Henry VII was ever a traitor
(481.) Minutes of the working session on November 14, 2008
Working group for historical regional studies on the Upper Rhine e.V.
Present:Broeker, Gudrun, Karlsruhe; Brunner, Paul, Karlsruhe; Buschbeck, Reinhard, Karlsruhe; Drollinger, Dr. Kuno, Karlsruhe; Gardener, Mechthild, Karlsruhe; Gilg, Johanna, Bruchsal; Goldschmit, Johannes, Karlsruhe; Gorra Hofmann, Hannelore, Karlsruhe; Günther, Dr. Wolfgang, Karlsruhe; Günther, Susanne, Karlsruhe; Goodbye, Dr. Peter, Karlsruhe; Heaven, Prof. Dr. Volker, Karlsruhe; Kohlmann, Richard, Karlsruhe; Krimm, Prof. Dr. Konrad, Karlsruhe; Bold, Dorothee, Karlsruhe; Laubscher, Rosemarie, Wörth; Bodies, Dr. Gottfried, Karlsruhe; human, Dr. Wolfgang, Karlsruhe; Müller, Dr. Leonhard, Karlsruhe; Müller, Hermann, Waldbronn; Müller, Monika, Waldbronn; Noe, Dr. Georg, Ettlingen; Roellecke, Elga, Karlsruhe; Roellecke, Prof. Dr. Gert, Karlsruhe; Salaba, Dr. Marie, Karlsruhe; Salaba, Dr. Miroslav, Karlsruhe; chess, Gerlinde, Karlsruhe; Schillinger, Erich, Karlsruhe; Schmitt, Hannelore, Karlsruhe; Schwarzmaier, Lore, Karlsruhe; Schwarzmaier, Prof. Dr. Hansmartin, Karlsruhe; Swing arm, Dr. Gerhard, Durmersheim.
presentation by Dr. Hansmartin Schwarzmaier, Karlsruhe
Kings in the vicinity of Frederick II.
Myth formation and historical oblivion among the late Hohenstaufen
The lecture, with notes and illustrations, is in print in: Mythos Staufer, ed. by Volker Herzner and Jürgen Krüger. Files from the 5th Landau Staufer Conference July 1-3, 2005. Speyer 2010.
There were three very different impulses and occasions for the considerations that preceded this article. The starting point was the 5th Landau Staufer Conference in July 2005 on the topic of "The Staufer Myth", whereby a large part of the lectures held there by historians, art historians, architects and literary scholars focused on Frederick II, the brilliant emperor, the last of the Hohenstaufen family, who as "stupor mundi", as "changer of the world" was praised by his contemporaries and descendants. My own contribution was directed at the "forgotten king" and dealt with Heinrich, the son of Frederick II, whom I put as an "antimythos" to the side of the great emperor. Some of it will come back in an abbreviated form in this article.
A second impetus was the “year of remembrance”, which in 2008 commemorates King Philip of Swabia, the youngest son of Emperor Friedrich Barbarossa, who was murdered on June 21, 1208 in Bamberg by Count Palatine Otto von Wittelsbach. The 800th anniversary of this event, the first regicide in German medieval history, has already led to various commemorative events, conferences and lectures in which historians tried to identify a lesser-known Hohenstaufen king, the brother and successor of the mighty Henry VI ., to wrest from oblivion and to thematize its historical significance. This follows on from several research companies of this kind, which of course still leave open what scientific advances such a “jubilee” can achieve, especially when it comes to letting a personality seen as a “marginal figure” in history appear in a new light. A similar event in 2006 commemorated the death of Emperor Henry IV in 1106 with the attempt to paint the external picture, the physiognomy of this unhappy king who was deposed by his son and ended in tragic oblivion: in this case, too, it remains to be seen whether we got to know him better.
And now a third one that, it seems, has nothing to do with our subject. My preoccupation with the Karlsruhe court theater, i.e. the dramatic stage works that were played here as elsewhere in the first half of the 19th century, drew attention to the historical dramas, which were very popular at the time, but which, beyond that, were the performances of of their own time in the mirror of history in a popular form. In particular, the Staufer period was one of the periods with which one sought to identify, and the images of the emperors and kings of the Staufer period, following the scholarly account of the historian Friedrich von Raumer, in the Staufer dramas by Nienstädt and Ernst Raupach, the large-scale attempt by Christian Dietrich Grabbe, in order to identify with one's own present, mark the decisive step on the way to the national unity of what was believed to be linked to the medieval empire of the Hohenstaufen, which one aspired to and finally also - in the Wilhelmine Empire - believed to have found. Numerous pictures, for example in the Kaiserpfalz in Goslar, have clearly shown this.
This addresses a problem area that leads back to the conference topic “The Staufer Myth” and which is to be considered in the following. Whether, and if so, since when the Staufer myth has existed, this is a question that can only be clarified if one tries to see the Staufer in the context of a long historical development and in the assessment of their respective times. In the High Middle Ages there is no mention of them, the "Staufers", that dynasty of kings in which the name Friedrich was inherited from father to son, five dukes of Swabia in uninterrupted order, the first of which, however, Duke Friedrich I. von Schwaben, had a daughter of Emperor Henry IV as his wife, whose children, as the heirs of the Salian royal family, also bore the Salian names Konrad and Heinrich and thus documented the claim to German royalty that they represented. Barbarossa was the first "Friedrich" on the German throne and as Roman emperor. There is initially no mention of the Hohenstaufen, the name derived from the rather modest aristocratic castle in the north of Swabia for the dynasty of the Friedriche; Only in the 13th century does the German imperial chronicle speak of a "Stoufaere" and by that means Friedrich Barbarossa, who, like his father and grandfather, was initially Duke of Swabia. The castle on the Hohenstaufen, visible from afar like the Hohenzollern, did not become the eponymous symbol for the royal family until the 19th century, like the nearby Lorch monastery, which, however, never became a royal tomb. Conrad III, who, according to tradition, wanted to be buried there, was finally buried in the cathedral church in Bamberg, and Philipp, who will be discussed in a moment, in the royal burial place in Speyer. Even the Italians, in order to weave this in, do not know the Hohenstaufen and the "Staufer". For them, the Hohenstaufen are the "Suevi", the dukes of Swabia, who tried to enforce their claim to rule in the empire south of the Alps by all means, and Swabia, it seems, also formed one of the fields of force from which the "Friedriche “Always able to gain new resources for their companies. Philipp is also, in anticipation, always the “Duke of Swabia” for the curious law firm, and this name has stayed with him in the history of the world. “Stauferzeit” and “Stauferherrschaft” characterize, this remains to be stated, a historiographical term that only the 19th century helped to establish itself in its imperial ideology.
The same applies to the “Staufer myth”. In Italy one finds rather opposite ideas. There one spoke of the "wicked generation" of the heirs and descendants of Frederick II (in hoc pravo genere), without using the word "Staufer", a royal family who were persecuted with hatred by the Guelphs of the Italian cities, in the Curia and in the Norman Kingdom. In Germany, the Hohenstaufen was associated with the popular, too old Barbarossa, who tried to crown his life's work in a mighty war enterprise in the Christian West, perhaps also with his son, Heinrich VI, who, however, is seen as a brutal and cold man of power looked at and that his early death tore from far-reaching plans. But it was only Friedrich II, the emperor who lived in distant Italy, who became a “myth”, whose death, when he died after a long reign, was not wanted in Germany. He lived and will return, it was said, and would rule his kingdom in peace. He was first looked for in Kyffhäuser, the mighty imperial castle on the Harz, and only centuries later the sleeping emperor became old Barbarossa, who had died on the crusade and whose grave was unknown. Both of them, the first Friedrich, who spent a large part of his life in tough and ultimately unsuccessful battles in Italy, and his grandson, who returned to the land of his ancestors as emperor only once for a short time, were associated with the German image of power and the size of the Hohenstaufen monarchy, and both became the prototypes of an idea of rule that actually founded the “Staufer myth”, but which only began when the Hohenstaufen had long since succumbed to the overwhelming power of their enemies and finally died out. But the hopes for a united and powerful German empire remained and became the central theme in the 19th century, initially the poets and enthusiasts. But when the new empire came into being, the Hohenstaufen found a new reality in it and experienced popular artistic design in words and images. Barbarossa was reborn in the old Kaiser Wilhelm I, to whom the nickname "Barbablanca" was tried to be attached and whom his grandson and successor even tried to elevate to mythical heights as "Wilhelm the Great", and when the Staufer Friedrich II stepped back behind his grandfather because it was difficult to secure his place in German history for him, the “Italian”, without using the word “Staufer”. The graves of Henry VI. and Frederick II in Palermo, that is to say Italy, which in the meantime had also come together to form state unity, were less suitable as the national symbol of the Germans than the Kyffhauser, the imperial castle in the heart of Germany. How then Frederick II recognized in his uniqueness and finally became the exponent of a new, a "secret Germany", finally even the first "European" of today's character, this marks an exciting process of the historiography of the 20th century, which can be traced in all nuances would of course go beyond the scope of this consideration.
