The Development of the German Public Mind

Volume 1 A Social History of German Political Sentiments, Aspirations and Ideas The Middle Ages - The Reformation

Frederick Hertz

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9781000007992
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: History

Originally published in 1957, this study shows what the various sections of the Germans of every rank and class were thinking of the ruling men, how far they supported or opposed them, what were their wishes, hopes and fears, prejudices, ideals and standards of right and wrong. The influence of foreign thought, and parallels with the development of other nations is also discussed. The diverse sources used for research for this volume include religious and legal writings, literature, broadsheets, verses of minstrels, folk-songs and later, newspapers.

PART I

THE MIDDLE AGES

GENERAL WORKS REFERRING TO SEVERAL, OR ALL, EPOCHS

Books referring to particular epochs are indicated after each chapter. The lists exclude books of no, or little, relevance to the public mind, primary sources, most older books, such of interest to specialists only, and, with a few exceptions, articles in historical journals. Passages from primary sources illustrating the public mind are, however, quoted in the text. To save space the titles have been abbreviated as much as possible. The dates of appearance refer to the latest editions known to me, and to the first volumes only, and are abridged (21 for. 1921). The full titles may be looked up in bibliographies or in the catalogues of great libraries. The most complete general bibliography is Dahlmann-Waitz, Quellenkunde, 9 ed., 31, which indicates the publications having appeared by 1929. G. Franz, Buecherkunde zur deutschen Geschichte, 51, goes to the end of 1950, Ample bibliographies are also contained in the Cambridge Medieval History, and its continuation.

The most recent handbooks, indispensable for the student, are: B. Gebhardt, Handbuch d. dt. Gesch., 8 ed., by Grundmann, v. I 54, v. II 55; and Dt. Gesch. im Ueberblick, ed. Rassow, 55.

Excellent introductory chapters on German history by prominent scholars are contained in several histories of the world, in particular the Propylaeen Weltgeschichte, ed. W. Goetz, 10v., 31; its new edition, ed. W. Andreas, 40; Weltgeschichte, ed. L. M. Hartmann, 8v., Peuples et Civilisations, ed. Halphen and Sagnac, 2ov.; L’Evolution de l’Humanité, ed. Berr, 76v.; and The Rise of Modern Europe, ed. W. Langer. All these works also give bibliographies. Barraclough’s Origins of Modern Germany is a most valuable introduction.

Territories

The knowledge of the development of the territories is indispensable for the understanding of German history. The best handbooks are by the following authors. Austria: Uhlirz, 4v., 27; Huber, 6v., 85; Krones, 5v., 76; Mayer, 2v., 09; Hantsch, 2v., 37. Prussia: Ranke, 12 Buecher preuss. Gesch., Hintze, Hohenzollern, 15, Prutz, 4v., 99; Droysen, 14v., 55. Bavaria: Riezler, 8v., 78 (repr. 27); Doeberl, 3V., 06. Saxony: Koetzschke u. Naumann, 2v., 35; Boettiger-Flathe, 3V., 67. Wuerttemberg: Schneider, 96: Dehlinger, 49. Hessen: Rommel, 1820–58, Muenscher, 94; Brunswick: Havemann, 3v., 1853; Heinemann, 3v., 84; Hohnstein, 08; Rhine-Palatinate: Haeusser, 2v., 1845.

Constitutional and Legal History

Waitz Dt. Verfassungsgeschichte, 8v., H. Brunner, Rechtsgesch., 2v., Gierke Genossenschaftsrecht, 4v., are fundamental. An indispensable handbook with large bibliography is R. Schroeder, Lehrbuch d. dt. Rechtsgesch., ed. Kuensberg, 7. ed. 32. Other important handbooks are: A. Meister, Verfassungsgesch., 22; Heusler Verfassungsgesch., 05; Fehr Rechtsgesch., 21; Schwerin Rechtsgesch., 44; Planitz Rechtsgesch., 50; Below Dtsch. Staat d. Mittelalters, 14; Keutgen, Dt. Staat d. Mittelalters, 18; H. Mitteis, Der Staat d. hohen Mittelalters, 44; Mitteis, Lehnrecht u. Staatsgewalt, 33; M. Bloch, La Societé Féodale, 2v., 39; O. Brunner, Land u. Herrschaft, 39; Kern, Recht u. Verfassung in Hist. Zsch., 20.

