THE BEGINNING OF THE MODERN EUROPEAN STATES.

§ 1. The Division of the Frankish Empire.

The great dominion of the Franks, the German kingdom which had so strangely grown into a new Western Roman Empire, did not last long. In the course of the ninth century it altogether fell to pieces. ?The chief states of modern Europe spring out of it.? But the process by which it fell to pieces must be carefully traced, because it was out of its dismemberment that the chief states of Western Europe arose. Speaking roughly, the Carolingian Empire took in Germany, so far as Germany had yet spread to the East, all Gaul, a great part of Italy, and a small part of Spain. ?National kingdoms not yet formed.? Of these, it was only Italy, and sometimes Aquitaine, which showed any approach to the character of a separate or national kingdom. ?Extent of Francia.? Northern Gaul and central Germany were still alike Francia; and, though the Romance speech prevailed in one, and the Teutonic speech in the other, no national distinction was drawn between them during the time of Charles the Great. Among the proposed divisions of his Empire, none proposed to separate Neustria and Austria, the Western and the Eastern Francia. ?Separate being of Italy and Aquitaine.? But Italy did form a separate kingdom under the superiority of the Emperor; and so for a while there was an under-kingdom of Aquitaine, answering roughly to Gaul south of the Loire. This is the land of the ProvenÇal tongue, the tongue of Oc, a tongue which, it must be remembered, reached to the Ebro. ?Division under Lewis the Pious.
First glimpses of Modern France.? It is in the various divisions, contemplated and actual, among the sons of Lewis the Pious, the successor of Charles the Great, that we see the first approaches to a national division between Germany and Gaul, and the first glimmerings of a state answering in any way to France in the modern sense.

The earliest among those endless divisions that we need mention is the division of 817, by which two new subordinate kingdoms were founded within the Empire. Lewis and his immediate colleague Lothar kept in their own hands Francia, German and Gaulish, and the more part of Burgundy. South-western Gaul, Aquitaine in the wide sense, with some small parts of Septimania and Burgundy, formed the portion of one under-king; South-eastern Germany, Bavaria and the march-lands beyond it, formed the portion of another. Italy still remained the portion of a third. Here we have nothing in the least answering to modern France. The tendency is rather to leave the immediate Frankish kingdom, both in Gaul and Germany, as an undivided whole, and to part off its dependent lands, German, Gaulish, and Italian. ?Union of Neustria and Aquitaine the first step to the creation of France. 838.? But, in a much later division, Lewis granted Neustria to his son Charles, and in the next year, on the death of Pippin of Aquitaine, he added his kingdom to that of Charles. A state was thus formed which answers roughly to the later kingdom of France, as it stood before the long series of French encroachments on the German and Burgundian lands. ?Character of the Western Kingdom.? The kingdom thus formed had no definite name, and it answered to no national division. It was indeed mainly a kingdom of the Romance speech, but it did not answer to any one of the great divisions of that speech. It was a kingdom formed by accident, because Lewis wished to increase the portion of his youngest son. Still there can be no doubt that we have here the first beginning of the kingdom of France, though it was not till after several other stages that the kingdom thus formed took that name. ?Division of Verdun. 843.? The final division of Verdun went a step further in the direction of the modern map. It left Charles in possession of a kingdom which still more nearly answered to France, as France stood before its Burgundian and German annexations. It also founded a kingdom which roughly answered to the later Germany before its great extension to the East at the expense of the Slavonic nations. And, as the Western kingdom was formed by the addition of Aquitaine to the Western Francia, so the Eastern kingdom was formed by the addition of the Eastern Francia to Bavaria. Lewis of Bavaria became king of a kingdom which we are tempted to call the kingdom of Germany. Still it would as yet be premature to speak of France at all, or even to speak of Germany, except in the geographical sense. ?Kingdoms of the Eastern and Western Franks.? The two kingdoms are severally the kingdoms of the Eastern and of the Western Franks. But between these two states the policy of the ninth century instinctively put a barrier. The Emperor Lothar, besides Italy, kept a long narrow strip of territory between the dominions of his Eastern and Western brothers. After him, Italy remained to his son the Emperor Lewis, while the border lands of Germany and Gaul passed to the younger Lothar. ?Kingdom of Lotharingia, Lothringen, Lorraine.? This land, having thus been the dominion of two Lothars, took the name of Lotharingia, Lothringen, or Lorraine, a name which part of it has kept to this day. This land, sometimes attached to the Eastern kingdom, sometimes to the Western, sometimes divided between the two, sometimes separated from both, always kept its character of a border-land. ?The Western Kingdom called Karolingia.? The kingdom to the west of it, in like manner took the name of Karolingia, which, according to the same analogy, should be Charlaine. It is only by a caprice of language that the name of Lotharingia has survived, while that of Karolingia has died out.

Meanwhile, in South-eastern Gaul, between the Rhone and the Alps, another kingdom arose, namely the kingdom of Burgundy. ?Union under Charles the Fat. 884.? Under Charles the Third, commonly known as the Fat, all the Frankish dominions, except Burgundy, were again united for a moment. ?Division on his deposition. 887.? On his deposition they split asunder again. We now have four distinct kingdoms, those of the Eastern and Western Franks, the forerunners of Germany and France, the kingdom of Italy, and Burgundy, sometimes forming one kingdom and sometimes two. Lotharingia remained a border-land between the Eastern and Western kingdoms, attached sometimes to one, sometimes to another. Out of these elements arose the great kingdoms and nations of Western Europe. The four can hardly be better described than they are by the Old-English Chronicler: ‘Arnulf then dwelled in the land to the East of Rhine; and Rudolf took to the middle kingdom; and Oda to the West deal; and Berengar and Guy to the Lombards’ land, and to the lands on that side of the mountain.’ But the geography of all the four kingdoms which now arose must be described at somewhat greater length.

