim in favour of his Norman roots. The Hohenstaufen
banner was taken up in Germany by his uncle Philip of Swabia, who
first backed Frederick but later consented to lead once Frederick
could not be returned and it was clear an adult Hohenstaufen heir
was necessary. The Hohenstaufens were also represented in
the Sicilian kingdom by Markward of Anweiler. Markward was
made margrave of Ancona, duke of Ravenna and Romagna, and count
of Abruzzi and Molise by Henry VI. As an imperial partisan,
he tried to preserve imperial control of Sicily and his lands and
thus came into conflict with Constance and Innocent, as they
desired papal and not imperial overlordship in Sicily. Despite
defeats, including a large one outside Monreale in 1200, Markward
held on in Sicily and could not be ousted from the island. The
pope employed numerous strategies against him, including sending
mercenaries to Palermo, offering crusading indulgences to those
who backed Markward and encouraging Walter of Brienne[5] to invade the kingdom.[6] Markward gained
control of Frederick in November 1201, but died of abdominal
surgery the following September.[7] Frederick, still a young child, was
somewhat like a set of regalia at this point in that
competing factions struggled to possess him so that they might
through him legitimise their rule. Markward claimed
“to exercise the custody of the kingdom in the Hohenstaufen
interest until Frederick should come of age.”[8] That he acted in
the name of the Hohenstaufens is confirmed by the naming of him
as regent in Sicily in the Declaration of Speyer.[9] Although Innocent claimed the regency
after Constance’s death by the terms of her will, his
suzerain right, and his duty to protect orphans, his prompting of
Brienne to enter the kingdom led many to question just how well
Innocent was protecting the rights of that orphan in Sicily, much
less the empire![10] Innocent
thus acted against the Hohenstaufen cause in the Sicilian kingdom
because it threatened his own rights as regent and also, should
the Hohenstaufens triumph in both territories, to place the
papacy back in the middle of an imperial nutcracker.[11] In fact, so great
was his opposition to the Hohenstaufen under Markward that he is
presented as the “villain and anti-hero” in the Gesta
Innocentii.[12]
Although not quite as chaotic as Sicily, the death of Henry VI
and loss of Frederick II left no clear, elected successor to the
imperial throne. As mentioned before, duke Philip of Swabia
took up the Hohenstaufen claim only when it was clear Frederick
would not return. Although he had the support of the
imperial Hohenstaufen allies and ministeriales, Philip was
forced to contend with his Welf rivals. Because his older
brother was still absent on crusade, Otto of Brunswick put forth
his claim to the throne as son of Henry the Lion and great
grandson of Emperor Lothair III with the help and encouragement
of his uncle, Richard the Lionheart. Otto was crowned in
June 1198 in Aachen, the traditional location. Philip, on
the other hand, was not crowned until September in Mainz by the
archbishop of Tarentaise, or in the wrong place by the wrong
person.[13] He
did have several things in his favour, however, including many of
the imperial ministeriales, the imperial treasury at
castle Trifels, and of course Philip Augustus. This was an
excellent opportunity for Innocent. Not only did the two
elections by two sets of princes of different candidates mean
that they would have to seek his approval for their imperial
coronation, but it also allowed him to choose the one better
suited to his designs in central Italy.
It is clear that Innocent favoured Otto from the start, although
he also needed to play the role of impartial judge. Although
he answered Otto’s letter notifying him of his coronation in
Aachen as king of Germany, there is no record of Innocent’s
reply to Philip’s letter of notification. Furthermore,
a peace treaty negotiated by papal legates between Richard I and
Philip Augustus in January 1199 required Philip to end his
agreement with the Hohenstaufen, while John was not required to
abandon Otto.[14] This
bias from the start clearly showed that Innocent favoured the
Welf claim over the Hohenstaufen. Innocent surely knew that
Philip believed that Frederick was the rightful heir, and because
Innocent already supported Frederick in Sicily in his Norman
inheritance, having a Hohenstaufen on the imperial throne might
lead one day to the reunification of the two kingdoms.
