Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/132

 12 2 Rcviezos of Books The fact that in this letter Otto conceded hardly more than did Philip of Suabia also helps to accoinit for the long delay of Innocent in de- claring in favor of Otto. For three years Innocent refused to say which of the two candidates he would support, although he admitted that his mind was made up. He also said that he was sure that that candidate would be successful who should receive the papal favor. The responsibility for the misfortunes of Germany during the long struggle between rival kings must to a certain extent, therefore, be laid lo the pope. In the second chapter the author recounts the vigorous but ineffectual efforts of Innocent to secure the unanimous recognition of Otto. He resents with some fervor the charge that Innocent was not eager to make Otto's success too great. He forgets, apparently, that Innocent after three years of pronounced neutrality could afterward write that his affection for Otto had never grown lukewarm, but had continually sustained hiin quite up to the time when Innocent had declared in his favor (p. 8i). In the third chapter the author develops the chain of events which caused the pope to recede from his position, to desert Otto, and to make terms with Philip. Here too it is impossible not to feel that the pope in his diplomacy overstepped the bounds of truthfulness in his letter to Otto (p. i6i). For this letter was written long after he had made up his mind to the inevitable. The fourth chapter traces the change in Otto's policy, his violation of his oaths, his seizure of all the lands in central and southern Italy to which the empire had ever laid claim, and the consequent estrangement between him and Innocent. It contains a good sketch of the conditions prevailing in Italy at the I beginning of the thirteenth century (pp. no ff.). It ends with the I public excommimication .and deposition of Otto. The last chapter sets forth the complete triumph of Innocent: Frederick II., a mere tool in his hands, making every concession that he could ask, was established king of Germany. The supremacy of the pope was realized. But for this victory the pope was not indebted to Frederick, whose military suc- cesses in Germany were insignificant. It was the work of the French king, Philip Augustus, who by his victory over the combined Guelf forces at Bouvines established Frederick on the throne of Germany, and ended in a great triumph for Innocent the struggle which he had carried on for sixteen years. Gesta Dei per Francos! A few errors should be noted. On page 281 guclfc should be ghibciin ; Brabant is in the northwestern part of the empire, not in the northeastern (p. 178) ; Gervase of Tilbury (page 12) was a layman, not a cleric. It seems strange that M. Luchaire should accept the speech which Guillnume le Breton puts into the mouth of Philip Augustus before the battle of Bouvines, while properly rejecting that which he attributes to Otto I'., especially since both are found in his Pliilipis. a metrical eulogy of Philip Augustus. O. J. Tll.TCllER.