It must be borne in mind that all these divisions of the great Frankish dominion were, in theory, like the ancient divisions of the Empire, a mere parcelling out of a common possession among several royal colleagues. ?No formal titles or names of the Frankish kingdoms.? The Kings had no special titles, and their dominions had no special names recognized in formal use. Every king who ruled over any part of the ancient Francia was a King of the Franks, just as much as all among the many rulers of the Roman Empire in the days of Diocletian and Constantine were equally Roman Augusti or CÆsars. As the kings and their kingdoms had no formal titles specially set apart for them, the writers of the time had to describe them as they might.[9] ?Various names of the Eastern Kingdom or Germany.? The Eastern part of the Frankish dominions, the lot of Lewis the German and his successors, is thus called the Eastern Kingdom, the Teutonic Kingdom. Its king is the King of the East-Franks, sometimes simply the King of the Eastern men, sometimes the King of Germany. This last name, convenient in use, was inaccurate as a formal title, for the Regnum Teutonicum lay geographically partly in Germany, partly in Gaul.[10] To the men of the Western kingdom the Eastern king sometimes appeared as the King beyond the Rhine. The title of King of Germany is often found in the ninth century as a description, but it was not a formal title. The Eastern king, like other kings, for the most part simply calls himself Rex, till the time came when his rank as King of Germany or of the East-Franks became simply a step towards the higher title of Emperor of the Romans. ?Connexion between the Eastern Kingdom and the Empire.? But it must be remembered, that the special connexion between the Roman Empire and the German kingdom did not begin at once on the division of 887. ?Imperial coronation of Arnulf. 896.
Homage of Odo to Arnulf. 888.? Arnulf indeed, the first German King after the division, made his way to Rome and was crowned Emperor; and it marks the position of the Eastern kingdom as the chief among the kingdoms of the Franks, that the West-Frankish King Odo did homage to Arnulf before his lord’s Imperial coronation, when he was still simple German king. ?Final union of Germany with the Empire under Otto the Great. 963.? The rule that whoever was chosen King of Germany had a right, without further election, to the kingdom of Italy and to the Roman Empire, began only with the coronation of Otto the Great. Up to that time, the German king is simply one of the kings of the Franks, though it is plain that he held the highest place among them.

This Eastern or German kingdom, as it came out of the division of 887, had, from north to south, nearly the same extent as the Germany of later times. It stretched from the Alps to the Eider. Its southern boundaries were somewhat fluctuating. Verona and Aquileia are sometimes counted as a German march, and the boundary between Germany and Burgundy, crossing the modern Switzerland, often changed. To the North-east the kingdom hardly stretched beyond the Elbe, except in the small Saxon land between the Elbe and the Eider. The great extension of the German power over the Slavonic lands beyond the Elbe had hardly yet begun. ?The Austrian and Carinthian marks.? To the South-east lay the two border-lands or marks; the Eastern Mark, which grew into the later duchy of Oesterreich or the modern Austria, and to the south of it the mark of KÄrnthen or Carinthia. ?The great duchies.? But the main part of the kingdom consisted of the great duchies of Saxony, Eastern Francia, Alemannia, and Bavaria. ?Saxony.? Of these the two names of Saxony and Bavaria must be carefully marked as having widely different meanings from those which they bear on the modern map. Ancient Saxony lies, speaking roughly, between the Eider, the Elbe, and the Rhine, though it never actually touches the last-named river. ?Eastern or Teutonic Francia.? To the south of Saxony lies the Eastern Francia, the centre and kernel of the German kingdom. The Main and the Neckar both join the Rhine within its borders. To the south of Francia lie Alemannia and Bavaria. ?Alemannia and Bavaria.? This last, it must be remembered, borders on Italy, with BÖtzen for its frontier town. Alemannia is the land in which both the Rhine and the Danube take their source; it stretches on both sides of the Bodensee or Lake of Constanz, with the RÆtian Alps as its southern boundary. For several ages to come, there is no distinction, national or even provincial, between the lands north and south of the Bodensee.

These lands make up the undoubted Eastern or German territory. To the west of this lies the border land of Lotharingia, which has a history of its own. For the first century after the division of 887, the possession of Lotharingia fluctuated several times between the Eastern and the Western kingdom. ?987.? After the change of dynasty in the Western kingdom, Lotharingia became definitely and undoubtedly German in allegiance, though it always kept up something of a distinct being, and its language was partly German and partly Romance. Lotharingia took in the two duchies of the Ripuarian Lotharingia and Lotharingia on the Mosel. The former contains a large part of the modern Belgium and the neighbouring lands on the Rhine, including the royal city of Aachen. Lotharingia on the Mosel answers roughly to the later duchy of that name, though its extent to the East is considerably larger.