By chance Innocent was given the position of imperial arbiter, a
station he accepted with glee. He began collecting letters
concerning the imperial question in the Regestum super negotio
Romani imperii starting on 3 May, 1199. Texts for this
were sometimes secret and edited for quick reference for
Innocent’s use in the imperial negotiations. This is
less the work of the impartial judge than the master politician.
It was also that May that he commissioned Conrad of Mainz to set
up a six-month truce and tribunal with eight princes on each
side. The Hohenstaufen party was undoubtedly aware of
Innocent’s bias, and in May 1199 issued the Declaration of
Speyer. This was for all purposes and ultimatum to the pope
declaring that Philip had been elected king of Germany and had
the right to rule and that Innocent should not interfere:
“he who is chosen by the election of the princes alone is
the true emperor, even before he has been confirmed by the
pope.”[15] It
furthermore suggests that Markward, and thus not Innocent, should
be regent in Sicily and states that “We will come to Rome
and you will crown our lord Philip.”[16] The Pope rejected this declaration,
declaring for Otto in 1201. Despite what Barraclough calls
the Welfs’ “abject attitude towards the pope, in marked
contrast to the dignified bearing of the Hohenstaufen,”
Innocent supported Otto because of his recognition of
Innocent’s gains in central Italy and his swearing obedience
to Christ’s Vicar at Neuss on 8 June 1201.[17] The specifics of the next few years of
diplomacy would take too long to detail, but two things are
relevant to this argument: that Innocent claimed that a
Hohenstaufen coronation would threaten the principle of
hereditary monarchy and that Philip came from a line of
adversaries of the Church.[18] These
arguments, of course, were merely meant to strengthen the case of
Otto against Philip.
Despite the pope’s judgment for Otto and his releasing of
all oaths made to him, Philip remained the stronger candidate.
In 1204 he received the support of Henry count Palatine and
Otto’s brother, the landgrave of Thuringia, the king of
Bohemia, and the archbishop of Cologne. Philip Augustus had
defeated John I in France, and by January 1205 Philip was crowned
king in Aachen by the archbishop of Cologne. Realizing he
could no longer control the situation, Innocent accepted that he
could not triumph with a majority of the princes against him and
thus opened negotiations with Philip. Despite Philip’s
resistance towards the Papal State in 1204-5 under the bishop of
Worms, Innocent absolved his excommunication in August 1207.[19] By spring 1208,
the two had agreed to have Tuscany, Spoleto, and Ancona granted
as imperial fiefs to Innocent’s nephew. Although this
shows that Innocent was willing to support a Hohenstaufen in
Germany since the situation demanded it, it must also be
emphasized that the only way he would do so was if he could
ensure control over the areas of the Papal State in Italy. The
coronation and other matters were not yet solved when Otto of
Wittelsbach murdered Philip, apparently because he had previously
been engaged to Philip’s daughter who was now promised to
the Pope’s nephew. Weary of a decade of strife, the
princes promptly elected Otto on 11 November and by October 1209
he had been crowned emperor in Rome.
Even
though Innocent had finally placed his original candidate upon
the imperial throne, he first forced Otto to renew his oath of
1201 in a new one at Speyer in 1209 where he granted the pope the
disputed territories in central Italy and also conferred many
liberties upon the Church in Germany.[20] Despite his earlier promises, Otto
began to grant out privileges in Spoleto, Ancona, and the
Matildine lands. Although mostly raised in England and
France, Otto was aware of imperial history in the region and in
the words of Barraclough came to Italy as “the exponent of
Hohenstaufen imperial traditions.”[21] He invaded Sicily when locals appealed
to him to do so, and was promptly excommunicated in November
1210. Innocent’s calculation that he could protect
papal territories and separate Sicily permanently from the empire
by raising Otto of Brunswick turned out to be terribly misguided:
he wrote to the German bishops that “the sword we ourselves
forged has dealt us grievous wounds.”[22] Even though the long struggle had
weakened imperial power and prestige, as Arnold notes Innocent
III’s diplomacy and dealing with the succession dispute had
not been a success on practical terms.[23]
With
Otto in control of the empire and threatening to conquer all of
Sicily, Innocent had no choice but to back a rival to the crown.