History of the Church

Hauck, Kircheng. Dtschlnds., 5V.; Werminghoff, Verfassungsgesch. d. dt. Kirche im Mittelalter, 13; K. Mueller, Kircheng., 2v. (Prot.); Kirsch, Kircheng., 4v. (Cath.); Fliche et Martin, Hist. de l’Eglise, 24v., 34, etc. (Cath.); Troeltsch, Sociallehren d. christl. Kirchen, 12 (Engl. tr.); Schulte, Adel u. d. dt. Kirche, 10; Schnuerer, Kirche u. Kultur im Mittelalter, 3V., 29; Haller, Idee d. Papsttums, 2v., 36; Reuter, relig. Aufklärung im Mittelalter, 2v., 75; Ebering, dt. Bischoefe bis z. Ende d. 16 Jahrh., 2v., 58; Cf. the encyclopaedias of religion by Gunkel and Zscharnak, 6v., Herzog u. Hauck, 24v., Wetzer u. Welte, 12v., Buchberger, 10v., Vacant et Mougenot, 18v., Schaff-Herzog, 13v., Hastings, IIV.; Cf. also Heimbucher D. Orden u. Kongregationen d. kathol. Kirche, 2v., 33.

Economic Conditions

Cambridge Economic History, vol. 1 and 2, 41; Koetzschke Dt. Wirtschaftsg., 22; Luetge, Dt. Social u. Wirtschg., 52; Bechtel, Wirtschg. Dtschl’s. 52; Dopsch., Wirtschftl. und soziale Grundlagen d. europ. Kulturentwicklung, 23; Wirtschaftsentwicklung d. Karolingerzeit, 13; Verfassungs- und Wirtschaftsg., d. Mittelalters, 28; Sombart, Mod. Kapitalismus, v. I.

History of Political Thought

Carlyle, History of Med. Polit. Theory, 6v., 03–36; Dempf, Sacrum Imperium, 29; Gierke, Staats- u. Korporationslehre, 81 (in Genossensch. Recht III); Bezold, Volkssouveraenitaet im Mittelalters (in his essays, 18); Schultheiss, G. d. dt. Nationalgefühls, 93; Hugelmann, Staemme, Nation and Nationalstaat i. dt. Mittelalter, 55.

Military Organisation

Delbrueck, Gesch. d. Kriegskunst, v. II and III; Conrad; G. d. dt. Wehrverfassung, 39; Huber, Heer u. Staat i. d. dt. G., 38.

Literature

For the early works written in Latin the well-known books by Ebert, Manitius and Baumgartner are indispensable. For the literature in German cf. the handbooks by Scherer and Wackernagel; Ehrismann, G. d. dt. Literatur, 4v., 18, etc.; and Golther, dt. Dichtung im Mittelalter; further Nagl, Zeidler and Castle, Dt. Oesterr. Literaturg.

Civilization

Gustav Freytag, Bilder aus d. dt. Vergangenheit, is a classical work; Cf. further G. Steinhausen, G. d. dt. Kultur, 36; Grupp, Kulturg. d. Mittelalters, 6v., 21, etc.; Die dt. Staende, ed. Steinhausen, 12v.; Hashagen, Kulturg. d. Mittelalters, 50.

Biography

Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 56v., 1875, etc., new ed., 2v., 53; Roessler and Franz, Biograph. Woerterbuch zur dt. G., 53.