The part of the Frankish dominions to which the Frankish name has stuck most lastingly has been the Western kingdom or Karolingia, which gradually got the special name of France. This came about through the events of the ninth and tenth centuries. ?Its extent.? The Western kingdom, as it was formed under Charles the Bald and as it remained after the division of 887, nominally took in a great part of modern France, namely all west of the Rhone and SaÔne. It took in nothing to the east of those rivers, and Lotharingia, as we have seen, was a border land which at last settled down as part of the Eastern kingdom. Thus the extent of the old Karolingia to the east was very much smaller than the extent of modern France. But, on the other hand, the Western kingdom took in lands at three points which are not part of modern France. These are the march or county of Flanders in the north, the greater part of which forms part of the modern kingdom of Belgium; the Spanish March, or county of Barcelona, which is now part of Spain; and the Norman Islands which are now held by the sovereign of England. And it is hardly needful to say that, even within these boundaries, the whole land was not in the hands of the King of the West-Franks. He had only a supremacy, which was apt to become nearly nominal, over the vassal princes who held the great divisions of the kingdom. ?The great fiefs.? South of the Loire the chief of these vassal states were the duchy of Aquitaine, a name which now means the land between the Loire and the Garonne—the duchy of Gascony between the Garonne and the Pyrenees—the county of Toulouse to the east of it—the marches of Septimania and Barcelona. North of the Loire were Britanny, where native Celtic princes still reigned under a very doubtful supremacy on the part of the Frankish kings—the march of Flanders in the north—and the duchy of Burgundy, the duchy which had Dijon for its capital, and which must be carefully distinguished from other duchies and kingdoms of the same name. ?The Duchy of France.? And, greatest of all, there was the duchy of France, that is Western or Latin France, Francia Occidentalis or Latina. Its capital was Paris, and its princes were called Duces Francorum, a title in which the word Francus is just beginning to change from its older meaning of Frank to its later meaning of French. ?Normandy cut off from France. 912.? From this great duchy of France several great fiefs, as Anjou and Champagne, were gradually cut off, and the part of France between the Seine and the Epte was granted to the Scandinavian chief Rolf, which, under him and his successors, grew into the great duchy of Normandy. Its capital was Rouen, and this settlement of the Normans had the effect of cutting off France and its capital Paris from the sea.

The modern French kingdom gradually came into being during the century after the deposition of Charles the Fat. ?Fluctuations between the Duchy of the French at Paris and the Karlings at Laon. 888-987.? During this time the crown of the Western kingdom passed to and fro more than once between the Dukes of the French at Paris and the princes of the house of Charles the Great, whose only immediate dominion was the city and district of Laon near the Lotharingian border. Thus, for a hundred years, the royal city of the Western kingdom was sometimes Laon and sometimes Paris, and the King of the West-Franks was sometimes the same person as the Duke of the French and sometimes not. ?Union of the French Duchy with the West-Frankish kingdom. 987.? But after the election of Hugh Capet, the kingdom and the duchy were never again separated. The Kings of Karolingia or the Western kingdom, and the Dukes of the Western Francia, were now the same persons. ?New meaning of the word France.? France then—the Western or Latin Francia, as distinguished from the German Francia or Franken—properly meant only the King’s immediate dominions. Though Normandy, Aquitaine, and the Duchy of Burgundy, all owed homage to the French king, no one would have spoken of them as parts of France. ?Advance of the French kingdom.? But, as the French kings, step by step, got possession of the dominions of their vassals and other neighbours, the name of France gradually spread, till it took in, as it now does, by far the greater part of Gaul. On the other hand, Flanders, Barcelona, and the Norman islands, though once under the homage of the French kings, have fallen altogether away, and have therefore never been reckoned as parts of France. Thus the name of France supplanted the name of Karolingia as the name of the Western kingdom. ?Title of Rex Francorum.? And, as it so happened that the Western kings kept on the title of Rex Francorum after it had been dropped in the Eastern kingdom, that title gradually came to mean, not King of the Franks, but King of the French, King of the new Romance-speaking nation which grew up under them. ?Origin of the French nation.? Thus it was that the modern kingdom and nation of France arose through the crown of the Western kingdom passing to the Dukes of the Western Francia. ?Paris the kernel of France.? Paris is not only the capital of the kingdom; it is the kernel round which the kingdom and nation grew.

Of all geographical names, that which has changed its meaning the greatest number of times is the name of Burgundy. ?Various meanings of the name Burgundy.? It is specially needful to explain its different meanings at this stage, when there are always two, and sometimes more, distinct states bearing the Burgundian name. ?The French Duchy.? Of the older Burgundian kingdom, the north-western part, forming the land best known as the Duchy of Burgundy, was, in the divisions of the ninth century, a fief of Karolingia or the Western kingdom. This is the Burgundy which has Dijon for its capital, and which was held by more than one dynasty of dukes as vassals of the Western kings, first at Laon and then at Paris. This Burgundy, which, as the name of France came to bear its modern sense, may be distinguished as the French Duchy, must be carefully distinguished from the Royal Burgundy, the Middle Kingdom of our own chronicler. ?The Kingdom of Burgundy or Arles.? This is a state which arose out of the divisions of the ninth century, and which, sometimes as a single kingdom, sometimes as two, took in all the rest of the old Burgundian kingdom which did not form part of the French duchy. It may be roughly defined as the land between the Rhone and SaÔne and the Alps, though its somewhat fluctuating boundaries sometimes stretched west of the Rhone, and its eastern frontier towards Germany changed more than once. It thus took in the original Roman province in Gaul, which may be now spoken of as Provence, with its great cities, foremost among them Arelate or Arles, which was the capital of the kingdom, and from which the land was sometimes called the Kingdom of Arles. ?Cities of the Burgundian kingdom.? It also took in Lyons, the primatial city of Gaul, Geneva, BesanÇon, and other important Roman towns. In short, from its position, it contained a greater number of the former seats of Roman power than any of the new kingdoms except Italy itself. ?Cis-jurane.? When Burgundy formed two kingdoms, the Northern or Trans-jurane Burgundy took in, speaking roughly, the lands north of Lyons, and Cis-jurane Burgundy those between Lyons and the sea. These last are now wholly French. The ancient Transjurane Burgundy is in modern geography divided between France and Switzerland.