The only rival left was Frederick, the last person Innocent
wanted to see made emperor in 1198. It is only by 1211 at
his election in Nuremberg that Frederick can truly been seen as
representing the Hohenstaufen dynasty. Innocent always knew
that this was a possibility: “if he sees that he has been
deprived of the empire by the Roman Church he will attack the
Church.”[24] Because
Frederick fathered a son in 1211, Innocent could now conceivably
support him “on conditions defined by Innocent III: his
Sicilian Kingdom was to be surrendered to the infant Henry, who
was left in the charge of Queen Constance as regent.”[25] It was somewhat
of a desperate venture for Frederick, but once he had beaten Otto
to Constance he was able to begin to establish himself elsewhere
in Germany, making generous concessions to the princes. His
position was not truly secure, however, until Philip Augustus
smashed Otto’s army at Bouvines in July 1214. The
Fourth Lateran Council ended the Otto’s claims for good.
Innocent,
of course would not have allowed Frederick to take the empire
without having made provisions for his two primary concerns.
He would subject Frederick to the same promises Otto made a
Speyer in 1209. Frederick thus issued the Golden Bull of
Eger in July 1213 in which he also “surrendered rights over
vacant churches, recognized freedom of the election of bishops of
appeal to the curia and promised his assistance in the
suppression of heresy.”[26] He had already confirmed some
ecclesiastical rights at Messina in March 1212. Even though
the question of the papal territories had been settled to
Innocent’s satisfaction, there still loomed the question of
the succession to both thrones. Frederick was still
controlling Sicily from afar, making it clear that he had no
intention of giving it up entirely until he had been crowned
emperor. He was, however, willing to promise its
abandonment after he was crowned, stating at Strasburg that
following the coronation he would hand Henry over “to be
ward of the Roman Church as king of Sicily and allow him to be
controlled by a papal nominee.”[27] Innocent never received this promise as
he died before its arrival in Rome. Innocent died seeing a
Hohenstaufen, albeit a weak one, in control of both the empire
and of Sicily.
Although Innocent had vigorously and skilfully negotiated the
imperial succession question, it is hard to see his manoeuvrings
as producing any real results for the papacy. It was not
long at all before Frederick summoned Henry and Constance to
Germany. The Hohenstaufens controlled both territories,
although they had to make large concessions to do so. The
Papal State was well for the time being, but was certainly
threatened by the Hohenstaufens. Then again, it was never
Innocent’s goal to keep a strong emperor from the throne.
He instead wanted an emperor he could use as the secular arm of
the spiritual authority. He after all saw himself as the
root of imperial power: “Just as the moon derives its light
from the sun… so, too, the royal power derives the splendour
of its dignity from the pontifical authority.”[28] And had Frederick
not made all the necessary concessions? Had he not shown
himself still a ward of the pope? Otto had done so as well,
of course, giving Innocent good reason to worry. Innocent
never lived to see those suspicions confirmed.
Innocent
once wrote that “The individual princes and kings have their
particular domains; Peter is above all, with regard to both the
limits and size of his dominion, because he represents Him to
whom the whole earth and its dominion, the earth and all that
lives on it, belongs.”[29] Innocent certainly did consider himself
above all, a role that the conflicts between the various
international alliances and internal disputes allowed him to
play. Although he judged his cases with the skill of a
lawyer, his ultimate concern was the position of the papacy.
It was with the goal of protecting and expanding papal power that
he interacted with the Hohenstaufens.
Bibliography
Arnold, B., Medieval Germany, 500-1300: A Political Interpretation. (London, 1997).
Barraclough, G., The Origins of Modern Germany. (London, 1962).