This outlines our question. Against the background of the history of the 12th and 13th centuries determined by the Hohenstaufen dynasty, the “Hohenstaufen time”, individual kings of this time stand out, admittedly among contemporaries, in the medieval sources, but then also in the historical pictures of the more recent times have experienced very different and temporally differentiated assessments, even if critical science pointed the direction in which one was moving. But it too was dependent on trends and ways of thinking, which the scholars followed as well as the poets and painters, who made the history of their time understandable. With all the changes that the image of Frederick II underwent, the awareness of its uniqueness and size remained. The “Myth of Staufer” is ultimately the “Myth of Frederick II”, a term that has remained alive to this day. In the following we ask about the kings who ruled in Germany before, during and after Frederick II and who, it is believed, were in his shadow. Perhaps it will lead to a better understanding of the time around 1200 and the decades afterwards, if one does not see it as just an intermediate period, the Barbarossa and Henry VI. followed, which preceded the universal rule of Frederick II, but if one tries to understand it in its own legality. The look at Philip of Swabia, whose "anniversary" we are celebrating, at King Heinrich, the "forgotten" king, and one last look at Konradin, who was never king in Germany and with whom the end of the Hohenstaufen rule came saw. To begin with, it is a look at all the young kings and young men who tried to rule the world at that time: When Emperor Heinrich VI. Philipp von Schwaben died at the age of 33, was just 21 years old, when he died he was only 32.Heinrich, deposed as king by his father in 1235, was then 24 years old, 16 years younger than the then 40-year-old Friedrich II. , 31 years old when he died. His brother Konrad IV, to remember him too, replaced his father as king at the age of 22 and died at the age of 26. Finally, Konradin was 16 years old when he set out on his unfortunate campaign to Italy, which brought him his death. None of them was allowed to mature and complete their life's work.
So now to “Philipp von Schwaben”, the “anniversary boy” from 2008. When Emperor Heinrich VI. died on September 28, 1197 in Messina, at the age of 32, his younger brother was on his way to Italy to pick up the three-year-old Friedrich, Heinrich's son, in Apulia and to escort him to Germany for his coronation. Philip had followed this order from the emperor after he had previously celebrated his wedding to the Byzantine princess Irene in Swabia. In the second half of September he moved with a relatively small troop of Swabian knights through the Adige Valley to the south. At Montefiascone, it is said, the news of Henry's death reached him, and immediately serious unrest broke out in Italy, which brought Philip and his team into serious distress. Apparently he made no attempt to continue on his way to Rome, where, like his brother, hostility met him. The Pope, 90-year-old Celestine III, imposed the ban on the “Duke of Swabia”, as it were an act of “kin liability”, because Heinrich VI was also previously. fell under the papal ban because of his attack on the crusader Richard the Lionheart. When he returned to Germany, where he convened a Reichstag in Haguenau at Christmas, the 20-year-old Staufer faced a difficult task. Philip saw himself initially as the representative of his nephew, the emperor's son Friedrich, Heinrich VI. in the sense of his initially deferred, i.e. not approved by the princes, plans of inheritance intended to present him as king. But the royal child remained under the tutelage of his mother in Palermo, in an environment hostile to the Germans, and in Germany from the start there seems to have been little inclination to accept an underage king from the south. The already existing opposition to the Hohenstaufen dynasty among the clerical and secular princes, which became evident after the emperor's death, was reflected in various attempts to name candidates for the king, the Saxon Duke Bernhard von Meissen and also the Zähringer Berthold, an ambitious and power-conscious princes - whom we will meet again in 19th century dramas. There was a lot of speculation about why he withdrew his originally accepted candidacy.
One name was not mentioned in this context, that of the son of Barbarossa, who was left with Philipp, Count Palatine Otto of Burgundy, who was between Konrad and Philipp, who died in 1196. But Otto was considered violent, decried as immoral and raw and was involved in many feuds in the west of the empire, as a contentious competitor of the Zähringer and the bishop of Strasbourg. A murder of Count Ulrich von Pfirt was viewed as a personal act of revenge, and his brother Philipp had his hands full to keep Burgundy out of the power game over the empire and to limit the damage that Otto did to the reputation of the royal house. Count Palatine Otto remained limited to actions as trustee of his mother's Burgundian legacy, while he was never considered a candidate for king. Heinrich VI. does not seem to have included him in his domestic policy insofar as it related to the north, to Germany. He also died in 1200 and Philipp remained the only son of Barbarossa who was able to keep the Hohenstaufen household and imperial property together.
When Philip made the decision to stand for the king's election, it is not clear. In Haguenau the die seems to have been cast, even if Philipp issued a certificate for the city of Speyer on January 21, 1198 in Speyer, which he did Philip divina favente clementia dux Sueviae calls, a strange mixture of elements of the ducal as well as the royal intitulatio, but still in the deputy position for Frederick II, until his adulthood he wanted to take over his guardianship. But it soon became apparent that the Staufer child from Sicily was not to be expected, and so Philip acted from now on as the heir of the Staufer house and executor of the will of his father and brother.It was becoming apparent that he would first have to regain their positions of power.
The following processes are among the much discussed and described events in the history of the High Middle Ages and one of the most momentous events par excellence: Philip's election as king in Mühlhausen, Thuringia, on the 6th / 8th. March 1198, the election of the Guelph Otto IV on June 9, 1198 in Cologne, his coronation in Aachen and the coronation of Philip in Mainz, and finally the opinion of the newly elected Pope Innocent III in 1198. in the German controversy for the throne and Philip's long-standing dispute with his Guelph opponent and the opposing princes - things that seemed to take a happy turn for him when his reconciliation with the Pope was on the way in 1208. The questions about the German election of a king moved legal historians, especially in the 19th century, the struggle of kings with the curia at the same time took on a sharp, also denominational tendency, and the opposition between Staufers and Welfs, which in Italy led to the formation of parties Ghibellines and Guelphs became a political catchphrase that runs like a red thread through the historiography of the 19th and 20th centuries.
