^{page 90 note 1} The numerous writings of Sybel and Ficker are edited by Schneider, F., Universalstaat oder Nationalstaat: Macht und Ende des Ersten Deutschen Retches: Die Streitschriften von Heinrich von Sybel und Julius Ficker (Innsbruck, 1941).Google Scholar For Giesebrecht (Ordinarius at Königsberg and from 1861 at Munich), see Allg. Deutsche Biographie, xlix (Leipzig, 1908), pp. 341–49;Google Scholar for Sybel (Ordinarius at Munich until 1861, then at Bonn), ibid., liv, pp. 645–67; for Ficker (the founder of the historical seminar), see Oesterr. Biograph. Lexikon, i (Graz-Cologne, 1957), pp. 309–10.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 1} See also Srbik, Heinrich Ritter von, ‘Die Reichsidee und das Werden deutscher Einheit’, Hist[orische] Zeitsch[rift], clxiv (1941), p. 470.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 2} Cf. Schneider, F., Die neueren Anschauungen der deutschen Historiker über ḍie deutsche Kaiserpolitik des Mittelalters, 6th edn (Weimar, 1943),Google Scholar pp. 51 ff.

^{page 91 note 3} Haller, J., Die Epochen der deutschen Geschichte (Stuttgart, 1927), p. 53.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 4} Hist. Zeitsch, clxiv, p. 460. Professional historian as he was, he was bound to emphasize the Christian and Roman elements of the empire. This emphasis earned him severe censures by G. Krüger, ‘Um den Reichsgedanken’, ibid., clxv (1942), pp. 457–58.

^{page 91 note 5} Brackmann, A., ‘Der Streit um die deutsche Kaiserpolitik’, Velhagen und Klasings Monatshefte, xliii (1929), pp. 443–44.Google Scholar For Brackmann (Ordinarius in Berlin to 1929, then Director of the Prussian State Archives), see Neue Deutsche Biographie, ii,Google Scholar pp. 504 ff. He received special commendation for his zeal to have kept alive historical scholarship during the German impotency in the inter-war period: he kept alive the historic idea of the German mission to the East; see Bittner, L. in his review (Hist. ZeitscL, clxii (1940), p. 618)Google Scholar of Brackmann's Krisis und Aufbau in Osteuropa (Ahnenerbe-Stiftung, 1939).Google Scholar He expressed his views unmistakably after the defeat of Poland in 1939; see Schneider, op. cit., p. 95.

^{page 92 note 1} Oncken, H., Nation und Geschichte (Berlin, 1935), pp. 25,Google Scholar 45.

^{page 92 note 2} Cf. Schneider, op. cit., p. 90. See also Kirn, P., ‘Die Verdienste der staufischen Kaiser…’, Hist. Zeitsch, clxiv (1941), p. 261:Google Scholar the Staufen species is characterized by a strong Herrenbewusstsein. These views are faithfully reflected by A. Rosenberg, who with singular directness declared that today (March 1940) the task is to raise Germany again to that position which is her due since the days of the great Saxon and Staufen emperors; the medieval monarchy made Europe into one single state, and now there is a grandiose re-birth of this idea (Tradition und Geschichte (Munich, 1943), pp. 364,Google Scholar 368; see also p. 273).

^{page 92 note 3} For a juxtaposition of the First and Third Reich, see Aubin, H., ‘Vom Aufbau des mittelalterlichen deutschen Reiches’, Hist. Zeitsch, clxii (1940), p. 480,Google Scholar and G. Krüger, ibid., clxv, p. 460. For a more recent nostalgic view on the medieval imperium mundi, see Bergstraesser, A., ‘Deutsche Einheit’, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, iii (1955), p. 336;Google Scholar see also Kirfel, H.J., Weltherrschaftsidee und Bündnispolitik (Bonn, 1959), pp. 16,Google Scholar 28.

^{page 93 note 1} Even Dolger, F., Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt (Ettal, 1953), p. 289,Google Scholar can do no better than say: ‘Von Seite des fränkischen Hofes ist die Schöpfung des westlichen Kaisertums der Ausdruck eines ererbten dynamisch-politischen Sinnes’.

