Political Opposition to Ludwig the Bavarian in The

POLITICAL OPPOSITION TO LUDWIG THE BAVARIAN IN THE

CHRONICLES OF HEINRICH VON DIESSENHOVEN, MATTHIAS VON

NEUENBERG, AND JOHANN VON VIKTRING

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Arts

Eric H. Limbach

June 2004 This thesis entitled

POLITICAL OPPOSITION TO LUDWIG THE BAVARIAN IN THE

CHRONICLES OF HEINRICH VON DIESSENHOVEN, MATTHIAS VON

NEUENBERG, AND JOHANN VON VIKTRING

BY

ERIC H. LIMBACH

has been approved for

the Department of History

and the College of Arts and Sciences by

Kevin Uhalde

Assistant Professor of History

Leslie A. Flemming

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences LIMBACH ERIC H. M.A. June 2004. History

Political opposition to Ludwig the Bavarian in the chronicles of Heinrich von

Diessenhoven, Matthias von Neuenberg, and Johann von Viktring (65 pp.)

Director of Thesis: Kevin Uhalde

This thesis:

a. Provides a summary of the political conflicts during the reign of Emperor

Ludwig the Bavarian, 1314-1347.

b. Discusses the works of chroniclers Heinrich von Diessenhoven, Matthias

von Neuenberg and Johann von Viktring, all of whom were writing during

the reign of Ludwig.

c. Introduces the concepts of rex/regnum and imperator/imperium as they

would have been understood during the early 14th century.

d. Analyzes the aforementioned chronicles in order to understand how these

concepts were used to display political opposition to Ludwig’s reign.

e. Finds a wide variance in the levels of opposition to Ludwig in the

chronicles, conditioned by outside events, including religious influence and

political necessity.

Approved:

Kevin Uhalde

Assistant Professor of History 4

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract...... 3

Introduction...... 6

Chapter 1. Historical Context ...... 9

Chapter 2. Historiography: Understanding Medieval Chronicles...... 23

Chapter 3. Rex/Regnum ...... 35

Chapter 4. Imperator/Imperium ...... 48

Conclusion ...... 59

Bibliography ...... 61 5

Romanorum Cesarum dum gesta perlegendo

Chronicas revolverem, intentus inherendo,

Hinc diu studio caput sensi gravatum.

Recreari cupiens virens adivi pratum,

Ubi flores varii visui vires dabant,

Et concentus avium auditum delectabant.

Hoc prato per spatium longinquum libens ivi,

Capitis gravedinum donec amotam scivi.

Lupold von Bebenburg, 1341 6

Introduction

This thesis will address the political opposition to Emperor Ludwig the

Bavarian in contemporary Latin chronicles, specifically those of Heinrich von

Diessenhoven, Matthias von Neuenberg and Johann von Viktring. It will concentrate on the concepts of rex/regnum and imperator/imperium. There is evidence that while all three chroniclers understood these concepts similarly, they each applied them differently in writing, according to the intensity of their opposition to the emperor. All three, at one point or another in their careers as chroniclers, were opposed to Ludwig and his policies. However, this opposition was often influenced by ambivalence over the imperial role, institutional solidarity with the papal hierarchy, or specific political concerns.

Ludwig of Wittelsbach, duke of Bavaria, was elected king of the Romans in the disputed election of 1314. He has been remembered to the present day, not in association with his imperial office, but rather with his hereditary dominion of

Bavaria. This is a direct result of Pope John XXII, who refused to confirm Ludwig’s title, not only because of the contemporary debate over spiritual or temporal primacy, but also because the pope’s sympathies were with those families who were enemies of

Ludwig and the Wittelsbach dynasty. To refer to him as Ludwig the Bavarian, then, was one way to deny his claimed imperial status. As will be seen, there were a number of other ways to make this point. Many of Ludwig’s supporters are familiar figures to modern scholars, including the influential philosophers Marsiglio of Padua 7 and William of Ockham. His main detractors are also well known, including men associated with the papal court, such as Augustinus Triumphus. Outside of the centers of Avignon and Munich, however, there was a much wider range of views, including those discussed in the final two chapters of this thesis.

The first chapter will provide the historical context for Ludwig’s reign. Given that the primary sources for this thesis are historical works, it is vital to understand the various conflicts about which they wrote. This includes the larger conflicts between

Ludwig and Friedrich of Habsburg and between Ludwig and the pope, as well as the subsidiary conflicts involving other European leaders. The second chapter deals with the challenges faced in studying medieval chronicles. This chapter will attempt to describe not only the general mindset of medieval chroniclers, but also explore the specific circumstances of the authors whose works provide the basis for this research.

The third and fourth chapters both deal with the prevalent concepts of medieval secular rulership and explore how such concepts informed the chroniclers writing about Ludwig’s reign. The subject of the third chapter is kingship, expressed in the related Latin terms rex/regnum. This, of course, was a common concept during the middle ages. However, it is still significant when examining the case of Ludwig’s reign, because it was a common title throughout Europe, with few variations.