As important as all of this has become for the historical discussion of modern times, in all of this the image of King Philip has remained strangely devoid of contours. There is a ten-year period between the double election and Philip's death, which is usually dismissed in a few sentences in the history books. Even a poet like Walter von der Vogelweide, who adored and criticized his king, would like to see him more energetic, more power-conscious, as if he had known that the king would not have the time to record and expand on what he had achieved. Naturally, he lacked the wisdom of Barbarossa as well as the brutality and obsession with power of Henry VI. - if you want to stick to this cliché. Philip, it seems, remained the cleric, the youngest son of the house who was appointed prince of the church, a scientifically educated but poorly trained, mildly minded and generous man who was not prepared for the role he was forced to assume. So we hear it from the chronicler Burchard von Ursberg. Now Burchard, a Premonstratensian from Schussenried, later provost in Ursberg, about whose person little is known, is an outspoken partisan of the Staufer, and although he criticizes Philipp for damaging his pen by paying too high a fee, he dedicates it to him a friendly characteristic with which he closes the chapter on Philip. It sounds coherent in itself, even if one takes into account that the topoi of a king - mildness, eloquence, goodness, generosity - correspond to valid norms. With Heinrich VI. they sound different, of course. Philip's marriage to the Byzantine Irene, who later called herself Maria, Walter von der Vogelweide calls her a “rose without thorns”, was seen as a harmonious love affair and his kindness in dealing with others was valued. Burchard describes the physical characteristics of the apparently delicate and rather weak man in a similar way. They make Philip appear delicate, but at the same time well-formed, indeed as beautiful and lovable; he is blond and of medium figure, so perhaps more in line with the mother's type. This corresponds to the results of the anthropological investigations on the relatively well-preserved remains of Philip in the Speyer Royal Choir. Almost in every detail they agree with the characteristics of Burchard, who apparently knew the king, or at least saw him. Even after that, we get the image of a man who grew up and trained in a monastic environment in his childhood, so rather weak, but otherwise friendly and sympathetic, who perhaps, also in the physical sense, lacked the powerful, not to say brutal, assertiveness of father and brother .
At this point one can interweave the few pictorial representations that have come down to us from Philip. Carl Willemsen compiled and commented on them. But just like the seal images, the representations of Philip are each in a series of normative images of the kings. This applies above all to the miniatures of the kings from Frederick I to Frederick II and the dukes Konrad and Frederick (V) of Swabia, which were created around 1250 in the Premonstratensian Monastery of Weissenau near Ravensburg and attached to the texts of documents for Weissenau. Like his father and brother, Philip is shown schematically as a king with a scepter and orb, beardless. Strangely enough, he is standing on a stylized rose, while Barbarossa appears to be standing on a grimacing lion's head (fig.). Was this supposed to contrast the person of the powerful ruler with that of the rather mild and friendly son, as the canons of Weissenau knew him? However, the miniature cycle of the kings by Konrad III refers to exactly the same type. up to Friedrich II. in the Brussels manuscript of the Cologne royal chronicle, a little later than the Weissenauer pictures and also artistically more mature and developed. The kings here only carry the scepter, hold one hand, with Philip it is the left, raised in a lordly gesture. The facial expressions are conformal and not pronounced; What is striking about Heinrich is the elaborate clothing including the shoes. One does not want to accept portrait elements, especially since Otto IV also fits into this series seamlessly and without significant deviations.
Interesting is a picture in the "Liber ad honorem Augusti" by Petrus de Ebulo, a picture at the Sicilian court of Henry VI. and a chronicle written in his honor, which was written around 1195-1197. One of the pictures is dedicated to Friedrich Barbarossa, the emperor just before the start of his crusade (below is a scene of the imperial army marching through Asia Minor). The middle picture shows the emperor, who raised his hands in blessing over his sons Heinrich and Philipp. Heinrich is shown as a king, Philip, still as a boy, dressed in a cloak that, as if lifted up by a gust of wind, seems to fill the right half of the picture (fig.). At that time Philip had already taken off the clerical robe, the text indicates that the father allowed himself to be surrounded by his imperial descendants in old age. Duke Konrad von Schwaben (+ 1197) was no longer taken into account; For the painter of the chronicle, the descendants of Barbarossa consisted only of the eldest and the youngest son. It is not yet clear that Philipp would become king.
One last representation to be mentioned in this context is only to be mentioned because it was made by the painter J. Raabe as an “authentic picture of Philip” on behalf of Friedrich von Raumer (Fig.). The model was the sculpture, a seated figure on the north side of the central tower of the Stone Bridge in Regensburg, underneath the inscription P [H] ILIP [PUS] R [E] X ROMA [NORUM]. The approximately 85 cm. high stone sculpture, a high relief with an unworked back, may have been created around 1207, in connection with Philip's customs privilege for Regensburg, and shows the king with a full beard and as an older man (Fig.). A figure of Queen Irene-Maria is assumed as a counterpart, but this has not been preserved. The rather crude and clumsy-looking sculpture is difficult to compare with Philip's previous pictures; one is downright inclined to put it a little older, one could think of Barbarossa if the inscription did not refer to Philip - but it could also have been chiseled afterwards. In any case, the painter Raabe was not well advised to ascribe her portrait character, and his reconstruction does not lead any further. But overall, this may serve as the conclusion of this brief glimpse into Philip's picture history, we did not get any further on the way to the picture portrait of the king. The description of Burchard von Ursberg brings us closer to this than any of the contemporary miniatures we have received, to which we have to add another example later and in a different context.
Mildness and friendliness, but at the same time sovereign virtues, strength and perseverance:
The later judgments that Philip experienced were shaped by these contradictions. If some saw in him the man of balancing diplomacy, who, however, tried to assert himself with tenacious persistence, others pull him in for indulgence and inadequate severity. But one should quote Burchard again and give him the final word in this context: Constet ex predictis, quod potent regnaturus fuisset sicut et alii de parentela eiusdem, si non impedisset mors. Only his early death prevented him from appearing as powerfully as his ancestors; perhaps, the chronicler also thinks, he was close to success when he died. This, however, refers to the death of Philip, his murder in Bamberg on June 21, 1208 by Count Palatine Otto von Wittelsbach. This event moved the imaginations of contemporaries and historians more than anything else; it ends, in the sense of Burchard von Ursberg, an unfinished life. It attracted attention as the first regicide in German history.
In assessing this event, one follows another chronicler, the monk Otto von St.Blasien, who continued the chronicle of Otto von Freising. For him too, Philipp is the one pius princeps, the rex piissimus and christianissimo, so the mild and pious king. He contrasts him with the ambitious and wild Count Palatine Otto, to whom Philipp had previously promised his daughter to marry, but then refused her when he realized that Otto was not worthy of his violence because of his violence. Indeed, the St. Blasian Chronicle was followed by assuming that there was a close loyalty relationship between Philipp von Schwaben and Otto von Wittelsbach, who was a friend of his, and which was secured by a promise of marriage to one of the king's daughters. Their termination under circumstances that were dishonorable for Otto was the real motive for the murder. Otto, who had free access to the king's apartments, into which he had retired to rest, inflicted a fatal wound on him and escaped unmolested; then he was ostracized, tracked down and killed by Marshal Heinrich von Kalden, and Wittelsbach Castle was destroyed. Philip was first buried in Bamberg, later, at the behest of his nephew Friedrich II, brought to Speyer and buried there in the royal crypt. So much for the facts that are undisputed. At least the imagination of contemporaries was stimulated by the murder, and a little later it was also reproduced in the picture: Among the picture versions of the Saxon World Chronicle, which inserted particularly dramatic scenes in small miniatures, one can also find the one that Otto von Wittelsbach shows in full armor how he attacks the unarmed king with his sword and mortally injures him. Philipp raises his hands defensively, but without defending himself (Fig.). The text of the chronicle does not go into the details of the process, which the author was probably also not aware of.
Was Otto von Wittelsbach a lone perpetrator? Was he an aspiring prince who felt equal to the king and who tried to join his relatives in order to enhance his own rule? Or was he, as some sources suggest, involved in a noble conspiracy surrounding the Counts of Andechs, who pursued political goals with the murder of the king? This question has recently come to the fore again, and strangely enough it was initiated by a Bamberg theater manager, Rainer Lewandowski, who found a colleague in 1998 in Bernd Ulrich Hucker, the biographer of Philip's opponent Otto IV. Hucker tried to prove that there had been a formal conspiracy, in particular by East Baier noblemen, around the Count of Andechs, who had found the executor of their politically motivated action in Otto von Wittelsbach. A study published this year, after a conscientious examination of the sources, came to the sobering result that neither one nor the other view could ultimately be proven and suggests sticking to the previous opinion: Philip is the victim of a personal act of revenge. one would like to add that great historical importance is to be attached.