The history of this Burgundian kingdom differs in one respect from that of any other of the states which arose out of the break-up of the Frankish Empire. It parted off wholly from the Carolingian dominion before the division of 887. It formed no part of the reunited Empire of Charles the Fat. It may therefore be looked on as having parted off altogether from the immediately Frankish rule, though it often appears as more or less dependent on the kings of the Eastern Francia. But its time of separate being was short. ?Union of the kingdom with Germany.
Later history of Burgundy: mostly annexed by France.? After about a century and a half from its foundation, the Burgundian kingdom was united under the same kings as Germany, and its later history consists of the way in which the greater part of the old Middle Kingdom has been swallowed up bit by bit by the modern kingdom of France. The only part which has escaped is that which now forms the western cantons of Switzerland. ?Partly represented by Switzerland.? In truth the Swiss Confederation may be looked on as having, in some slight degree, inherited the position of the Burgundian kingdom as a middle state. Otherwise, while the Eastern and Western kingdoms of the Franks have grown into two of the greatest powers and nations in modern Europe, the Burgundian kingdom has been altogether wiped out. Not only its independence, but its very name, has passed from it. The name Burgundy has for a long time past been commonly used to express the French duchy only.

Italy, unlike Burgundy, formed part of the reunited dominion of Charles the Fat; but it altogether passed away from Frankish rule at the division of 887. It must be remembered that, though Lombardy was conquered by Charles the Great, yet it was not merged in the Frankish dominions, but was held as a separate kingdom by the King of the Franks and Lombards. ?Carolingian Kings of Italy.? Till the reunion under Charles the Fat, Italy, as a separate kingdom, was ruled by kings of the Carolingian house, some of whom were crowned at Rome as Emperors. After the final division, it had separate kings of its own, being not uncommonly disputed between two rival kings. ?Italian Emperors.? Some of these kings even obtained Imperial rank. ?Extent of the Italian kingdom.? The Italian kingdom, it must be remembered, was far from taking in the whole Italian peninsula. Its southern boundary was much the same as the old boundaries of Latium and Picenum, reaching somewhat further to the south on the Hadriatic coast. ?Separate principalities of Benevento and Salerno.? To the south were the separate principalities of Benevento and Salerno, and the lands which still clave to the Eastern Emperors. The kingdom thus took in Lombardy, Liguria, Friuli in the widest sense, taking in Trent and Istria, though these latter lands are sometimes counted as a German march, while the Venetian islands still kept up their connexion with the Eastern Empire. It took in also Tuscany, Romagna or the former Exarchate of Ravenna, Spoleto, and Rome itself. ?The Kingdom of Italy represents the Lombard Kingdom.? The Italian kingdom thus represented the old Lombard kingdom, together with the provinces which were formally transferred from the Eastern to the Western Empire by the election of Charles the Great. But it may be looked on as essentially a continuation of the Lombard kingdom. ?Milan its capital.? The rank of capital of the Italian kingdom, as distinguished from the Roman Empire, passed away from the old Lombard capital of Pavia to the ecclesiastical metropolis of Milan, and Milan became the crowning-place of the Kings of Italy.

For nearly eighty years after the division of 887, the Roman Empire of the West may be looked on as having fallen into a kind of abeyance. One German and several Italian kings were crowned Emperors; but they never obtained any general acknowledgement throughout the West. There could not be said to be any Western Empire with definite geographical boundaries. ?Restoration of the Western Empire by Otto.? A change in this respect took place in the second half of the tenth century under the German king Otto the Great. ?952.? While he was still only German king, Berengar King of Italy became his man, as Odo of Paris had become the man of Arnulf. ?962, 963.? Afterwards Otto himself obtained the Italian kingdom, and was crowned Emperor at Rome. The rule was now fully established that the German king who was crowned at Aachen had a right to be crowned King of Italy at Milan and Emperor at Rome. A geographical Western Empire was thus again founded, consisting of the two kingdoms of Germany and Italy, to which Burgundy was afterwards added. ?The three Imperial kingdoms.? These three kingdoms now formed the Empire, which thus consisted of the whole dominions of Charles the Great—allowing for a different eastern frontier—except the part which formed the Western kingdom, Karolingia, afterwards France. This union of three of the four kingdoms gave a more distinct and antagonistic character to the fourth which remained separate. Karolingia looked like a part of the great Frankish dominion lopped off from the main body. ?Relations between the Empire and France.? On the other hand, now that the German kings, the Kings of the East-Franks, were also Kings of Italy and Burgundy and Emperors of the Romans, they gradually dropped their Frankish style. But, as that style was kept by the Western kings, and still more as the name of their duchy of France gradually spread over so large a part of Gaul, the kingdom of France had a superficial look of representing the old Frankish kingdom. The newly-constituted Empire had thus a distinctly rival power on its western side. And we shall find that a great part of our story will consist of the way in which, on this side, the Imperial frontier went back, and the French frontier advanced. On the other side, the Eastern frontier of the Empire was capable of any amount of advance at the cost of its Slavonic neighbours.

§ 2. The Eastern Empire.

The effect of the various changes of the seventh and eighth centuries, the rise of the Saracens, the settlement of the Slaves, the transfer of the Western Empire to the Franks, seem really to have had the effect of strengthening the Eastern Empire which they so terribly cut short. It began for the first time to put on something of a national character. ?It takes a Greek character.? As the Western Empire was fast becoming German, so the Eastern Empire was fast becoming Greek. ?Rivalry of the Eastern and Western or Greek and Latin Churches.? And a religious distinction was soon added to the distinction of language. As the schism between the Churches came on, the Greek-speaking lands attached themselves to the Eastern, and not to the Western, form of Christianity. The Eastern Empire, keeping on all its Roman titles and traditions, had thus become nearly identical with what may be called the artificial Greek nation. It continues the work of hellenization which was begun by the old Greek colonies and which went on under the Macedonian kings. ?Fluctuations in the extent of the Empire.? No power gives more work for the geographer; through the alternate periods of decay and revival which make up nearly the whole of Byzantine history, provinces were always being lost and always being won back again. And it supplies also a geographical study of another kind, in the new divisions into which the Empire was now mapped out, divisions which, for the most part, have very little reference to the divisions of earlier times.

