This conversion of Russia took place long before the Crusades. The Bulgarians also, it is said, at one time were half inclined to become Mohammedans, but then the attraction of Constantinople was greater. Their king married a Byzantine princess (you will remember that Byzantium was the old name for Constantinople) and became a Christian. In the same way other neighbouring people had adopted Christianity.
What was happening in Europe during these Crusades? You have seen that some of the kings and emperors journeyed to Palestine and several of them got into trouble there. The Pope meanwhile sat in Rome and issued commands and appeals for the “holy war” against the “infidel” Turk. This was the time, perhaps, when the power of the Popes was at its highest. I have told you how a proud emperor stood barefooted in the snow at Canossa waiting to be admitted to the Pope’s presence to beg forgiveness. It was this Pope Gregory VII, whose previous name was Hildebrand, who had fixed up a new method for the election of Popes. The cardinals were the highest priests in the Roman Catholic world. A college of cardinals was created—the Holy College it was called—and this college elected a new Pope. This was the system introduced in 1059 AC and it has continued, perhaps with some modifications, to this day. Even now when a Pope dies, the College of Cardinals meets immediately, and they sit in a locked chamber. No one can come in or go out from that room till the election is over. Often they have sat there for many long hours unable to agree about their choice. But they cannot come out! So they are forced to agree at last, and as soon as a choice is made white smoke is sent up so that the waiting crowds outside can know.
Europe in the Thirteenth Century
Just as the Pope was chosen by election, the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire also came to be elected. But he was elected by the great feudal lords. There were seven of these—the elector-princes as they were called. In this way they tried to prevent the Emperor always coming from one family. In practice, however, one family often dominated these elections for long periods.
Thus we find in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Hohenstaufen dynasty dominating the Empire. Hohenstaufen is, I believe, some small town or village in Germany. The family originally coming from there took their name from it. Frederick I of Hohenstaufen became Emperor in 1152. He is usually called Frederick Barbarossa. He it was who got drowned on his way to the Crusades. It is said that his reign was the most brilliant in the history of the Empire. To the German people he has long been a hero, a half-mythical figure round whom many legends have gathered. It is said that he sleeps in a deep cavern in a mountain and that when the right time comes he will wake up and come out to save his people.
Against the Pope, Frederick Barbarossa carried on a great struggle, but this ended in victory for the Pope, and Frederick had to bow down to him. He was an autocratic monarch, but his great feudal vassals gave him a lot of trouble. In Italy, where large cities were growing up, Frederick tried to crush their freedom. But he did not succeed. In Germany also great cities were growing, especially on the banks of rivers: Cologne, Hamburg, Frankfurt, and many others. Here Frederick’s policy was different. He supported the free German cities in order to lessen the power of the nobles and feudal lords.
I have told you on several occasions what the old Indian idea of kingship was. From the old Aryan days to Ashoka’s time, and from the Arthashastra to the Nitisara of Sukracharya, it is repeatedly stated that the King must bow down to public opinion. It is the public that is the ultimate master. This was the Indian theory, although in practice kings in India, as elsewhere, were autocratic enough. Compare this to the old European view. According to the lawyers of those days the Emperor had absolute authority. His will was law. “The Emperor is the living law upon Earth,” they said. Frederick Barbarossa himself said: “It is not for the people to give laws to the prince, but to obey his command.”
Compare this also with the Chinese view. The emperor or king there was called by high-sounding titles, like the Son of Heaven, but this must not mislead us. In theory his position was very different from that of the all-powerful European Emperor. An old Chinese writer, Meng-tse, has written: “The people is the most important element in the country; next come the useful gods of the soil and the crops, and last in importance comes the ruler.”
The Emperor in Europe was thus supposed to be supreme on earth, and it was from this that the notion of the divine right of kings arose. In practice, of course, he was very far from supreme. Even his feudal vassals were turbulent enough, and gradually, as we shall see, new classes arose in the cities, which claimed some share of power. On the other hand the Pope also claimed to be supreme on earth. Where two “supremes” meet there is bound to be trouble.
The grandson of Frederick Barbarossa was also called Frederick. He became Emperor at an early age and was called Frederick II. He was the man who was called stupor mundi, the Wonder of the World, and who went to Palestine and had a friendly talk with the Egyptian Sultan. He also, like his grandfather, defied the Pope and refused to obey him. The Pope retaliated by excommunicating him. This was the old and mighty weapon of the Popes, but it was growing a little rusty. Frederick II cared little for the anger of the Pope, and the world also was changing. Frederick wrote long letters to all the princes and rulers of Europe, pointing out that the Pope had no business to interfere with the kings; it was the business of the Popes to look after religious and spiritual matters and not to meddle with politics. He also described the corruption of the clergy. Frederick had by far the best of the argument with the Popes. His letters are very interesting, as they are the first indication of the modern spirit being introduced into the old struggle between Emperor and Pope.