Historical Journals

A list is in Dahlman-Waitz, p. XXII.—The principal journals contributing to medieval studies are: Historische Zeitschrift, Histor. Vierteljahrsschrift, Mitteilungen d. Oesterr. Instituts f. Geschichtsforschung, Dt. Archiv f. Gesch. d. Mittelalters, Neues Archiv d. Gesellschaft f. aeltere dt. Geschforschung, Zeitschrift d. Savignystiftung f. Rechtsgesch. (germ. Abteilung), Archiv. f. oesterr. gesch., Vierteljahrsschrift f. Social u. Wirtschaftsgesch., Archiv. f. Kulturgesch., Dt. Vierteljahrsschrift f. Literaturwissenschaft u. Geistesgesch.

1

THE EARLY INFLUENCE OF NATURE ON THE PUBLIC MIND

IN early times the forces of nature exercised an overwhelming influence on the mind of man. With intellectual and social progress he gradually emancipated himself from the pressure of nature and created an artificial environment, to a great extent also changing the nature surrounding him. Yet, the far remote, original conditions of a country may often have given the impulse to developments which have determined the whole future history up to our time. The apparent persistency of certain features connected with this process fostered in modern times the rise of the illusion of a racial character as the moving force in history.

Soil, climate and configuration of a country, and its position in relation to others and the sea, are factors of primary importance. In all these respects primeval Germany was considerably less favoured than France and England. In the Ice Ages a much larger part was under ice in Germany than in these countries. Least affected was France, which, in consequence, became a refuge for men and animals. This is shown today by the extraordinary number of prehistoric finds and the wonderful cave pictures in which France surpasses all countries. In Germany the retreating ice left extensive deposits of rocks, gravel and coarse sand, and wide tracts of land were thereby rendered unsuitable for production except as rough pasture and forests. Most of Germany was in ancient times covered with almost impenetrable woods and marshes. In the northern plains great inundations were caused by the small fall of the rivers and their northward direction, which often left the mouth ice-bound while the upper reaches were thawing. But also in the other parts swamps were very extensive. There were, howver, also regions with better conditions, since the Romans described the Germani as a numerous race. But most of the tribes lived mainly on game and cattle of inferior stock and did not much till the soil. A Southerner like Tacitus had the impression that the greater part of the year was winter.

The western countries have the great advantage that they are nearer to the Gulf Stream and its continuation, the North Atlantic Drift, and, in consequence, enjoy a mild and humid climate without excessive heat and cold. This is beneficial to the vegetation and to domestic animals; it creates rich fishing grounds, keeps the ports and rivers free from ice and moderates the variations in the flow of the rivers. France has a great measure of sunshine and much good, alluvial and Loess soil. The woods, though extensive, seem to have been less large and less difficult to clear than in Germany. In England wolves became scarce, or extinct, rather early, while large parts of Germany were swarming with them until modern times. This was of great importance for sheep farming.

Germany’s natural conditions have been immensely improved since the beginning of her history. Yet, in spite of all the technical progress, a statistical comparison between Germany’s and France’s agriculture shows that even now the former has a much greater proportion than the latter of crops and animals which can also subsist under unfavourable conditions. An American expert, Professor S. van Valkenburg, says: ‘Germany is not naturally a fertile agricultural base—most croplands must be scientifically and heavily fertilized, if they are to produce satisfactorily.—The history of German agriculture has been a desperate struggle for increased crop production from poor soil.’ If present Germany nevertheless produces much higher yields than France, this is not due to the favours of nature.