^{page 96 note 1} For details, see Ullmann, W., Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages, 2nd edn (London, 1962),Google Scholar pp. 216 ff. For Otto I as ‘Imperator Rotnanorum et Francorum’ see M[onumenta] G[ermaniae] H[istorica], Diplomata, i, pp. 318, 322, 324, 326, 329; Romanorum imperator, ibid., p. 346 (Die Urkunden der deutschen Könige und Kaiser, ed. Sickel, Th., i (Hanover, 1884), pp. 432,Google Scholar 436 439 441, 443 473).

^{page 96 note 2} See the texts cited in Ullmann, op. cit., pp. 199 (n. 2), 202 (n. 5), 215, 217, 218 (n. 3); see also John VIII in M.G.H., Ep[istolae], vii, p. 291. This theme is later also clearly expressed by canonists, e.g. by Huguccio: ‘Quid ergo de graeculo? Abusive (!) et sola usurpations dicitur imperator…’ (Onory, S. Mochi, La crisi del sacro Romano imperio (Milan, 1951), p. 170).Google Scholar The same argument in [Ansbert], Hist, de expeditione Frederici Imperatoris, ed. A. Chroust (M.G.H., S[cripwres] R[erum] G[ermanicarum] (1928), pp. 49–50): ‘Denique solito fastu idem Graeculus se mendose imperatorem Romanorum, ipsum vero nostrum serenissimum Augustum non imperatorem Romanorum, sed regem tantum Alemanniae nuncupavit’; the Byzantine designation was an ‘usurpatum vocabulum’.

^{page 97 note 1} This was the current ninth-century view of the substance of an emperor; see Notker in Ullmann, op. cit., p. 102, n. 3; Annales Fuldenses, ed. Kurze, F. (M.G.H., S.R.G., 1891), pp. 70,Google Scholar 86: Charles the Bald ‘omnem consuetudinem regum Francorum contemnens Graecas glorias optimas arbitrabatur … ablato regis nomine se imperatorem et augustum omnium regum cis mare consistentium appellare praecepit’; Regino of Prü, Chronicon, ed. Kurze, F. (M.G.H., S.R.G., 1890), p. 116.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 2} For this, see Ullmann, op. cit., pp. 163–64. For the significance of this concept cf. Ullmann, ‘Dies onus imperii’, in the forthcoming commemoration essays for Accursius.

^{page 97 note 2} For this, see Ullmann, op. cit., pp. 163–64. For the significance of this concept cf. Ullmann, ‘Dies onus imperii’, in the forthcoming commemoration essays for Accursius.

^{page 98 note 1} Wilson, H.A., The Gelasian Sacramentary (Oxford, 1894), p. 76.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 2} Ordines Coronationis Imperialism, ed. Elze, R. (Fontes Juris Germanici Antiqui, 1960), Ordo II.9, p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 1} For this, see Kirchberg, J., Kaiseridee und Mission (Berlin, 1934), pp. 132–33.Google Scholar For the development of the crusading idea and the subsequent wars against the Eastern pagans, cf. now the instructive essays in Heidenmission und Kreuzzugsgedanke in der deutschen Ostpolitik des Mittelalters, ed. Beumann, H. (Darmstadt, 1963).Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 2} See Hauck, A., Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, iii (Leipzig, 1924),Google Scholar pp.77 ff.

^{page 99 note 3} Ibid., iii, pp. 628 ff. According to Aubin, H. (Hist. Zeitsch., clxii,Google Scholar pp. 489 ff.), Eastern policy was dictated by the Slav threats, whilst, however, according to Kasiske, K. (‘Das Wesen der ostdeutschen Kolonisation’, Hist. Zeitsch., clxiv (1941),Google Scholar pp. 286 ff.), German Eastern colonization was the result of Slav invitations issued to the Germans as the leading Europeans, who eagerly accepted the call out of a sense of duty and mission.