The Themes or provinces of the Eastern Empire, as they stood in the tenth century, have had the privilege of being elaborately described by an Imperial geographer in the person of Constantine PorphyrogennÊtos.[11] He speaks of the division as comparatively recent, and of some themes as having been formed almost in his own time. The themes would certainly seem to have been mapped out after the Empire had been cut short both to the north and to the east. The nomenclature of the new divisions is singular and diversified. ?Asiatic Themes.? Some ancient national names are kept, while the titles of others seem fantastic enough. Thus in Asia Paphlagonia and Kappadokia remain names of themes with some approach to their ancient boundaries; but the Armenian theme is thrust far to the west of any of the earlier uses of the name, so that the Halys flows through it. Between it and the still independent Armenia lay the theme of Chaldia, with Trapezous, the future seat of Emperors, for its capital. Along the Saracen frontier lie the themes of KolÔneia, Mesopotamia—a shadowy survival indeed of the Mesopotamia of Trajan, of which it was not even a part—Sebasteia, Lykandos, Kappadokia, and Seleukeia, called from the Isaurian or Kilikian city of that name. Along the south coast the city of Kibyra has given—in mockery, says Constantine—its name to the theme of the Kibyrraiotians, which reaches as far as MilÊtos. The isle of Samos gives its name to a theme reaching from MilÊtos to Adramyttion, while the theme of the ÆgÆan Sea, besides most of the islands, stretches on to the mainland of the ancient Aiolis. The rest of the Propontis is bordered by themes bearing the strange names of Opsikion and OptimatÔn, names of Latin origin, in the former of which the word obsequium is to be traced. To the east of them the no less strangely named Thema BoukellariÔn takes in the Euxine HÊrakleia. Inland and away from the frontier are the themes ThrakÊsion and Anatolikon, while another Asiatic theme is formed by the island of Cyprus.

The nomenclature of the European themes is more intelligible. Most of them bear ancient names, and the districts which bear them are at least survivals of the lands which bore them of old. After a good deal of shifting, owing to the loss and recovery of so many districts, the Empire under Constantine PorphyrogennÊtos numbered twelve European themes. Thrace had shrunk up into the land just round Constantinople and Hadrianople, the latter now a frontier city against the Bulgarian. Macedonia had been pushed to the east, leaving the more strictly Macedonian coast-districts which the Empire still kept to form the themes of StrymÔn and ThessalonikÊ. ?Use of the name Hellas.? Going further south, the name of Hellas has revived, and that with a singular accuracy of application. Hellas is now the eastern side of continental Greece, taking in the land of Achilleus. The abiding name of Achaia has vanished for a while, and the peninsula which had been won back from the Slave again bears its name of PeloponnÊsos. But Lakedaimonia now appears on the list of its chief cities instead of Sparta. This and other instances in which one Greek name has been supplanted by another are witnesses of the Slavonic occupation of Hellas and its recovery by a Greek-speaking power. Off the west coast the realm of Odysseus seems to revive in the theme of KephallÊnia, which takes in also the mythic isle of Alkinoos. Such parts of Epeiros and Western Greece as clave to the Empire form the theme of Nikopolis. ?The Hadriatic lands.? To the north, on the Hadriatic shore, was the theme of Dyrrhachion, and beyond that again, the Dalmatian and Venetian cities still counted as outlying portions of the Empire. ?Possessions of the Empire in Italy.? Beyond the Hadriatic, southern Italy forms the theme of Lombardy, interrupted by the principality of Salerno, while Naples, Gaeta, and Amalfi were outlying posts like Venice and Ragusa. Sicily was still reckoned as a theme; but it was now wholly lost to the Saracen. ?ChersÔn.? And far away in the Tauric peninsula, the last of the Hellenic commonwealths, the furthest outpost of Hellenic civilization, had sunk in the ninth century into the Byzantine theme of ChersÔn.

The first impression conveyed by this geographical description is that the Eastern Empire had now become a power rather Asiatic than European. It is only in Asia that any solid mass of territory is kept. ?Nature of its European possessions.? Elsewhere there are only islands and fringes of coast. ?Maritime supremacy of the Empire.? But they were almost continuous fringes of coast, fringes which contained some of the greatest cities of Christendom, and which gave their masters an undisputed supremacy by sea. If the Mediterranean was not a Byzantine lake, it was only the presence of the Saracen, the occasional visits of the Northman, which hindered it from being so. Then again, the whole history of the Empire, if a history of losses, is also a history of recoveries, and before long the Roman arms again became terrible by land. The picture of Constantine PorphyrogennÊtos shows us the Empire at a moment when neither process was actually going on; but the times before and after his reign were times, first of loss and then of recovery. ?Loss and recovery of Crete. 823-960.? Early in the ninth century Crete was suddenly seized by Saracen adventurers from Spain; about the same time began the long and slow Saracen conquest of Sicily. ?Loss of Sicily. 827-878.
Advance in Italy, Dalmatia, and Greece. c. 802.? But, almost at the moment when Sicily was lost, the Imperial province in Italy was largely increased, and the Imperial influence in Dalmatia was largely restored. About the same time PeloponnÊsos was won back from the Slaves. ?Recovery of provinces in the East. 964-976.? In the latter half of the tenth century Crete was won back; so were Kilikia and part of Syria, with the famous cities of Tarsos, Edessa, and Antioch on the Orontes. ?Conquest of Bulgaria. 981-1018.? Presently Basil the Second overthrew the Bulgarian kingdom in Europe and the Armenian kingdom in Asia; the lands at the foot of Caucasus admitted the Imperial supremacy, and the Byzantine rule was carried round the greater part of the Euxine. ?Loss of Cherson. 988.? Cherson indeed was lost; the old Megarian city passed into the hands of the Russian. At the other end of the Empire, the recovery of Sicily was actually begun, and, if the Saracen was not driven out, his power was weakened in the interest of the next set of invaders. ?The Eastern Empire under Basil the Second.? Early in the eleventh century the Eastern Rome was again the head of a dominion which was undoubtedly the greatest among Christian powers, a dominion greater than it had been at any time since the Saracenic and Slavonic inroads began.