What is strange about this newly flared up discussion, however, is that it started from a theater specialist who tried to attach a dramatic accent to the rather banal events surrounding the death of the king. In this way a process that we regard as a historical event of great carrying force does indeed acquire a different significance, and the dramatist's demands on the historian are understandable from his point of view, even if it cannot be made the starting point for historical research. Indeed, there is a lot of drama in the material, and so it has indeed found adapters. Mention should be made of the play in 5 acts "Otto von Wittelsbach" by the Munich theater director (from 1792) Joseph Marius von Babo (1756-1822), a scholar from the Rhineland who made a career in 1789 as director of studies at the military academy at the Munich court. His plays show him as an accomplished dramatist, received attention and were played well into the 19th century, especially his historical dramas. The first comprehensive edition of his works appeared in 1783, but "Otto von Wittelsbach" seems to have been written 10 years earlier; The piece was premiered in Mannheim in 1782.
The theater poet knew the facts about the Bavarian Count Palatine, whose ancestor of the same name had made great contributions to Friedrich Barbarossa's early days on his Italian campaigns and was made Duke of Bavaria in 1156, as were the circumstances surrounding the regicide of 1208, which was the sole concern of him in the play goes. When he wrote the play, Babo agreed with the sources reporting on it, according to which the murder of the Staufer was not a political but a personally motivated act of revenge. Otto is portrayed as a friend of the king, from the point of view of the poet a noble and popular prince who took care of the subjects, the poor and the oppressed, an often recurring metaphor of the historical drama of the time from a local and fatherland point of view. Philipp promised his daughter to marry him, but then, under changed political circumstances, he changed his mind and thus insulted and humiliated his friend in his honor. The murder was therefore a bargain of honor between the king and a deposed prince. So far this can also be understood in the play, but then follows a historically and dramaturgically rather incomprehensible turn. Because Otto insists on the legality of his actions, but he deeply regrets the murder of the king (Babo always calls him the "Emperor"). Even the insults he had experienced do not justify him. So he takes on his fate of imperial ban, persecution and finally his death and you can see the ancestral castle Wittelsbach go up in flames, it disappears for all time.
Babo's piece, written at the end of the Old Kingdom, shortly before a Wittelsbacher became King of Bavaria, thus took up a very ambiguous topic and, in addition to the deeds of glory of the Wittelsbach family in medieval imperial history, also brought one of its “outrages” to the stage. Otto's “repentance” is thus something like the capitulation of the princely policy of the “emperorless” in 19. Century before the imperial idea, which after 1806 remained a guiding principle from the Romantic period until the founding years. In this sense, Babo treated the events of 1208 in terms of the drama inherent in the event, but at the same time updated them in terms of the Bavarian state becoming. One might assume that Ernst Raupach was familiar with Babo's play and a few decades later he took up the subject again in his "Philipp von Schwaben", this time in the Prussian sense. where one can easily find the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm III in the particularly soft and yielding King Philip at Raupach. recognized that in Philip's wife Irene the popular and generous Queen Luise. The assassination of Philip was supposed to symbolize the collapse of Prussia, which for Raupach was then canceled when Prussia regained strength. Philip was followed by Frederick II, who redeemed the empire from the yoke of the Guelph Otto IV when he first appeared in Germany (1212). Philip, however, remained the odium of the "inter-king" in the time of the "deepest humiliation" of the empire.
The rediscovery of Hohenstaufen in the course of romantic interpretation of history and in the context of "patriotic history", which initially took place in the regional area of the "small fatherlands", has many faces, and the example of Philip in the context of Hohenstaufen history shows this clearly. Raumer's history, as has already been pointed out, was enthusiastically taken up, but it left room for many possible interpretations. Soon the first source editions of the newly launched Monumenta Germaniae Historica, which were supposed to create a solid foundation of historical knowledge, were placed next to him.However, the playwrights have taken the need for popular historical images into account and achieved a far greater impact than the historians and historians. But for all of them it was about the "empire", whose re-establishment was hoped and as whose exponents the new kings, at their head Prussia, more and more established themselves. The way in which they appropriated the Staufers and identified themselves in them remains to be followed.
The outlawed king
If Philip's example shows how he was included in the imagery of his time, and how he was then incorporated into dramatic scenes, then a glimpse of a king of whom there is no picture, who has also recently not honored him A king who practically fell into oblivion, which can be understood as a form of "damnatio memoriae": the eldest son of Emperor Frederick II with the royal name Heinrich. Only 16 years younger than his father, he grew up in Sicily, where he was crowned king as a one-year-old child (1212), he was elected king of Rome in Frankfurt at the age of 8 (1220) and two years later he was crowned in Aachen. In 1228 Heinrich shook off the guardianship of the German princes who watched over him on behalf of the emperor and has since served as a Heinricus septimus, ruled as King Henry VII - that's what the documents of the German chancellery call him. He had been king for seven years, before he was incapacitated, before he was imprisoned and finally in Calabria, cut off from the world, ended his life en route from prison to prison.
All of these facts are known and can be read in detail in more recent representations. But for a long time they were seen almost exclusively under the sign of the father, the almighty emperor Frederick II, who gave his time the stamp. He was left with the ultimate victory over his insubordinate son, who had dared to contradict his father and lead the government in Germany by other means than his father. For when his father returned to Germany in the summer of 1235, after a 15-year absence, where he accepted Heinrich's submission, when he only stayed there for a year to create order, he was cheered as a peace-maker, received as a messiah, as it were and marveled when the emperor, who wandered through the land of his ancestors with foreign pomp, in strange oriental garments, gold, silver and precious stones in many chariots with him, with a Saracen bodyguard and with exotic animals that followed him. All this increased the reverence for the emperor, who came from a great distance and about whom only the German princes, the knights, who served him in Italy, could tell. Now he was there, showed himself in sublime majesty, staged glamorous parties, for example in July 1235 when he celebrated his wedding to an English princess in Worms, but also in Marburg, where he was at the head of what is said to be a crowd of millions the Landgravine Elisabeth of Thuringia venerated as a saint. The submission of his son took place in Wimpfen, which was also an obvious staging; then Heinrich was held captive, including in Heidelberg, before he was transported to Italy, and there he remained until the end of his life. Friedrich had won without having fought, and the Germans remembered him as a triumphant, even when he left, never to be seen again. Even his death in 1250 could not convince the people in this country that he no longer existed. He was seen in the Kyffhäuser removed and expected that one day he would return to his country to restore order and bring peace to the people. Friedrich remained the measure of all things, "the greatest of the princes on earth, the astonishment of the world and its wonderful walker" (Matthew of Paris).
Against this background, his son was also seen, who could not find a contemporary biographer who could do justice to him. The song Walthers von der Vogelweide, who addressed the young king as "a wild child, unfortunately too big for the rod, too small for the sword", has continued to have an effect and has strengthened the image of an unruly king who committed political rash in childish arrogance, and it stayed like that for a long time. This is how Raumer draws him, and Raupach, who has already been quoted so often, did not write a royal drama about Heinrich, but rather dramatized it as a chapter, an episode in the history of Frederick II. Only recently have historians tried to better understand what happened there and asked about the fundamental differences between the “universal policy” of Frederick II and the “regional policy” of Heinrich, which was entirely geared towards Germany with the aim of addressing itself to create a royal territory there on the lower and middle Neckar. This can be discussed, and the question of whether Heinrich, in his long experience of the country and its people, might not have represented a concept that could have secured the Hohenstaufen rule in the German Empire, was asked again and again. But Friedrich prevailed, and a look at his “imperial politics” led to the judgment, “the inexperience, impatience and agility in the actions of the young king caused unrest that Friedrich could not use and that… did more harm than good to the kingship ". There are many judgments of this kind that paid tribute to the overpowering figure of Emperor Friedrich and consequently viewed the son as a rebel, as an unwise hothead who misunderstood the ingenuity of the father, a wrong choice in a decisive phase of German history. This is how Eduard Winkelmann saw it, too, who was particularly harsh in court with Heinrich - perhaps this was also one of the reasons why he made no attempt to assign Heinrich a due place in the Regesta Imperii.