Bolton, B. “Too Important to
Neglect: The Gesta Innocentii PP III.” Church and
Chronicle in the Middle Ages. (London, 1991).
Haller, J. “Lord of the World.” Innocent III: Vicar of Christ or Lord of the World? ed. J.
Powell. (Boston, 1963).
Haverkamp, A., Medieval Germany 1056-1273. trans. Helga Braun et. al. (New York,
1992).
Hollister, C.W., Medieval Europe: A Short History – 8th ed. (San Francisco, 1994).
Kempf, F. Papsttum und Kaisertum
bei Innocenz III: Die geistigen und
rechtlichen Grundlagen seiner Thronstreitpolitik. (Rome, 1954).
Leuschner, J. Germany in the Late Middle Ages. Trans. Sabine MacCormack.
(Oxford, 1980).
Matthew, D., The Norman Kingdom of Sicily. (Cambridge, 1992).
Morris, C. The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250. (Oxford,
1991).
“Papal Decree on the choice of a German King, 1201.” Medieval Sourcebook.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/innIII-policies.html [Accessed 25 Nov, 2001].
Sayers, J. Innocent III: Leader of Europe 1198-1216. (London, 1994).
Van Cleve, T., The Emperor Frederick II
of Hohenstaufen: Immutatur Mundi.
(Oxford, 1972.)
[1] The Donation of Constantine had not yet been proven a forgery and was thus accepted in this period.
[2] Sayers, Innocent III: Leader of Europe 1198-1216, p. 68.
[3] Sayers, Innocent III: Leader of Europe 1198-1216, p. 81.
[4] Matthew, The Norman Kingdom of Sicily, p. 241.
[5] Walter of Brienne was the nearest heir to the Sicilian throne should Frederick II perish. Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen: Immutator Mundi, p. 43.
[6] By allying with Sicilian Moslems, Markward had become “’a worse infidel than the infidels.’” Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250, p. 422.
[7] Matthew, The Norman Kingdom of Sicily, p. 301.
[8] Matthew, The Norman Kingdom of Sicily, p. 301.
[9] Bolton, “Too Important to Neglect: The Gesta Innocentii PP III”, p. 92.
[10] Matthew, The Norman Kingdom of Sicily, p. 301.
[11] “The Papal State lay wedged like a nut within a giant imperial nutcracker.” Sayers, Innocent III: Leader of Europe 1198-1216, p. 69.
[12] Bolton, “Too Important to Neglect: The Gesta Innocentii PP III”, p. 92.
[13] Haverkamp, Medieval Germany 1056-127,. p. 240.
[14] Haller, “Lord of the World”, p. 49.
[15] Barraclough, The Origins of Modern Germany, p. 208.
[16] Sayers, Innocent III: Leader of Europe 1198-1216, p. 54.
[17]Although it may be true that the Welf diplomacy left much to be desired, the demands of the Declaration of Speyer above certainly fail to live up to Barraclough’s ‘dignified bearing’. Barraclough, The Origins of Modern Germany, p. 209.
[18] “makes it seem that the Empire is owed not to election but to heredity.” MGH Constitutiones vol II, no 398, pp. 505-507 (1202). In Arnold, Medieval Germany, 500-1300: A Political Interpretation, p. 110-111.
[19] Haverkamp, Medieval Germany 1056-1273,p. 241.
[20] Barraclough, The Origins of Modern Germany, p. 211.
[21] Barraclough, The Origins of Modern Germany, p. 212.
[22] Arnold, Medieval Germany, 500-1300: A Political Interpretation, p. 111.
[23] Arnold, Medieval Germany, 500-1300: A Political Interpretation, p. 111.
[24] Sayers, Innocent III: Leader of Europe 1198-1216, p. 56.
[25] Matthew, The Norman Kingdom of Sicily, p. 309.
[26] Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250, p. 425.
[27] Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250, p. 425.
[28] Sayers, Innocent III: Leader of Europe 1198-1216, p. 197.
[29] Haller, “Lord of the World”, p. 47-48.