Frederick II was very tolerant in religion, and Arab and Jewish philosophers came to his Court. It is said that it was through him that the Arabic numerals and algebra (which you will remember came originally from India) came to Europe. He also founded the university of Naples and a great medical school at the ancient university of Salerno.
Frederick II ruled from 1212 to 1250. With his death ended the Hohenstaufen control of the Empire. Indeed the Empire itself practically ended. Italy fell away, Germany went to pieces and for many years there was frightful disorder. Robber knights and bandits plundered and looted, and there was no one to check them. The weight of the Holy Roman Empire had been too great for the German kingdom to bear. In France and England the kings were gradually consolidating their positions, and putting down the big feudal vassals who were troublesome. In Germany the King was also Emperor, and he was far too busy fighting the Pope or the Italian cities to curb his nobles. Germany had the doubtful honour of having the Emperor, but it paid for this by weakness and dissension at home. France and England grew to be strong nations long before Germany was even united. For hundreds of years there were numerous petty princes in Germany. It was only about sixty years ago that Germany was united, and even then the little kings and princes continued. The Great War of 1914–18 put an end to this crowd.
There was so much disorder in Germany after Frederick II that for twenty-three years no emperor was elected. In 1273 Rudolph, Count of Hapsburg, was elected emperor. A new family—that of Hapsburg— now comes upon the scene. This was going to stick to the Empire to the end. This family also came to an end as a ruling one, during the Great War. The Emperor of Austria-Hungary at the time of the War was a Hapsburg named Francis Joseph. He was a very old man, having been on the throne for over sixty years. His nephew and the heir to the throne was Franz Ferdinand, who was murdered with his wife in Sarajevo in Bosnia (in the Balkans) in 1914. It was this murder which brought on the Great War, and the War put an end to many things, among them the old dynasty of the Hapsburgs.
So much for the Holy Roman Empire. To the west of it, France and England were frequently at war with each other, and, more frequently, the king of each was at war with his big nobles. The kings triumphed over their nobles, far more than the emperor or king in Germany, and so England and France grew to be much more compact countries, and their un
ity gave them strength.
In England an event happened about this time of which you might have read. This was the signing of the Magna Carta by King John in 1215 AC. John had succeeded his brother, Richard Coeur de Lion. He was very grasping, but he was also weak and he succeeded in irritating everybody. The nobles cornered him at the island of Runnymede in the Thames and, almost at the sword’s point, forced him to sign this Magna Carta, or Great Charter, which contained a promise that he would respect certain liberties of the nobles and people of England. This was the first big step in the long fight for political liberty in England. It was especially laid down that the king could not interfere with the property and liberty of any citizen without the consent of the man’s equals. Out of this arose the jury system, where equals are supposed to judge. Thus in England we find that the king’s power was checked early. The theory of the supremacy of the ruler, which prevailed in the Holy Roman Empire, was not accepted in England even then.
It is interesting to note that this rule laid down in England over 700 years ago does not apply to India even in 1932 under British rule. Today one individual, the Viceroy, has power to issue Ordinances, framing laws and depriving people of their liberty and their property.
Soon after Magna Carta another notable event took place in England. A national council gradually grew up to which knights and citizens were sent from the different country areas and the cities. This was the beginning of the English Parliament. The knights and citizens came to form the Commons’ House; the nobles and the bishops formed the Lords’ House. This Parliament had little power to begin with, but this grew gradually. Ultimately there came the final test between the King and Parliament, as to who was supreme. The King lost his head, and Parliament became undisputed master. But this was to take place after nearly 400 years, in the seventeenth century.
In France also there was a Council of the Three Estates, as they were called. These Three Estates were the Lords, the Church and the Commons. This Council sometimes met, when the king willed it. But its meetings were very infrequent, and it did not succeed in gaining the power which the English Parliament did. In France also a king had to lose his head before the power of the kings was broken.
In the east, the Eastern Roman Empire of the Greeks still continued. From its earliest days it had been at war with someone or other, and often it seemed at the point of succumbing. Yet it survived, first the attack of northern barbarians and then that of the Muslims. Of all the attacks that fell on the Empire, from the Russians or Bulgarians or Arabs or the Seljuq Turks, the most deadly and harmful was the attack of the Crusaders. These Christian knights did more injury to Christian Constantinople than any “infidel” had done. From this great catastrophe the Empire and the city of Constantinople never recovered.
The world of western Europe was quite ignorant of the Eastern Empire. It cared little for it. It was hardly part of “Christendom”. Its language was Greek, while the learned language of western Europe was Latin. As a matter of fact, even in the days of its decline there was far more learning and literary activity in Constantinople than in the West. But it was the learning of the aged, without any strength or creative power behind it. The West had little learning, but it was young and had creative power, and soon this power was to break out in the creation of works of beauty.