When he was about to compile the second edition of the Regesta Imperii edited by Johann Friedrich Böhmer for Friedrich II. And his sons Heinrich and Konrad and to incorporate it into the revision of this authoritative source work of the late Staufer royal documents, the "number" for Heinrich VII. Had meanwhile been assigned . It was carried by the Luxembourgish Heinrich, who was crowned king in Aachen in 1308 and emperor in Rome in 1312, Dante's emperor and received with great hopes by the Ghibellines in Italy, but died in Pisa a year later and was buried in the cathedral there. He was "Henry VII." That's what he called himself ever since he was emperor, and so did his contemporaries. Böhmer and, following him, Julius Ficker and Eduard Winkelmann have already solved the dilemma that arises in such a way that, although they included Heinrich from Staufer in the count, they put his number in brackets, i.e. called him Heinrich (VII.), And it stayed that way. So you can read it in the literature up to Wolfgang Stürner's two-volume work on Friedrich II. From 1992 and 2000 and Heinrich's yearbooks, edited by Peter Thorau, part I published in 1998. Subsequent attempts to help Heinrich get a regular number, see above in Emil Franzel's dissertation on "King Heinrich VII. von Hohenstaufen" from 1929, did not prevail, and so one occasionally hears "Heinrich the Klammer-Seventh" in lectures when he is mentioned. So are we dealing with a blemish, a lapse around a forgotten king that the historians of our day have been unable to iron out, or is it something completely different? By the time Henry VII, the Luxembourger, began his move to Rome, he had so completely forgotten his predecessor of the same name that he could be left out of the line of German kings, even though he had issued legally valid documents as king for almost 15 years and the empire ruled alongside and on behalf of his father?
One of the most difficult questions in the assessment of Emperor Frederick II is addressed here, which will be difficult to resolve, or at least to explain. There is no source evidence that Heinrich, who was held in strict solitary confinement in southern Italy after 1235, remains in the memory of his time. Nothing is known about whether he ever received visits, had conversations, or received information about conditions in the Reich. His prison conditions were apparently harsh, and since recent examinations of his bones have shown that he was suffering from leprosy, the incurable leprosy, he had no prospect of returning to life. When the 31-year-old put his life to an end in 1242 due to a change of location, he was given an honorable and royal burial in Cosenza Cathedral, but in Germany this news seems to have hardly been noticed and registered. At no point was he remembered, in no church was his memoria celebrated, was the anniversary of his death celebrated; no foundation is known for him. With him his sons Heinrich and Friedrich disappear into oblivion; A few years after their father's death, they too died - somewhere in southern Italy - without it ever being mentioned that they were of royal blood and, as the grandson of Frederick II, had claims to power. Most puzzling, however, are the letters, five of which have survived, which the imperial father sent in moving words to mourn the death of his beloved son. They wanted to see them as a style exercise, as a discharge of hypocritical father's pain - because who would doubt that Friedrich had been informed about the faring of his son, who was imprisoned on his orders. He lamented him as dead, but kept the living far from himself and his world. What we call “damnatio memoriae” according to ancient Roman terminology has, it seems, retained its medieval meaning of denying the dead the memoria at his grave. The eradication of the name of King Heinrich began with his exile and continued when the deceased king was given a burial place that was alien to the Germans and was of no remembrance to them. In his place, according to the will of Frederick II, his younger brother Konrad, who of course did not survive his father for long, took his place. It remained with this deliberate forgetting; Heinrich's image faded and was not condensed anywhere. The 19th century did not include him in his imagery either. He had succumbed to the myth of Frederick II.
Buried in the sand: the last Staufer
Let us conclude this train of thought with a final consideration. It applies to Konradin, the last Staufer. This diminutive form stuck to him, “little Konrad”, because he set out for Italy in 1267 at the age of fifteen, not as a German king, but as the Duke of Swabia, to exercise his right of inheritance there. His Ghibelline supporters in Tuscany and Pisa received him kindly, even with jubilation, but at the same time the anti-Staufer faction opposed him, and when he succumbed to the superior military power of his opponents under the leadership of Charles of Anjou in the Battle of Tagliacozzo, the latter exposed him to what appeared to be a legal “high treason trial” that led to his pre-established condemnation. On October 29, 1268, he and his friend Margrave Friedrich von Baden, Duke of Austria, were publicly executed on the market square of Naples. His body was first buried on the beach in Naples, but later buried in the church of S. Maria del Carmine in Naples, where his tomb can still be seen today. The sculptor Berthil Thorwaldsen designed it on behalf of the Bavarian King Maximilian II. But unlike King Henry, a “damnatio memoriae” did not materialize, even if the Guelphs triumphed in Italy, while the Ghibellines there saw the death of Konradin with shock and sadness. People mourned the "brilliant youth" who was subsequently included in the ranks of kings, even if he never assumed this role as Conrad V, and so the Staufer story ends with him - even if there are other descendants of the Staufer in Italy and in the empire gave.
In contrast to Heinrich, Konradin remained present in German historiography. He regretted his decision to seek his claim to king in Italy too early and without real support, and he rebuked his rash actions. But his youthful and yet dignified demeanor, especially during his trial, his friendship with Friedrich von Baden, who accompanied him to his death, and even the execution itself founded a myth that exaggerated and glorified the end of the Hohenstaufen dynasty. Poets and painters have put it in words and pictures, and when Christian Dietrich Grabbe spoke of the “Obersekundaner Konradin”, who had nothing to do with him and who rightly ended up in complete historical insignificance, others saw it quite differently. The "dying in beauty", as it were in youthful vigor, symbolized the downfall of the Hohenstaufen and with them the medieval empire. One can remember here in Karlsruhe the large picture of Anton von Werner in the Kunsthalle, which shows Konradin and his friend how they received the death sentence that was read to them in the prison of Karl von Anjou with obvious equanimity and dignity. Anton von Werner painted this picture for Grand Duke Friedrich von Baden because he assumed he could remind him of his ancestor Friedrich von Baden-Austria and his loyalty to the King and Empire, and if the Grand Duke initially rejected the picture for political reasons so it later found its way into his art collection. Even on their gentlemanly journeys to Italy, the Baden princes of the 19th century visited Naples to look at the history of their own house in the Staufer struggle for the empire at the grave of Konradin. Karl Hampe, the Heidelberg historian, then worked up the history of Konradin scientifically for the first time, and it was said that when he presented the end of the young king in Naples at the college, he was overcome with emotion, even if the inexorability of the fact before him Eyes stood. Hampe closes his work: “It was a sad fate that he, who was glowing with eagerness to re-establish the power and glory of his house, was about to die prematurely as the last of his line. - But not unworthy of his high ancestors, he lived a short life and endured his painful end ”.