^{page 99 note 4} See, for instance, Thietmar, , Chronicon, ed. Holtzmann, R. (M.G.H., S.R.G., 1935), iii. 17, p. 118,Google Scholar and p. 119, line 26; vi. 25 ff., pp. 304–5; Ruotger, , Vita Brunonis, ed. Ott, Irene (M.G.H., S.R.G., 1951), p. 4:Google Scholar ‘centifida Sclavorum rabies barbarorum frendens’; Helmold, , Chron. Slavorum, ed. Schmeidler, B. (M.G.H., S.R.G., 1909), p. 34,Google Scholar lines 34 ff.:‘… iam canes, non homines iudicemur’. Some examples of atrocities in Widukind, , Rerum Gestarum Saxonicarum Libri Tres, ed. Hirsch, P. (M.G.H., S.R.G., 1935), ii. 20, p. 84;Google Scholar iii. 55, pp. 134–35.

^{page 100 note 1} H. Dannenbauer, cited in Schneider, op. cit., pp. 74 ff., calculates that (within the corners of Magdeburg, Bolzano, Cambrai and Hamburg) Germany had in the eleventh century an extent of some 300,000 square miles with about 5 million inhabitants. The problem of Eastern colonization has now once again assumed topical political flavour; see Schlesinger, W., Mitteldeutsche Beiträge zur deutschen Verfassungsgesch. des Mittelahers (Göttingen, 1961),Google Scholar especially pp. 447 ff.

^{page 100 note 2} Dvornik, F., The Slavs, their Early History and Civilization (Boston, 1956), p. 107,Google Scholar without any regard to the imperial theme, considers the Eastern expansion of Germany as the Drang nach Osten which, according to him, came to a halt 1,000 years later on the Volga in 1942.

^{page 100 note 3} This is rightly pointed out by Kirchberg, op. cit., p. 65. For the lively missionary activity carried out from Byzantium, though rarely by the government, amongst the Slavs, see F. Dölger, op. cit., pp. 341 ff. Byzantine missionaries did not attempt to incorporate missionized regions or to colonize them by sending settlers; see Dölger, op. cit., pp. 263, 339–40.

^{page 101 note 1} First edited by Kap-Herr, H. von, Die abendländische Politik Kaiser Manuels (Strasbourg, 1881), Appendix V, pp. 155–56.Google Scholar The sonorous beginning of the letter is also in the Annales Stadenses (M.G.H., S., xvi, p. 349, lines 24 ff.): ‘Fredericus…Romanorum imperator a Deo coronatus … Graecorum moderator (!) …’ He operated here with his own twosword theory, which on closer inspection seems to be dependent on the views expressed by John II, the Byzantine emperor, in his letter to Honorius II; see Theiner, A. and Miklosich, F., Monumenta spectantia ad unionem ecctesiae Graecae et Romanae (Vienna, 1872), pp. 5–6.Google Scholar See also Frederick's reply to the Byzantine legation in 1189: ‘Omnibus qui sanae mentis essent, constat quia unus est monarchos, imperator Romanorum, sicut et unus est pater universalis, pontifex Romanus’ (Hist, de expeditione …, p. 50).

^{page 102 note 1} For details, see Norden, W., Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin, 1903),Google Scholar pp. 117 ff.; Ostrogorsky, G., Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates (Munich, 1940), pp. 289–90;Google Scholar Waas, A., Geschichte der Kreuzzüge, i (Freiburg, 1956),Google Scholar pp. 192 ff.

^{page 102 note 2} See the report of Roger de Hoveden, cited in Ullmann, op. cit., p. 235, last note; cf. also Roger's statement (pp. cit., p. 300): Henry VI ‘mandans ei[i.e. Richard I] in fide, quam illi debebat, quod ipse terrain regis Franciae hostiliter invaderet …’ Independent testimony comes from Innocent III in his letter to Philip II (R[egestum Innocentii iii Papae super] N[egotio Romani] I[mperii], ed. Kempf, F. (Misc. Hist. Pontif., xii, Rome, 1947),Google Scholar no. 64 ) : ‘…Henricus affirmans quod te de cetero ad fidelitatem sibi compelleret exhibendam’.

^{page 103 note 1} For the Byzantine reaction, see Norden, op. cit., p. 126.

^{page 103 note 2} Ostrogorsky, op. cit., p. 293.

^{page 103 note 3} For details, see Töche, H., Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich VI. (Leipzig, 1867),Google Scholar pp. 366 ff.