§ 3. Origin of the Spanish Kingdoms.

The historical geography of two of the three great Southern peninsulas is thus bound up with that of the Empires of which they were severally the centres. ?Position of Spain.? The case is quite different with the third great peninsula, that of Spain. There the Roman dominion, even the province which had been recovered by Justinian, had quite passed away, and it was only a small part of the land which was ever reincorporated, even in the most shadowy way, with either Empire. ?The Saracen conquest. 710-713.? Spain was now conquered by the Saracens, as it had before been conquered by the Romans, with this difference, that it had been among the longest and hardest of the Roman conquests, while no part of the Saracen dominion was won in a shorter time. But, if the Roman conquest was slow, it was in the end complete. The swifter Saracen conquest was never quite complete; it left a remnant by which the land was in the end to be won back. But the part of the land which withstood the Saracen was, as could hardly fail to be the case, the same part as that which held out for the longest time against the Roman. The mountainous regions of the North were never wholly conquered. ?Asturia 732,
united with Cantabria, 751.? Cantabria and Asturia, which had never fully submitted to the Goths, now became the seat of resistance under princes who claimed to represent the Gothic kings, and part of whose dominions bore the name of Gothia. Twenty years after the conquest, Asturia was again a Christian principality, which was presently united with Cantabria. ?Kingdom of Leon, 916.? This grew into the kingdom of Leon. ?County of Castile, 904.
Kingdom, 1033.? The great fiefs of this kingdom on its eastern and western borders, the counties of Gallicia and Castile—the last originally a line of castles against the Saracen enemy—both showed from an early time strong tendencies to separation. ?Kingdom of Navarre. 905.? Meanwhile the kingdom of Navarre grew up to the east, stretching, it must be remembered, on both sides of the Pyrenees, though by far the larger portion of it lay on their southern side. ?County of Aragon c. 760.? To the east of Navarre the small counties of Aragon and Riparanensia were the beginning of the kingdom of Aragon. ?The Spanish March. 778.? To the east again of this was the land which, after the final expulsion of the Saracens from Gaul, became part of the Carolingian Empire by the name of the Spanish March. The shiftings of territory, the unions and separations of these various kingdoms and principalities, belong to the special history of Spain. But early in the eleventh century the whole north-western part of Spain, and a considerable fringe of territory in the north-east, had been formed into Christian states. ?Beginnings of Castile and Aragon.? Among these had been laid the foundations of two kingdoms, those of Castile and Aragon, which were to play a great part in the affairs of Europe.

It will be at once seen that those among the Spanish powers which were destined to play the greatest part in later history were not among the first to take the form of separate kingdoms. ?Slow growth of the greater kingdoms.? At this stage even Castile has hardly taken the form of a distinct state. Aragon is only beginning; Portugal has not even begun. ?History of Castile and Aragon.? Of these three, Castile was fated to play the same part that was played by Wessex in England and by France in Gaul, to become the leading power of the peninsula. Aragon, when her growth had brought her to the Mediterranean, was to fill for a long time a greater place in general European politics than any other Spanish power. The union of Castile and Aragon was to form that great Spanish monarchy which became the terror of Europe. ?Portugal.? Meanwhile Portugal, lying on the Ocean, had first of all to extend her borders at the cost of the common enemy, and afterwards to become a beginner of European enterprise in distant lands, a path in which Castile and other powers did but follow in her steps.

Meanwhile the advance of the Christians was helped by the division of the Saracenic power. The Caliphates of the East and of the West fell to pieces, exactly as the Christian Empires did. The undivided Mahometan dominion in Spain was at the height of its power in the tenth century. Yet even then, amid many fluctuations, the Christian frontier was on the whole advancing in the north-west. In the north-east Christian progress was slower. ?1028.? But, early in the eleventh century, the Caliphate of Cordova broke in pieces, and out of its fragments arose a crowd of small Mahometan kingdoms at Cordova, Seville, Lisbon, Zaragoza, Toledo, Valencia, and elsewhere. It was now only by renewed invasions from Africa that the Mahometan power in Spain was kept up. But, as the Christian states are now fully formed, such mention of these African dynasties as concerns geography will come more fittingly at a later stage.

§ 4. Origin of the Slavonic States.

We left the borders of both the Eastern and the Western Empire beset by neighbours of Slavonic race, who, in the case of the Eastern Empire, were largely mingled with other neighbours of Turanian race. Of these last, Avars, Patzinaks, Khazars, have passed away; they have left no trace on the modern map of Europe. With two of the Turanian settlements the case is different. ?Bulgarians.? The settlement of the Bulgarians, the foundation of a kingdom of Slavonized Turanians south of the Danube, has been already mentioned. They still keep their place and nation, though in bondage. Another Turanian settlement to the north of the Bulgarians has been of yet greater importance in European history. ?Settlement of the Magyars or Hungarians, 895.? In the last years of the ninth century the Finnish Magyars or Hungarians, the Turks of the Byzantine writers, began to count as a power in Europe. From their seats between the mouths of the Dnieper and the Danube, they pressed eastward into the lands which had been Dacia and Pannonia. ?Great Moravia.? The Bulgarian power was thus confined to the lands south of the Danube, and Great Moravia, a name which then took in the western part of modern Hungary, fell wholly under Magyar dominion.