Staufer pictures - through the ages
What does this brief and fragmentary look at the three kings of the late Staufer period, their reign and their death, as contemporaries, as scholars and ultimately artists, saw and shaped it? They were forgotten, just as the name Friedrich, even if a Habsburg used him again, disappears as a king's name. In the “Holy Roman Empire” of the late Middle Ages and modern times, there were no dynastic points of contact, and even a prince like the Saxon Elector Friedrich the Wise, who could have described himself as a descendant of the Hohenstaufen dynasty, did not play this card in his political endeavors. A state fortress of the Duke of Württemberg was built on the ruins of Hohenstaufen, and the royal tomb in Speyer, where Philip of Swabia rested, sank into oblivion in a decaying cathedral church that became a ruin in 1689. No wonder that in the context of the wars of liberation against Napoleon and the resurrection of the German imperial idea, the Hohenstaufen was not "located" here, but in Kyffhäuser am Harz, later on the Trifels and finally in the Alsatian Hohkönigsburg, Wilhelm II as a symbol of Hohenstaufen rule had to be rebuilt. The fact that this enthusiast, who thinks in outdated historical categories, tried to finish Barbarossa's path to Jerusalem, that he had a throne built in a palace on the Capitol, is probably one of the aberrations of a Staufer reception without reference to the present. But the new pictures remained based on Barbarossa and his grandson Friedrich II, which were thematized according to current needs. Other kings had no place in this world of images, be it that, like Philip of Swabia, they were not suitable for a myth, or that, like King Heinrich, they were seen as antifigures, as unworthy and useless descendants of the great Hohenstaufen. Frederick II, who was raptured into the distance, nevertheless remained the exponent of Hohenstaufen greatness: the fact that his grave was known in Palermo may have contributed to the fact that his grandfather, old Barbarossa, who had disappeared in the Orient, was given his resting place in Kyffhäuser.
Our starting point was an anniversary, that of 1208, which is reminiscent of a regicide. Anniversaries create “Memoria” in the modern sense, they remind of a person who is tried to be snatched from oblivion. This may be short-lived, like a special postage stamp that is quickly withdrawn from circulation and at best remains important to the collector. But behind this, beyond the day-to-day events, there is a task for the historian of today.Especially in view of the time-bound interpretations, the mistakes of historians, painters and poets, it will have to be examined again how such personalities can be classified in their time. Modern social history and everyday history, supported by archaeological and scientific findings, have created a set of instruments for us that takes us further, but of course also brought new questions, such as those raised in the anthropological studies of Philipp von Schwaben and Heinrich (VII.). We will no longer encounter the Hohenstaufen as a “myth”, but as an exponent of a period that we have learned to understand as one of the great times of change in Western history.
Mr. Noe: What was the rift between Emperor Friedrich II and his son Heinrich?
Prof. Schwarzmaier: Henry (VII). came to Germany as a child, while his father lived and ruled in Italy, and the father installed watchdogs who had to make sure that exactly what he wanted happens. Heinrich VII., I call him that, was for a long time under the sign of these watchdogs, which also included Margrave Hermann V of Baden and the Bavarian Duke Ludwig, whom he had to follow. Then the time came when Heinrich came of age, and from that moment on he is obviously under the sign of other advisors. It is said that he generally ignored the advice of the princes, perhaps initially to get rid of these watchdogs, and instead made young people around him, especially ministerials, his advisors. Over the course of time, this resulted in a different conception of his governance, which contradicted those represented by the Kaiser as the German king and the princes appointed by him, a conception that was based entirely on the universal kingship of Frederick II, the father. Henry VII, as we see it today, pursued something like territorial policy and tried to build up his own kingdom. In particular, the land between Heidelberg and Wimpfen, i.e. on the lower Neckar, was attempted to be fully tied to himself as a king's land and it was developed into a royal territory. Frederick II heard that his son had deviated from his own idea of rulership, especially from the dukes who told him about it, because you really have to imagine that envoys were constantly running back and forth between Italy and the German courts of the princes. Frederick II was convinced that everything shouldn't be like that, by which he meant above all the personal framework in which the young king moved. On top of that, however, there was the bad Odium that was attributed to the young king. It was said that he was a lotter boy, only did bad things in youthful arrogance, with women’s stories and so on, and that contributed to the fact that this bad image was passed on to Italy. Frederick II took this as an opportunity to intervene in Germany to reorganize things as they were. How he did this, how severe he assessed the danger his son was causing him, can be measured by the strength he has mobilized to bring him to reason. The fact that Frederick II then uses his previous opponents as allies to tame his son and to take him by the curb, so that there were serious fighting conflicts, this is difficult to explain in the relationship between father and son, two people who each other were relatively close in old age, but who almost never saw or spoke to each other. Today one is actually inclined to wonder how far two completely changed conceptions of kingship have clashed in them, the one that originated in Italy, from a king who ruled and lived in Italy all his life, and the one that came from Conditions in Germany are oriented, which are different than those in the tightly organized Norman kingdom. Perhaps Heinrich really believed that here, where he knew the situation, he had to do things the way I thought they were right. It can be assumed that he did this with the stormy carelessness of a young man, with an equally young group of advisors and employees. In any case, this led to the dispute in which Heinrich was completely disempowered and perished.
Prof. Roellecke: Quite frankly, I had the same question. And your answer is a bit abstract to me. [Interjection by Prof. Schwarzmaier: I can also specify it.] I mean, one could also say: Henry VII committed high treason, and that is now a pretty bad crime.
Prof. Schwarzmaier: After all, he was charged with high treason and subsequently convicted.
Prof. Roellecke: But you have to see the objective process. It is quite the case that Heinrich made alliances with his father's opponents in Germany. To be honest, I would have killed him there too.
Prof. Schwarzmaier: Heinrich was charged with treason and he had to face it. Heinrich did not accept this accusation, but was of the opinion that he had acted as king and, as king, did what was his duty, while his father naturally defined high treason from his own person, from his imperial power. And to that extent Heinrich had actually already lost the game at the moment when he stood before his father's tribunal. The question that leads to this, and that is perhaps the further thing, is whether Heinrich was actually deposed or whether he remained king? Frederick II brought the son to submission. That happened in the usual rituals as we know them in other situations, he humbled himself and so on. This is usually followed by the ritual reconciliation, the reconciliation meal, the hug and the kiss of peace, but none of these things have taken place, and Heinrich was obviously required to submit to total submission, with the return of the crown. And Heinrich didn't do that, so he didn't accept the father's verdict and was of the opinion that he had remained king, while Frederick II naturally assumed that he had deposed his son. But of course only the princes can dismiss in a formal process, not the king.
Dr. Müller: If I can go back to the 19th century. You spoke of the first half of the century, the imperial ideas of that time. Wasn't it also seen differently at the end of the 19th century? In the history books, when people talk about the Staufer period, they always talk about the downfall, which meant an end with the death of the monarch. With the fall of a princely family there was also such an end situation as it was conjured up a little later as the "fall of the West" - also in the wrong use of this Spengler term. But this under-goose fascination remained an issue. I started studying in Heidelberg in May 1946, and the lecture program began with the downfall of the Hohenstaufen dynasty. And there was Fritz Ernst, who was fascinated by the association with the “Third Reich” without saying it, because it also addressed a mood of doom. He said this in contrast to the young students who wanted to know how things were going and who wanted to experience little of the downfall. But this melancholy of doom and the longing of the Germans for the enduring empire, which again and again concentrated on the Hohenstaufen, is a phenomenon that can be found in different epochs of German history.
Prof. Schwarzmaier: I think what you say about the downfall of the Hohenstaufen and thus about the downfall of the Reich is a terminology of the 19th century, which of course continues in the 20th century. And it is precisely in this identification of the 19th century with the Hohenstaufen empire that one could see the end of the Hohenstaufen as a total turning point, as an end of the empire, which it was insofar as a new period really began in the history of the empire Rudolf von Habsburg, which not only exists in a new dynasty, but in which the continuity that has been seen among the Hohenstaufen dynasty breaks off in favor of a new elected monarchy. When considering the late Middle Ages, this has been viewed as a weak kingdom that has actually withdrawn its central idea from the kingdom. The empire had lost its dignity, so to speak, at the moment when the last Hohenstaufen surrendered royal power. What came next, think of the monarchy of Wenzel and Ruprecht, of Friedrich III. or whatever, that was only seen as an aftermath, an imperial glory that it was no longer at all. And basically that's exactly how it was seen in the 19th century. The empire has been identified with the empire of Barbarossa and also with the empire of Frederick II as a universal empire, which then collapsed when you no longer felt this universal empire idea, and you have the late medieval empire idea that existed at all not noticed. And if you say that this was also expressed in the college in Heidelberg in 1946, then perhaps the spirit of Karl Hampe was still blowing in the lecture halls. It was the same in Tübingen, where Johannes Haller had taught until 1945. His pupil was Fritz Ernst, and then in Tübingen Heinz Dannenbauer, who did not stray from Haller in his thoughts. And so it was probably also in other universities, where the last great historians who wrote the history of the empire were still active as emeriti. As for Ernst, he tried to introduce a new view of things after the war. He knew that the Reich has now finally perished, it will no longer exist, because what there was after 1945 was the occupying powers and was a fragmented entity. As far as Spengler is concerned, he did not pick this term out of thin air, and there is certainly also this idea of the pleasure in doom, what you called “doom melancholy”. I do think that the "fall of the empire" corresponded to a terminology that was certainly developed in the 19th century, as well as that of the "eternal empire". Every time the nation-state got into a crisis in the 19th century, this word of "downfall" was used.