^{page 103 note 4} , E. and Schönbauer, L., ‘Die Imperiumspolitik Kaiser Friedrichs II.’, Festschrift K. G. Hugelmann (Aalen, 1959), p. 554, n. 5:Google Scholar ‘Zum Ungliick für das deutsche Reich starb er viel zu früh’. According to Kirfel, op. cit., the thesis that the Staufen aimed at world dominion is maintained by the Ausland, notably by Roger de Hoveden and Niketas (p. 144). For a correct assessment of Henry VI's policy, see de Pina, J. Rousset, Histoire de I'église, ed. Fliche, A. and Martin, V., ix (Paris, 1953), p. 221:Google Scholar ‘Reprendre la lutte contre l'empire byzantin … reconstituer à ses dépens la monarchic universelle, telles étaient alors les ambitions de Henri VI. Déjà l'encerclement de Byzance se dessinait’. See also Runciman, S., Hist, of the Crusades, iii (Cambridge, 1954), pp. 108–9Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 1} For details, see Ohnsorge, W., Abendland und Byzanz (Darmstadt, 1958), pp. 1–49, 261–87.Google Scholar See also Deer, J., ‘Byzanz und die Herrschaftszeichen des Abendlandes’, Byzantinische Zeitsch., 1 (1957),Google Scholar pp. 405 ff.

^{page 104 note 2} ‘Er rezipierte alles, was sich rezipieren liess’ (Sickel, W., ‘Das byzantinische Kronungsrecht’, Byzantinische Zeitsch., vii (1898), p. 529Google Scholar).

^{page 104 note 3} As far as I can see, the term regulus was first used by Gregory VII; see his Register (ii. 70).

^{page 105 note 1} For this, see Ullmann, W., ‘Cardinal Roland and Besançon’, Misc. Hist. Pont., xviii (1954),Google Scholar pp. 106 ff.; ‘The Pontificate of Adrian IV’, Cambridge Historical Journal, xi (1955),Google Scholar pp. 242 ff.; ‘Ueber eine kanonistische Vorlage Friedrichs I.’, Zeitsch. der Savigny Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kan. Abteilung, xlvi (1960),Google Scholar pp. 430 ff. For the general meaning of beneficium, see Ullmann, , Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages (London, 1961),Google Scholar pp. 57 ff.

^{page 105 note 2} For the throne in the Byzantine ritual, see Constantine VII's Liber de Ceremoniis, ed. Vogt, A. (Paris, 1939), ii. 47, p. 2,Google Scholar lines 14–15. Further, Treitinger, O., Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee, 2nd edn (Darmstadt, 1956),Google Scholar pp. 20 ff., 56 ff.

^{page 105 note 3} Frederick I's reply to the Byzantine legates at Philippopolis in Oct. 1189 illustrates the imperial attitude. He gave four reasons why he, and not the Byzantine, was the true Roman emperor; see Hist, de expeditione …, pp. 49–50. Adopting the papal reasoning, he had no qualms in saying to the legates that their master had used ‘indebitum vocabulum et glorietur stulte alieno sibi prorsus honore, cum liquido noverit me et nomine dici et re Fridericum Romanorum imperatorem semper augustum’ (ibid., p. 50, lines 12 ff.; cf. also Bishop Dietpold's report in M.G.H., S., xvii, p. 510, lines 37 ff.).

^{page 106 note 1} All this, including the paraphernalia before the coronation, should be compared with the situation in Byzantium in order to obtain a clear view of the fundamental differences between the two Roman emperors. In Byzantium there was no scrutinium, no coronation oath, and the coronation by the patriarch had no constitutive effects; etc.

^{page 107 note 1} R.N.I., no. 113, of 29 Oct. 1204, and repeated several times; see Register of Innocent III (Migne, Patrologia Latina, ccxiv-ccxv), vii. 203; viii. 19, 24, 153; in viii. 26, he speaks of the Church of Constantinople as having been reborn into a new youth: ‘in novam … infantiam’. About his dealings with Philip of Swabia in 1203 (cf. M.G.H., Const., ii, p. 9, no. 8, §7: ‘Si omnipotens Dominus regnum Grecorum michi vel leviro meo subdiderit, ecclesiam Constantinopolitanam Romanae ecclesiae … faciam fore subiectam'), see now Frolow, A., Recherches sur la déviation de la IV^e croisade vers Constantinople (Paris, 1955).Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 2} Sickel, art. cit., p. 529.