This settlement is one which stands altogether by itself. ?Peculiar character of the Magyar settlement.? The Magyars and the Ottoman Turks are the only Turanian settlers in Europe who have grown into permanent Turanian powers on European ground. The Bulgarians have been lost in the mass of their Slavonic neighbours and subjects, whose language they have adopted. Magyars and Ottomans still remain speaking a Turanian tongue on Aryan soil. But of these it is only the Magyars that have grown into a really European state. ?The Kingdom of Hungary.? After appearing as momentary ravagers in Germany, Italy, and even Gaul, the Magyars settled down into a Christian kingdom, which, among many fluctuations of supremacy and dependence, has remained a distinct kingdom to this day. ?Effect of its religious connexion with Rome.? The Christianity of Hungary however came from the Western Church and not from the Eastern. And this fact has had a good deal of bearing upon the history of those regions. But for this almost incidental connexion with the Old Rome, Hungary, though settled by a Turanian people, would most naturally have taken its place among the Slavonic states which fringed the dominion of the New Rome. As it has turned out, difference of religion has stepped in to heighten difference of blood, and Hungary has formed a kingdom quite apart, closely connected in its history with Servia and Bulgaria, but running a course which has been in many things unlike theirs.

The geographical results of the Magyar settlement were to place a barrier between the Northern and the Southern Slaves. This it did both directly and indirectly. The Patzinaks pressed into what had been the former Magyar territory; they appear in the pages of the Imperial geographer as a nation with whom the Empire always strove to maintain peace, as they formed a barrier against both Hungarians and Russians. ?The Russians.? This last name begins to be of importance in the ninth century. A part of the Eastern branch of the Slavonic race, they were cut off from the other members of that branch south of the Danube by these new Turanian settlements. The Magyars again parted the South-eastern Slaves from the North-western, while the Russians were still neighbours of the North-western Slaves. ?Effects of the geographical position of the Slaves.? The geographical position of these three divisions of the Slavonic race has had an important effect on European history. ?History of the South-eastern Slaves.? The South-eastern Slaves in Servia, Croatia, Dalmatia, and the neighbouring lands, formed a debateable ground between the two Empires, the Magyar kingdom, and the Venetian republic, as soon as Venice grew into a distinct and conquering state. These lands have, down to our own time, played an important, but commonly a secondary, part in history. And in later times their history has chiefly consisted in successive changes of masters. The states which they formed will have to be spoken of in connexion with the greater and more lasting powers to which they have commonly been adjuncts. ?The North-western Slaves.? The North-western Slaves appear for the most part in different degrees of vassalage or incorporation with the Western Empire. ?Bohemia, Poland.? But, besides several considerable duchies, there grew up among them the kingdoms of Bohemia and Poland, of which the latter established its complete independence of the Empire, and became for a while one of the chief powers of Europe. ?Russia.? Russia meanwhile, forming a third division, appears, in the ninth and tenth centuries, first as a formidable enemy, then as a spiritual conquest, of the Empire and Church of Constantinople. Russia had then already assumed the character which it has again put on in later times, that of the one great European power at once Slavonic in race and Eastern in faith. Russia is now fully established as an European power. The variations of its territorial extent must be traced in a distinct chapter.

§ 5. Northern Europe.

The European importance of the Scandinavian nations at this time chiefly arises from their settlements in various parts of Europe, and specially in Britain and Ireland. The three great Scandinavian kingdoms were already formed. Sweden was doing its work towards the east; the Norwegians, specially known as Northmen, colonized the extreme north of Britain, the Scandinavian earldoms of Caithness and Sutherland, together with the islands to the north and west of Britain, Orkney, Shetland, Faroe, the so-called Hebrides, and Man. They also colonized the eastern coast of Ireland, where they were known as Ostmen. And it was from Norway also that the settlers came by which the coast of France in the strictest sense, the French duchy, was cut off from the dominion of Paris to form the Duchy of Normandy. ?England and Denmark. 789-1017.? But the chief field for the energy of Denmark properly so called lay within the limits of that part of Britain which we may now begin to call England. It was during this period that the united English kingdom grew up, that the many English settlements in Britain coalesced into one English nation. And this work was in a singular way promoted by the very cause, namely, the Danish invasions, which seemed best suited to hinder it.

Up to this time the great island had been in truth, as it was often called, another world, influencing but little, and but little influenced by, any of the lands which formed part of either of the continental Empires. ?Formation of the Kingdom of England.? The English history of these times, a history which is specially connected with geography, consists of two great facts. The first is the union of all the English states in Britain into one English kingdom under the West-Saxon kings. The other is the establishment of a vague supremacy on the part of those kings over the whole island. ?West-Saxon supremacy under Ecgberht. 825-830.? The dominion established by Ecgberht was in no sense a kingdom of England. It consisted simply in a supremacy on the part of the West-Saxon king over all the princes of Britain, Teutonic and Celtic, save only the Picts, Scots, and Welsh of Strathclyde or Cumberland. The smaller kingdoms of Kent, Sussex, and Essex formed appanages for West-Saxon Æthelings; but the superiority over East-Anglia, Mercia, Northumberland, and the Welsh princes was purely external. The change of this power into an united English kingdom holding a supremacy over the whole island was largely helped by the Danish incursions and settlements. ?The Danish invasions. 789.? These incursions began in the last years of the eighth century; they became more frequent and more dangerous in the middle of the ninth; and in the latter part of that century they grew from mere incursions into actual settlements. This was the result of the great struggle in the days of the first Æthelred and his more famous brother Ælfred. ?Division between Ælfred and Guthrum. 878.? By Ælfred’s treaty with the Danish Guthrum, the West-Saxon king kept his own West-Saxon kingdom and all the other lands south of the Thames, together with western Mercia. The rest of Mercia, with East-Anglia and Deira or southern Northumberland, passed under Danish rule. ?Bernicia not Danish.? Bernicia, or northern Northumberland from the Tees to the Forth, still kept its Anglian princes, seemingly under Danish supremacy. Over the lands which thus became Danish the West-Saxon king kept a mere nominal and precarious supremacy. ?Scandinavian settlements in Cumberland.? In Scotland and Strathclyde the succession of the Celtic princes was not disturbed; but in part at least of Strathclyde, in the more modern Cumberland, a large Scandinavian population, though probably Norwegian rather than Danish, must have settled.