Mrs. Roellecke: I would like to come back to King Friedrich with his son, that is, to the royal children and their marriages. There was also talk of Philip of Swabia and his marriage to a Byzantine princess. As for Heinrich's betrayal of his father, it was a piece of politics. To what extent does this also apply to these family events, were they also politics and had corresponding effects?
Prof. Schwarzmaier: Philip's marriage to the Byzantine girl Irene is a generation earlier. You have to see him from the perspective of his father, and this concerns Barbarossa's so-called house rules. Barbarossa originally had five sons, all of whom he incorporated into the positions of the empire. These were political measures. Each of these sons concluded a very rich marriage or it was concluded for him. Henry VI. married the Normanness Konstanze in Palermo, the eldest, whose name was Friedrich, was to be married to an English princess, and Konrad von Schwaben was married to a Castilian princess. In this sense, the youngest, Philip, quite logically got a Byzantine princess at the moment when it was known that Philip would be included in the father's house rules. Philip was originally supposed to become a bishop and was then brought back to secular status. However, the emperor's sons were no longer to marry a German count or duke's daughter, but a European king's daughter. And in this sense you have to see this picture that I showed
Prof. Himmelein: An almost private note on the traffic jam reception. At the beginning of my interest in the Hohenstaufen there was a book by a “Leutnant der Reserve”, as he described himself as such in the foreword, written by Walter Hotz, “King and Conspirator. Men and Powers around Heinrich 7. von Hohenstaufen, 2nd ed. 1940. As a schoolboy I read that with great enthusiasm and that's where my interest comes from. The author was a pastor in Rheinsbronn in the Odenwald and later wrote the Handbook of Art Monuments in Alsace and Lorraine and worked as an art historian and castle researcher. Incidentally, his book about Heinrich (VII.) Was written without too blatant ingratiation to the spirit of the times, and never spoke of the "downfall of the Staufer", but always of the "end of the Staufer". That was dealt with very objectively there, with many beautiful pictures of the Staufer castles and quotes from that time, and if you spoke earlier about the role of the last Staufers, the picture of the Staufers rolled up from the end, it corresponds to this fascination. This has also occupied me professionally for many years. I also have a question about Henry VII. For a while, the attempt was made to upgrade Heinrich as a representative of a German national policy compared to the “internationalist, foreign and foreign” policy of his father. What's it all about?
Prof. Schwarzmaier: Indeed, that is a trend. You are talking about the biography of Heinrich by Emil Franzel. He wrote the first scientific biography of Henry VII in 1929 and also campaigned for the new numbering as king. This is in fact a typical phenomenon of those years after the First World War, i.e. the Weimar years, but which was continued by the Nazis (despite the alliance with Mussolini), the inclusion of the king in a German, national idea, whereby one Friedrich II. Did not see him as a specifically German king, but classified him as an “Italian”, as someone who did not think German after all and who did something from Italy that was harmful to the Germans. This was preceded by the whole discussion about the “Italian policy” of the German kings, and it was linked in a very naive sense to the question of what the Germans had actually lost in Italy? You started with Barbarossa, who was accused of having lost a third of his life as king in Italy and having burned all his German knights there? And this was followed by the statement that Frederick I was just sitting in Palermo and Messina and had nothing but foreign advisors around him, including Arab teachers and other people who formed his environment. And when he comes to Germany, then he actually comes as an exotic king, while Heinrich has become a German. Although he was born in Sicily, he became a German and then ultimately also represented a German policy that was seen from the perspective of the empire, and not from the overall empire, which included Italy, but from the empire on this side of the Alps. But in the Third Reich this discussion on the person of Heinrich did not go any further, and if you quoted the book by Walter Hotz from 1940, which I did not know, then you also said that Hotz stayed away from such national tendencies. And after the war these tones fell silent anyway, especially in connection with scientific research that was determined, among other things, by regional studies.
Prof. Krimm: One must have been careful not to tie in with someone who was unfortunate, and in the polemic against the South-oriented policy of the Staufers, a “German-oriented” policy could not be combined with a person who did not achieve anything. But as much as I would be tempted to make the keyword of the "pleasure in sinking" the topic here (is this pleasure not identical with the inability to analyze and accept one's own guilt?): In the context of your lecture, we should still talk talked about the changing possibilities of representation in the 19th century. You mentioned the picture of Anton von Werner that he created for Friedrich I.painted, which the Grand Duke did not buy from him for political reasons; It was unthinkable that at a time of awakening in imperial politics one would acquire a large painting with a subject that depicts a dark chapter in imperial history and its downfall. For Friedrich's father, Grand Duke Leopold, it hadn't been a problem to order the same subject from the painter Albert Graefle for a cycle of pictures on the history of Baden in Eberstein Castle. At that time the subject of this picture was not the downfall, but the proximity of the House of Baden to the imperial family. The hanging on Eberstein was not a “private” act either; Visitors were shown through the rooms and Gräfle also had the picture spread as an engraving.
In this context I would also like to go back to the performance of Babo's play in Mannheim in 1782. How is it possible that in the early days of "patriotic history", in which poetry is mostly dynasty-related and the first enlightenment pieces that speak of a German nation, are still very few and far between, so how is it possible that a Bavarian Subject to a play that is dedicated to the disaster of the House of Wittelsbach is allowed to perform in public? And also in Mannheim! Is the performance of such a piece in Mannheim only conceivable because the court was already in Munich? After the departure of Karl Theodor, Mannheim showed itself to be particularly free-spirited, perhaps in order to emancipate itself from the court related to the prince. Would this interpretation be possible?
Prof. Schwarzmaier: I think you already gave the answer. May I come back to the other story, the pictures of Konradin. There are a lot of pictures of Konradin's trial and the end, the best known being that of Tischbein, who paints exactly the same scene, the scene in which the envoy Charles of Anjou, the Frenchman, enters the prison, and there the two young men are sitting , so Konradin and his friend, playing chess. These are not images of downfall, but actually they are actually images of triumph. Frederick I presumably did not accept this picture because a strong anti-French tendency was actually represented in it, represented by Karl von Anjou, who comes in as a sinister villain, and because Frederick I was probably the political confrontation that was given in this picture , did not want to perceive or at least did not want to exhibit. But in fact, with the pictures that have been shown here, the focus was not so much on the future trial and the execution of Konradin, but first of all on the dignity with which Konradin received this, as it has been said, illegal sham judgment, and in loyalty to friends. Of course, Anton von Werner wanted to bring it up to the Grand Duke, because in the end it wasn't about Konradin, but about Friedrich von Baden-Austria, who stood by his king and, in this loyalty to his friends, shows him how close he is to the empire connected is. Later there are also depictions of the execution of Conradin, especially engravings that were very popular. These, too, are not shaped by the keyword of doom, but in turn by dignity. Konradin is supposed to have given a speech on the scaffold in front of the whole audience. He is said to have taken his glove and tossed it into the crowd so that it could be passed on to Peter of Aragon, who should continue his work. And then he went to his death with dignity, so again something like a triumph in the end. Of course, you can always interpret it the way you want it to be, but I don't think there was a sense of doom here. To Babo? You actually already gave the answer yourself. It is actually the case, Babo was initially from the Palatinate, he came from the Palatinate and then moved to Munich. So he was initially in Mannheim, and his piece was performed in Mannheim and Munich at the same time. It was played only once in Munich and then it was banned by Karl-Theodor, who was already in Munich at the time. It was only taken up and performed again in Munich, I think thirty years later, although it was certainly never very popular in Bavaria because the subject really was one of the most outrageous deeds in Bavarian history. If you have ever been to Hohenschwangau, there is a Wittelsbach room there, which was painted by Moritz von Schwind and his school, among others, by the most famous painters with whom Ludwig I worked. And of course the regicide is missing in the entire Wittelsbach cycle. There you can see Count Palatine Otto von Wittelsbach in the Veronese hermitage. And then you see Otto von Wittelsbach in Rome, with a raised sword, with which he attacks the Pope. These are the scenes with which the Wittelsbachers boasted while the other is clicked away. In that respect you are absolutely right, in Munich the play was actually an affront when it was performed there. And, as I said, it was also banned. There are the same cycles in the Antiquarium of the Residenz in Munich, of course the heroization of the deeds of the Wittelsbach ducal house under Barbarossa and thereafter. And there, too, the story of the regicide was not presented.