Most of the numerous migrations of Germanic tribes, which led to the break-up of the Roman Empire, were undertaken in search of good land on which to settle. Lack of fertile soil further retarded the development of wealth and civilization, and fostered a warlike ethos indulging in predatory expeditions. Already early Germanic tribes appear also as mercenary soldiers in the service of richer peoples and this tradition maintained itself in Germany until modern times. Many Germanic peoples were for a long time in a period of transition between a migratory and a sedentary way of life. The Celts, too, had once overrun large parts of Europe and Asia Minor. They were ahead of their Germanic neighbours in economic, social and cultural matters. While the latter still showed a society based on primitive conditions, freedom and equality, the Gauls had a powerful aristocracy and clergy, a refinement of life, but also acute class differences. The Teutons had long very little iron, which made it impossible to fell the vast forests, they had no coins of their own, no towns and proper roads, no real government, and no script. Tacitus ascribed this backwardness largely to their sturdy sense of individual independence. But the natural environment was certainly a decisive factor, too. Gaul was not separated from the far advanced Mediterranean civilization by high mountains as Germany was. In the sixth century before Christ, Massilia, the present Marseilles, was founded by Greek seafarers and became a centre of international trade, the starting point of great explorers, and a gateway to civilization for the whole of western Europe.

A problem of paramount importance for the history of many modern nations is what promoted, or hindered, the rise of national unity in a given area and among tribes apt to be merged in a nation. Nowhere it was predetermined that a nation would arise just in the present form and extension. Several nations might easily have developed in the space now inhabited by Germans. Unlike English or French history, that of Germany was long marked by an extraordinary predominance of the opposite of national unity, known as particularism. It has moulded most of the peculiarities of the German public mind, and also fostered the development of many German cultural characteristics. Numerous factors have contributed to the evolution of unity in England and France, and of disunity in Germany, and among them were also forces of nature. Neither in England, nor in France, were there great internal barriers, hindering the rise of unity. In France the configuration was so favourable to intercommunication that the Greek geographer Strabo saw in it the hand of providence whose wisdom alone could have created it. Under former conditions, the accessibility and permeability of these countries facilitated their occupation by many conquerors. This promoted unity, either by the strong hand of the foreign rulers, or by arousing common resistance to it. The Romans dominated Gaul for about five and a half centuries, and England for more than three and a half. Gaul became the richest of all Roman provinces. Herod Agrippa II, King of the Jews, warning his people of rising against the Romans, asked them whether they perhaps imagined themselves to be richer than the Gauls, bolder than the Teutons and wiser than the Greeks. England had attained a certain civilization already before the Romans and under their rule made considerable progress. There were, according to Gildas, 28 towns and many forts. In spite of all the later destruction and decay certain factors making for unity must have survived, in particular roads. In Gaul the Romans had built 30,000 kilometres of roads, and over the Alps 15,000, while in Britain remnants amounting to 3,200 kilometres are known.

In Germany but a small part was conquered by the Romans and held for not quite two hundred years. The bulk remained outside the Roman pale. The natural conditions made traffic very difficult, since every valley was swamped, as shown by the traces of the old footpaths going along the ridges. Germany was therefore far less accessible to foreigners than the western countries. England and France were much nearer to the maritime trade routes of the ancient world; many bays and estuaries offered opportunities for good ports and traffic on their rivers was, owing to the oceanic climate, less blocked by ice, floods or shallow water than on those of Germany. No part of England was far from the sea. Foreign traders, missionaries, pirates and invaders could easily land in the two western countries and reach the interior. Christianity was mainly brought to Germany from the British Isles, not by the shorter land-route from Italy.

Large parts of Germany were, far into the Middle Ages, not yet open to regular traffic. The kings exercised power chiefly in those parts which were accessible by river or by lanes suitable for a mounted host, or where they possessed domains. The internal barriers strengthened tribal and territorial separatism, which played a much greater role in Germany history than in that of England or France. The gradual development of the uncultivated parts was the work of the Church and great nobles, who thereby much increased their power. The great extension of the Empire and the difficulties of internal communication were an obstacle to the building of an effective central administration, which in the old times could be achieved in small territories only. Certain parts of Germany were lacking natural frontiers, such as the sea was to England. The vast lands in the East, inhabited by backward heathens, but also the control of Rome, and the overlordship over the rich lands of Italy attracted German kings, princes, nobles and colonists. The kings were induced to disperse their forces, and were drawn into long struggles with the Papacy which became fatal to Germany’s national unity.

