Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/268

 HENRY

228

HENRY

kingdom rested on the solid foundation of intimate aiufnce with the Church. That his attitude towards the Church was dictated in part by practical reasons, that primarily he promoted the institutions of the Church chiefly in order to make them more useful sup- ports of his royal power, is clearly shown by his policy. &ow boldly Henry posed as the real ruler of the Church appears particularly in the establishment ot the See of Bamberg, which was entirely his „own scheme. He carried out this measure m 100/ m spite of the energetic opposition of the Bishop ol Wurzburg against this change m the organization ot the Church. The primary purpose of the new bishop- ric was the germanization of the regions on the Upper Main and the Regnitz, where the Uends had ftxed their homes. As a large part of the environs of Bam- berg belonged to the king, he was able to furmsh rich endowments for the new bishopric. The ™Portance of Bamberg lay principally in the field of culture, which it promoted chiefly by its prosperous schools Henry, therefore, relied on the aid of the Church against the lay powers, which had become quite for- midable. But he made no concessions to the Church Though naturally pious, and though well acquainted with ecclesiastical culture, he was at bottom a stranger to her spirit. He disposed of bishoprics autocrati- caUv Under his rule the bishops, from whom he de- manded unquaUfied obedience, seemed to be nothing but officials of the empire. He demanded the same obedience from the abbots. However this poh ical dependencv did not injure the internal life of the Ger- man Church under Henry. By means of its economic and educational resources the Church had a blessed innuence in this epoch. But it was precisely this economic and civilizing power of the German Church that aroused the suspicions of the reform partj. This was significant, because Henry was more and more won over to the ideas of this party. At a synod at Goslar he confirmed decrees that tended to realize the demands made by the reform party. Ultimately this tendency could not fail to subvert the Othoman system, moreover could not fail to awaken the oppo- sition of the Church of Germany as it was constituted This hostihty on the part of the German Church came to a head in the emperor's dispute with Arch- bishop Aribo of Mainz. Aribo was an opponent ot the reform movement of the monks of Cluny. 1 he Hammerstein marriage imbroglio afforded the oppor- tunity he desired to offer a bold front against Ronie. Otto von Hammerstein had been excommunicated by Aribo on account of liis marriage with Irmengard, and the latter had successfully appealed to Rome ims called forth the opposition of the bynod of beligen- stadt in 1023, which forbade an appeal to Rome with- out the consent of the bishop. This step meant open rebellion against the idea of church unity and its ultimate result would have been the founding of a German national Church. In this dispute the em- peror was entirely on the side of the reform party. He even wanted to institute international proceedings against the unruly archbishop by nieans of treaties wth the French king. But his death prevented this. Before this Henry had made his third journey to Rome in 1021. He came at the request of the loyal Italian bishops, who had warned him at btrasljurg ot the dangerous aspect of the Italian situation, an< also of the pope, who sought him out at Bamberg in 1020. Thus the imperial power, which had already begun to withdraw from Italy, was summoned Ijaek thither. This time the object was to put an end to the suprem- acy of the Greeks in Italy. His success was not com- plete; he succeeded, however, in restoring the pres- tige of the empire in northern and central Italy. Henrv was far too reasonable a man to think seriously of readopting the imperialist plans of his predecessors He was satisfied to have ensured the dominant position of the empire in Italy within reasonable bounds.

Henry's power was in fact controlling, and this was in no small degree due to the fact that he was pri- marily engaged in solidifying the national foundations of his authoritv. The later ecclesiastical legends have ascribed ascetic traits to this ruler, some of which certainly cannot withstand serious criticism. For instance, the highly varied theme of his virgin rnar- riage to Cunegond has certainly no basis in fact. The Church canonized this emperor in 1146, and his wife Cunegond in 1200.

Acta SS., July. HI. 711 sq. ; Koch, Die Ehe Kaiser llnrincha II mil Kimigunde (Cologne, 1908); Gunter, Kaiser Heinnch II der Heilige (Kempten, 1904); Zimmermann, Heinnch 11. der Heilige (Freiburg. 1899); -Rmscn. J ahrbucher des deuischen Reichs unterHemrich II. (Leipzig, 1862-64-74); Gebser, D.e Bedeulmg der Kaiserin Kunigunde jar die Regierung Heinruhs //(Heidelberg Dissertation, 1899);, Manit.us, Deutsche Ge- schiehte unter den siichsischen und sahschen Kaisern (btuttgart, 1889) Gerdes. Geschichte des deutschen Volkes und sexner KuUi^ im Uiiidaiter (Leipzig. 1898). ^^^^ j^jp^KS.

Henrv III, German King and Roman Emperor, son of Conrad II; b. 1017; d. at Bodfeld, in the Harz Mountains, 5 Oct., 1056. It was to his fathers forceful personality that he owed the resources by means of which he could maintain for himself the great and powerful position which Conrad had created Of course this position was no longer an undisputed one, especially towards the end of his reign On the contrary it became evident by that time that through his rule Germanv had reached the critical turning- point in her history. The key to the domestic and foreign policy of this emperor can l_>e found altogether in his character. Henry was extraordmarily gifted, having a quick intellect and many-sided interests Consequently he rapidly mastered the problems of administration and government into which his father had him initiated; but with equa rapidity, he ac- quired the hterary and artistic culture of his tune which his episcopal tutors imparted to him. His profound pietv and the serious, austere bent of his nature were still more important factors m his char- acter. Putting the garment of the penitent on the same plane as the regalia of the king, he lived and moved altogether according to the Christian view of life The Christian moral law regulated his actions. In this conception of life his stern sense of duty had its roots, and to this sense of duty was added a stulv born self-reliance. With such spiritual tendencies it is not surprising to learn that the king frequently subjected his frail body to severe penitential exercises, and that his private life bore a marked resemblance in many poiAts to that of a monk. But at the same time it is not surprising that such a man was reserved, that consequently, though a man ot the utmost good faith, he remained a stranger to the spSt of his people.' This basic trait of his character imparted to both his domestic and foreign policy idealistic aims which frequentlv disregarded facts, or for that matter were even outside of the necessities of the State. According to his conception his king- ship was religious in character. Like the bishops, he considered himself called to the f ;T'C<^ "^ ^od I ike Charlemagne of old, he compared himself to the priestiing David. He desired to he the ruler of ffi universal State which should const.tu e the out- ward and visible form for the Church. The goodly obiect of his cecumcnic imperialism, therefore, was to carry out the moral idea of Christianity.

With this fundamental idea as a starting-point^ was but natural that Henry should recognize the law of the Church as the arbiter of his conscience. At the verv beginning of his reign the king """""■"•^'J t at he recognized the fundamental principle of this law- that a bishop could only be judged by. the eccle- Istical tribunals. He bitterly lament^l his fa her s behaviour towards the princes of the Church in Lomblrdy. He considered the deposing of Anbert