Prof. Krimm: One more time on Anton von Werner's Naples scene. The cautious policy of Grand Duke Frederick I towards France is certainly easy to imagine. But he decidedly rejected Anton von Werner's picture because of the magnitude of the national awakening that determined the present time; one does not want to see such a dark chapter now. The Grand Duke wants to see national history celebrated in history painting - and it does not suffer defeat.
Prof. Schwarzmaier: But in every defeat there is also a victory. And if a defeat is painful in the national sense, then one tries to reinterpret it, as it did in Canossa. Canossa was seen as a victory for the German king in the 19th century, and this conception then prevailed. Henry IV really not only duped the Pope, but also imposed his actions on the Pope. The Pope could not help but meet him, grant him leniency and grace, and in this respect Henry IV was victorious. This idea of Heinrich's victory in Canossa then continues into the portrayal by Johannes Haller and others who saw the event with national glasses and for whom it was of course an absolutely undignified act that the king stood barefoot in the snow is. Johannes Haller goes on, he argues that Heinrich was not barefoot at all, but that he wore shoes that were just not shown. This is a sign that every thing can be portrayed as a victory and a defeat. This also applies to Konradin. There was almost always the opinion that the trial was a sham trial and that the arguments against him were pulled by the hair, so that the conviction should not actually have come about either.
Prof. Roellecke: Very short. So the Henry VII negotiation is really a huge problem, even if you judge it from the point of view of the raison d'être. But I don't even know how to get out of this problem, I don't understand all the standards either, I have to admit that quite frankly. By what standards should one judge this? How should all of this have gone after Heinrich revolted?
Prof. Schwarzmaier: To a certain extent this was certainly also a question of power in the empire which the emperor controlled from the south through his envoys and which his son believed himself to be under his control in his real domain, in his kingdom. The sharp argument actually only comes at the moment when Frederick II decides to intervene, to return to the empire in person, to mobilize all forces that support him, and then the myth of the emperor comes into play. Because Friedrich comes as emperor, and then there is actually no longer any contradiction. Then all the forces gather that say: The boy, the king, he was actually only the deputy and now comes the real king, now the emperor comes, and we have been waiting for him, because he has to know what is going to be done now . And then they all run to him. When Henry VII found out about his father's arrival, he obviously gathered all his knights and ministerials around him and was of the opinion that they would stay with him. But then Friedrich comes and there is no resistance whatsoever. Gates of honor are set up wherever he goes, people burst into jubilation and the delegations run to meet him. And from now on he has the opportunity to impose his will on the whole thing, and everything runs towards him. The fact that he then turned the trial into a high treason trial, which was strictly legally correct, corresponded to his view of things. The matter could have been resolved differently, with an act of submission followed by reconciliation and a common feast. Both parties prevented that it did not happen, but the Middle Ages knew many such pardons for a high traitor; they are rather the order of the day, for gentleness is a ruler's virtue, as is the humility of those who submit. But Friedrich brought the trial to an end as a high treason trial, and the verdict was appropriate. And since the judgment was irreversible and no longer offered any possibility of reaching a reconciliation. Perhaps this had to mean that Heinrich was transported to Sicily and that he was forbidden from ever returning to the empire. Because if he had returned, he might have found followers, if there had been people who said it wasn't high treason. It is well known that even after Heinrich was ousted, aristocrats in Swabia continued to fight for him.
Prof. Himmelein: Can you explain it in such a way that a king and an emperor have different traditions of action? I mean, Heinrich did not feel like an ambassador and not as an agent, but he felt himself to be king of a part of the riches. And one can expect from a ruling king that in everything he does from a distant high emperor, who is his father, completely submits and does without contradiction what instructions come from the south?
Prof. Schwarzmaier: Friedrich II expected that.
Prof. Himmelein: Now that's one thing. But what the ruling king in Germany thought is something else or could have been something else without any awareness of injustice being associated with it.
Prof. Schwarzmaier: As king, Heinrich issued hundreds of documents that were made out and sealed in his name: Heinricus septimus divina favente rex Romanorum. They are all there and they have retained legal force with the exception of one thing that Frederick II revised, the so-called Statutum in favorem principum and in the Confoederatio cum principibus ecclesiasticis. With these privileges for the secular and ecclesiastical princes, Frederick withdrew the king's measures. But first of all: Heinrich was king and what he did, he did as king and that retained legal force. Disobedience of the son is on a different level of law.
Prof. Roellecke: But compared to the emperor, all European kings, even the French, were considered petty kings. So I really have no doubt about the emperor's comprehensive power. Regarding Mr. Himmelein, I mean that the rulership relationships in the Middle Ages all had a personal component, unlike today not only in legal relationships, but also in a loyalty relationship. If the son also violated this loyalty relationship, then it was really very, very bad. You can't just say he could withdraw from his father, he couldn't do that at all.
Prof. Schwarzmaier: We already talked about this at the beginning: The high treason did not consist solely in the fact that Heinrich took measures that were different from those that the father had ordered. Rather, high treason consisted of gathering partisans who were the father's enemies. That is the very essence of high treason. And of course he was accused of that, and of course rightly, although Friedrich was not squeamish in choosing his allies. For his part, Friedrich called for help from people who had previously been his enemies.
Prof. Krimm: In the discussion we have now come back to the events themselves and their difficult interpretation in a wide arc about the 19th century and can thus close this evening. Thank you all for participating in this in such a lively way.
- What is it like to be a slave
- What is the national anthem of Ukraine
- Was the universe really born out of nothing?
- What is the medical procedure for NDA
- Hillary Clinton believes in God
- Diabetes can cause dark spots on the skin
- Do some kind of cardio
- Where can I buy E100 ethanol fuel
- How devout Kurds are towards Islam
- Why do good employees leave their organization
- Can a flight stay in the air?
- Is a vote necessary to save democracy?
- How do I say love in Farsi
- Why do people hate NF
- Movie studios intentionally create duds
- What does education 1
- Israel banished Arabs from Israel
- How do I find owner-financed houses
- What is the first place you traveled
- What are the most common mistakes made in debates
- Faith is at the center of everything
- Does matplotlib work with Python 3
- How can I play games every day
- How was the life of Thomas Aquinass
- Is there a temporary color for cars
- Who Killed the Koro Sensei Assassination Classroom
- What purpose do the steel doors serve?
- Why should I become a Catholic?
- How diversified should my investment portfolio be?
- Is business an art or a science
- How do you measure a person's knowledge
- Criminal behavior is influenced by intelligence agencies
- Do you think love involves sacrifice?
- Who is your favorite Doctor Who regeneration