The prime instrument creating modern nations was war. England’s unification was decisively furthered by the Danish aggressions and finally secured by the Norman conquest, which were all largely due to the accessibility of the island. Under the efficient military system brought by the Normans, the sea, hitherto a highway for aggressors, became a natural bulwark which guaranteed England a much greater measure of internal peace and security than was enjoyed by any other country of Europe. The Norman conquest further provided England with strong rulers, whose authority was enhanced by the prestige of victory and who could establish a reign of law and a firm national unity. In France the development was. more complicated, but at last royalty could repel England’s aggressions and create a wide national unity. The wars between England and France, though of dynastic origin, had great significance for the development of national sentiment. In Germany the invasions of Hungarian horsemen for a time unified the tribes in defence, but after the invaders’ defeat there was for a long time no great war apt to arouse national sentiment in wide circles. The Italian expeditions of the kings and other conflicts appealed to certain sections only, and many wars were waged between Germans. The Turks were regarded as the enemies of all Christian nations. When later internal disunity attracted foreign aggressors, as in the Thirty Years War, it was too late to form a common front and to create a strong national solidarity. The fact that Germany was in the Middle Ages less involved in wars arousing national sentiment than the western countries contributed to the frustration of unity. Natural conditions played a certain part in these events.

But also the development of institutions safeguarding national freedom were connected with the natural environment. The old idea of liberty was unrestricted freedom from any government for the individuals strong enough to defend their rights themselves. Loyalty and solidarity extended not to a State or a nation in the modern sense but to smaller units such as the family, the kindred and the tribe. Of this kind of liberty medieval Germany possessed far too much, but the idea of national freedom would have required a sense of solidarity within a wide group which did hardly exist. Liberty without sufficient unity is self-destructive. The first country where national unity developed was England. Many invasions of foreign peoples prepared the ground, and eventually the Norman conquerors, supported by the Church and other forces, succeeded in creating conditions for the development of a wider territorial, legal and social unity. This made possible the rise of Parliament, which became one of the strongest factors promoting the further growth of unity. In Germany similar assemblies arose in most of the territories, though the principle of election was less developed. Many of these diets reached the same, or even greater power, than the contemporaneous English Parliament. But the smallness of the territories, and the lack of solidarity between the various ranks, imbued them with a mentality different from the national sentiment of the English parliament. Yet, many German Estates vigorously defended their rights against the striving of their princes for greater power, and, in articular, they strongly opposed the establishment of a standing army, fearing that this would lead to absolutism.

In consequence, in the Thirty Years War the territories were defenceless and were so terribly ravaged that in many parts a third, or even a half, of the population perished. This discredited the diets, and in many cases the.princes could deprive them of influence and establish their own absolutism, which was also more progressive than the half-feudal Estates. A similar case was that of Poland. Here parliamentary freedom was stretched to extremes and the armed forces were completely neglected in order to keep the king powerless. The result was the partition of the entire country among foreign powers. In England, however, in complete contrast, the parliamentary regime and the ban on a standing army had fortunate consequences. The main reason was that there was a natural moat around the land which no foreign army could cross. France, Germany and Poland did not possess such a moat. Of course, many other reasons, too, contributed to these differences between England and the Continent, but the influence of nature in promoting and protecting England’s unity and liberty must not be overlooked.

The obstacles to Germany’s economic and political development partly caused by natural conditions were, however, not entirely harmful. A poor and hard environment, if not extreme, may stimulate latent forces and may, in the long run, be a greater advantage than a soft climate and an abundance of gratuitous gifts of nature. In the British Isles, Scotland is a significant example. German farmers learned how to make barren soil fertile and were welcomed as colonists by foreign rulers who wanted to develop the resources of their countries. In many places further the people turned to other productions and made a living by mining, crafts, trade, navigation, etc., or by becomi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Preface
• Contents
• Part I: The Middle Ages
• Part II: The Reformation and Counter Reformation
• Index