In the Eastern Empire there was no conflict between the Church and the Emperor, as in Rome. The Emperor there was supreme, and he was quite despotic. There was no question of any freedom. The throne was the prize of the strongest or the most unscrupulous. By murder and trickery, through blood and crime, men gained the crown, and the people sheepishly obeyed them. It seemed to be immaterial to them who ruled.
The Eastern Empire stood as a kind of sentinel at the gates of Europe, guarding them from Asiatic invasion. For many hundreds of years it succeeded. The Arabs could not take Constantinople; the Seljuq Turks, although they came near it, could not take it; the Mongols passed it by and went north into Russia. Last came the Ottoman Turks and to them fell the great prize of the imperial city of Constantinople in 1453 AC. And with the fall of the city, fell also the Eastern Empire.
64
The Rise of European Cities
June 21, 1932
The period of the Crusades was the great period of faith in Europe, of common aspiration and belief, and the people sought relief from their daily misery in this faith and hope. There was no science; there was very little learning; for faith and science and learning do not easily go together. Learning and knowledge make people think, and doubt and questioning are difficult companions for faith to have. And the way of science is the way of inquiry and experiment, which is not the way of faith. We shall see later how this faith weakened and doubt arose.
But for the moment we see faith flourishing and the Roman Church putting itself at the head of the “faithful” and often exploiting them. Many, many thousands of the “faithful” were sent to the Crusades in Palestine, never to return. The Pope also began to declare crusades against Christian people or groups in Europe who did not obey him in everything. The Pope and the Church even took advantage of this faith by issuing, and often selling, “dispensations” and “indulgences”. “Dispensations” were permissions to break some law or convention of the Church. Thus the very laws which the Church made, it allowed to be set aside in special cases. Respect for such laws could hardly continue for long. “Indulgences” were even worse. According to the Roman Church, after death a soul goes to purgatory, which is a place somewhere between heaven and hell, and there it suffers for the sins committed in this world. Afterwards the soul is supposed to go to heaven. The Pope issued promises to people, for payment, that they would escape purgatory and go straight to heaven. Thus the faith of the simple was exploited by the Church, and even out of crimes and what it considered sins, it made money. This practice of selling “indulgences” grew up some time after the Crusades. It became a great scandal, and was one of the reasons why many people turned against the Church of Rome.
It is strange how much people with simple faith will put up with. It is because of this that religion has become one of the biggest and most paying businesses in many countries. See the priests in the temples, how they try to fleece the poor worshipper. Go to the banks of the Ganga, and you will see the pandas refusing to perform some ceremony till the unhappy villager pays up. Whatever happens in the family—a birth, a marriage, a death—the priest steps in and payment is required.
In every religion this is so—Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism. Each has its own methods of making money out of the faith of the faithful. In Hinduism the methods are obvious enough. In Islam there is supposed to be no priesthood, and in the past this helped a little in protecting its followers from religious exploitation. But individuals and classes arose, calling themselves specialists in religion, learned men, maulavis and mullas and the like, and they imposed upon the simple Muslims of faith and exploited them. Where a long beard, or a tuft of hair on the crown of the head, or a long mark on the forehead, or a fakir’s dress, or a sanyasin’s yellow or ochre garb is a passport to holiness, it is not difficult to impose on the public.
If you go to America, most advanced of countries, you will find there also that religion is a big industry living on the exploitation of the people.
I have wandered far from the Middle Ages and the age of faith. We must go back to them. We find this faith taking visible and creative shape. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries there is a great building period and cathedrals spring up all over western Europe. A new architecture appears such as had not been seen in Europe before. By a clever device the weight and stress of the heavy roofs are distributed to great buttresses outside the building. Inside one is surprised to see delicate columns apparently supporting the massive weight on top. There is a pointed arch, taken from the Arab style of architecture. Above the whole building there is a spire climbing up to the sky. This was the Gothic style of architecture, which was evolved in Europe. It was wondrously
beautiful, and it seemed to represent soaring faith and aspiration. Truly it represents that age of faith. Such buildings can only be built by architects and craftsmen in love with their work and co-operating together in a great undertaking.
This rise of the Gothic in western Europe is a surprising thing. Out of the welter of disorder and anarchy and ignorance and intolerance, grew up this thing of beauty, almost like a prayer going up to the heavens. In France, northern Italy, Germany and England, Gothic cathedrals grew up almost simultaneously. No one knows exactly how they began. No one knows the names of their architects. They seem to represent more the joint will and labour of the people as a whole than that of a single architect. Another new thing was the stained glass of the windows of the cathedrals. There were fine paintings in beautiful colours on these windows, and the light that came through them added to the solemn and awe-inspiring effect created by the building.
Glimpses of World History Page 30