By these changes the power of the West-Saxon king as an over-lord was greatly cut short, while his immediate kingdom was enlarged. The dynasty which had come so near to the supremacy of the whole island seemed to be again shut up in its own kingdom and the lands immediately bordering on it. ?Second West-Saxon advance. 910-954.? But, by overthrowing the other English kingdoms, the Danes had prepared the way for the second West-Saxon advance in the tenth century. Saxon king was now the only English king, and he further became the English and Christian champion against intruders who largely remained heathen. ?Wessex grows into England.? The work of the first half of the tenth century was to enlarge the Kingdom of Wessex into the Kingdom of England. Eadward the Elder, King, not merely of the West-Saxons but of the English, extended his immediate frontier, the frontier of the one English kingdom, to the Humber. ?First submission of Scotland and Strathclyde. 923.? Wales, Northumberland, English and Danish, and now, for the first time, Scotland and Strathclyde, all acknowledged the English supremacy. ?926.? Under Æthelstan Northumberland was for the first time incorporated with the kingdom, and after several revolts and reconquests, it finally became an integral part of England, forming sometimes one, sometimes two, English earldoms. ?Cumberland granted as a fief to Scotland. 945.? Meanwhile Cumberland was subdued by Eadmund, and was given as a fief to the Kings of Scots, who commonly granted it as an appanage to their sons. ?Lothian granted to Scotland.? Meanwhile, partly, it would seem, by conquest, partly by cession, the Scottish kings became possessed of the northern part of Northumberland, under the name of the earldom of Lothian. Thus, in the second half of the tenth century, a single kingdom of England had been formed, of which the Welsh principalities, as well as Scotland, Strathclyde, and Lothian, were vassal states.

Thus the English kingdom was formed, and with it the English Empire. ?Use of the Imperial titles.? For the English kings in the tenth and eleventh centuries, acknowledging no superiority in the CÆsar either of East or West and holding within their own island a position analogous to that of the Emperors on the mainland, did not scruple to assume the Imperial title, and to speak of themselves as Emperors of the other world of Britain. The kingdom and Empire thus formed were transferred by the wars of Swegen and Cnut from a West-Saxon to a Danish king. ?Northern Empire of Cnut. 1016-1035.? Under Cnut England was for a moment the chief seat, and Winchester the Imperial city, of a Northern Empire which might fairly claim a place alongside of the Old and the New Rome. England, Denmark, Norway, had a single king, whose supremacy extended further over the rest of Britain, over Sweden and a large part of the Baltic coast. That Empire split in pieces on his death. The Scandinavian kingdoms were again separated; England itself was divided for a moment. ?The Norman Conquest. 1066-70.? The kingdom, again reunited, first passed back to the West-Saxon house, and then, by a second conquest, to the Norman. After this last revolution a division of the kingdom was never more heard of. ?England finally united by William.? William the Conqueror put the finishing stroke to the work of Ecgberht, and made England for ever one. And, by uniting England under the same ruler as Normandy, and by thus leading her into the general current of continental affairs, he gave her an European position such as she had never held under her native kings.

By the end of the eleventh century then the chief nations of Europe had been formed. The Western Empire, after many shiftings, had taken a definite shape. ?The Western Empire and the Imperial Kingdoms.? The Imperial dignity and the two royal crowns of Italy and Burgundy were now attached to the German kingdom. The Empire, in short, though keeping its Roman titles and associations, and with them its influence over the minds of men, had practically become a German power. Its history from this time mainly consists in the steps by which the German Emperors of Rome lost their hold on their Italian and Burgundian kingdoms, and of the steps by which the German dominion was extended over the Slaves to the East. ?France.? To the West the Western Kingdom has altogether detached itself from the Empire; the union of its crown with the Duchy of France has created the French kingdom and nation, with its centre at Paris, and with a supremacy, as yet little more than nominal, over a large part of Gaul. ?The Eastern Empire.? As the Western Empire has become German, the Eastern Empire has become Greek; in the early years of the eleventh century it again forms a powerful and compact state, ruling from Naples to Antioch. ?The Slavonic states.? Of the states to the north of it, Bulgaria has been reincorporated with the Empire; Servia, Hungary, Russia, have taken their definite position among the Christian powers of Europe. So have Poland and Bohemia on the borders of the Western Empire. Prussia, Lithuania, and the Finnish lands to the immediate north of them remain heathen. ?Spain.? In Spain, the Christians have won back a large part of the peninsula. Castile and Navarre are already kingdoms; Aragon, though not yet a kingdom, has begun her history. ?The Scandinavian kingdoms.? In Northern Europe, the three Scandinavian nations are clearly distinguished and firmly established. ?England and Normandy.? Within the isle of Britain the kingdoms of England and Scotland have been formed, and the union of England and Normandy under a single prince has opened the way to altogether new relations between the continent and the great island. In short, the only European powers which play a part in strictly mediÆval history which are not yet formed are Portugal and the Sicilian kingdoms.

From this point then, when most of the European powers have come into being, and when the two Roman Empires are fast becoming a German and a Greek power alongside of other powers, it will be well to change the form of our present inquiry. Thus far we have treated the historical geography of Europe as a whole, gathering round two centres at the Old and the New Rome. It will henceforth be more convenient to take the history of the great divisions of Europe separately, and to trace out in distinct chapters the changes which the boundaries of each have gone through from the eleventh century to our own time. ?Ecclesiastical geography.? But before we enter on these several national divisions, it will be well to take a view of the ecclesiastical divisions of Western Christendom, which are of great importance and which are constantly referred to in the times with which we are now concerned.