Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/131

Liichaire: hinoceiict III. 121 this, his latest vohime, he makes no reference either to sources or to other works which treat the same subject. Not more than two or three times does he indicate that he differs from others in his interpretation of the documents or in his construction of events. And even in such cases he merely states the fact without attempting either to justify his own position or to show the error of those from whom he differs — a bold procedure, and refreshing in a time which demands that even high- school text-books should contain many pages of " sources " and " litera- ture " in all languages. Neither does M. Luchaire indulge in a dramatic narrative of events. It is surprising how few historical details are found in his book. And yet his book is a masterpiece of historical writing. By means of a few really important documents he takes his reader to the " high places 'V from which he commands a view of the struggle in its different phases. M. Luchaire possesses profound scholarship and the literary sense which characterizes the French. The historian and the artist combined in him have produced a work which is both history and literature — a combina- tion as rare as it is charming. Of all the historical books of the )'ear, it will easily take the first place as delightful reading. His first chapter the author begins with the statement that the Middle Age was dominated by the belief that over all nations and peoples there must be a chief power, a central universal authority, which was a visible expression of the unity of the whole Christian world. Im- perialism was a part of the divine order; the only question was, to whom this high office had been intrusted. To this question two answers had been given. For some time it was agreed that the emperor possessed this supreme power, but in the eleventh century the pope set up a counter claim to it. The dispute over it led to the tremendous struggle between the pope and the emperor. During this struggle both popes and emperors often yielded to the force of circumstances, and made concessions each to the other, so that a third answer seemed to be given to the question stated above: namely, that the government of the Christian world had been confided conjointly to pope and emperor, who must work together in harmony. Unfortunately, experience quickly showed that harmony between two universal sovereignties was impossible. It was the great good fortune of Innocent that during the first ten years of his reign there were rival candidates for the German crown, neither of whom was able to get possession of all Germany, and both of whom were willing to make large concessions to the pope in order to gain his support. Innocent remained neutral for three years in order to have the opportunity to destroy the imperial government which Henry VI. had built up in Italy and Sicily, and to re-establish the papal govern- ment in its place. Nothing could have been more opportune for him than this disputed royal election. M. Luchaire recognizes in the docu- ment which has hitherto been regarded as the coronation oath of Otto IV. merely the letter in which Otto informed the pope of his election.