CHAPTER XI.
THE EMPEROR CONRAD II.
With the death of Henry II the Saxon dynasty in the male line became extinct; nevertheless under the Ottos the hereditary principle had become so firmly rooted, the Teutonic theory of election so nearly forgotten, that the descendants of Otto the Great in the female branch were alone regarded as suitable successors to the Emperor Henry II. The choice of the princes was practically limited to the two Conrads, the great-grandsons of the first Otto's daughter Liutgard and Conrad of Lorraine. Both were grandsons of Otto, Duke of Carinthia; the future emperor through the eldest son Henry who died young, the other, known as Conrad the Younger, through the third son, also named Conrad, who had succeeded his father in the duchy of Carinthia. This younger Conrad did not inherit the dukedom, which was granted on his father's death in 1011 to Adalbero of Eppenstein, but he acquired nevertheless the greater part of the family estates in Franconia. In wealth and territorial position he was stronger than his elder cousin; moreover, since he had adopted the attitude of Henry II in matters of ecclesiastical politics, he could safely rely on the support of the reforming party in the Church, which, particularly in Lorraine, carried considerable weight under the guidance of Archbishop Pilgrim of Cologne. An orphan[1] with a meagre inheritance, brought up by the famous canonist, Burchard of Worms, Conrad the Elder had little to recommend him beyond seniority and personal character. On late and unreliable authority it is asserted that the late Emperor designated him as his successor[2]; and though it is reasonable to suppose that Henry II should make some recommendation with regard to the succession, it is at least remarkable that he should select a man whose
- ↑ His father died while he was still a child, and his mother married again and took no further interest in the child of her first husband.
- ↑ Sigebert, Chron. MGHSS. VI. 356. Hugh of Flavigny. Chron. II. 16, MGHSS. VIII. 392. It is accepted as historical by Arndt, Die Wahl Konrads II, Diss. Göttingen, 1861, Maurenbrecher, Königswahlen, and others; Bresslau, from the silence of contemporaries, and the unreliability of the evidence is led to the conclusion that no such designation was made. (Jahrbücher, Konrad II, I. p. 9 f., also in Hirsch, Jahrbücher, Heinrich II, III. p. 356 f.) Harttung, Studien zur Geschichte Konrads II, attempts to prove that the younger Conrad was designated by Henry II; but see Bresslau, Jahrbücher, Excurs. II. p. 342 f.