Likewise, the fourth chapter, on imperator/imperium, will discuss the background of the medieval concept of empire, including its relation to the previous concept. This chapter will also concentrate on the chroniclers’ accounts of Ludwig’s reign, especially after his imperial coronation in 1328. In the sources, these particular 8 concepts are vital to the authors’ understanding of the putative emperor’s role. In addition, their application of these ideas to Ludwig often seems to reflect their position on the various conflicts of his reign.

All of these sources provide an interesting view of the political conflicts of the first half of the 14th century. Usually, these particular chroniclers were supporting

Ludwig’s rivals, but there are instances where they have suddenly switched to a supportive position. For clerics, whose only real method of combat was often through their writing, such statements are significant evidence. 9

1. Historical Context

This study is concerned with the disputed imperial election of 1314 and the 33- year reign of Emperor Ludwig the Bavarian that followed. This was a period of intense dynastic rivalries within the empire, and political and religious conflicts with foreign powers, most notably with the papacy. The disputed election followed the short reign of Emperor Heinrich VII von Luxemburg, which had begun with high hopes for a revival of imperial power However, barely a year after his Roman coronation in 1312, he was dead without making a substantial contribution to stability north or south of the Alps.

Following the disputed election for the Roman kingship, which stemmed from the dynastic fissures among the electors, Ludwig, a member of the Wittlesbach family and the Duke of Bavaria, and his opponent, Friedrich von Habsburg, Duke of Austria, carried out a sporadic conflict over the course of eight years. Although Ludwig eventually triumphed, he had only managed to become dominant among the imperial polities. The remainder of his reign was spent in conflict: with the Papacy, supported by the French kings, and with Robert, the Angevin King of Naples. Despite his imperial coronation at Rome, which was carried out by a rebellious faction within the city, he never clearly consolidated the title, and it was disputed until his sudden death in 1347. Around a year before his death, while Ludwig was under a papal interdict, the electors had elected the grandson of Emperor Heinrich, Charles of Luxemburg,

King of Bohemia as well as King of the Romans. Charles had been moving against 10

Ludwig at the time of the latter’s death. The history of Ludwig’s reign, then, is almost entirely composed of various conflicts, all of which provided opportunities for opposition, especially for anyone associated with the papacy or the Luxemburg and

Habsburg dynasties.

Heinrich VII, as Emperor of the Romans, ostensibly ruled lands ranging from the North Sea well into the Italian peninsula. However, he only wielded direct power over those lands controlled by his family, most notably the kingdom of Bohemia, along with other territories.1 Most of the Empire north of the Alps followed this pattern; many areas were generally controlled by dynastic houses or episcopal positions. The former included families such as the aforementioned Habsburgs,

Luxemburgs and Wittelsbachs; representing the latter, many bishops, especially in the

Rhineland, controlled their own territory in the style of the secular dynastic lords.2

Indeed, many were drawn from the ranks of these noble families, including Baldwin, both Archbishop-Elector of Trier and the brother of Emperor Heinrich VII.3

There were also a substantial number of cities that enjoyed independence from such rule; these either elected their own rulers or were dominated by various

1 The emperor also controlled a certain amount of imperial land, which provided for the means of the itinerant court. Much of this, however, was probably lost during the latter half of the 13th century. Actively utilizing such land, as well, would have been difficult during the various conflicts of the first half of the 14th century. See F.R.H. Du Boulay, Germany in the Later Middle Ages, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983), 25. 2 Norman J. G. Pounds, An historical geography of Europe 450 B.C.- 1330 A.D. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 318. [Pounds] 3 Geoffrey Barraclough, The Origins of Modern Germany) New York: Capricorn Books, [1946] 1963), 307. 11 aristocratic urban families. Such cities enjoyed a certain level of autonomy, and usually banded together for protection.4 The situation in the imperial lands south of the Alps was similar, in that the major powers were nominally independent cities.

However, extensive papal influence provided a much different political dynamic than in the German-speaking lands of the north.5 Maintaining control of Italy was vital for those who still believed in the ideas of a Roman coronation and the universal empire

(see chapter 4); however, involvement in Italy had killed Emperor Heinrich (he died of malaria while on campaign near Siena) and promised to create problems for Ludwig.

It took over a year for the electors to assemble to choose the successor to

Heinrich, finally meeting late in 1314. That year was significant even before the disputed election occurred on October 19th. Pope Clement V died, after a reign of nearly nine years, on April 20th, while Philip IV, King of France was already close to death (he died in November).6 Philip had tried, soon after Heinrich’s death the previous summer, to persuade the electors to choose his younger son, also named

Philip (the future Philip V), as the new king of the Romans, but this proposal was rejected out of hand.7 As these two were unquestionably the only European leaders capable of challenging the imperial succession, the electors were able to proceed with a minimum of foreign interference.

4 Pounds, 318. 5 John Law, “The Italian North,” in New Cambridge Medieval History (NCMH), VI, 442. 6 Johann Friedrich Boehmer, ed., Fontes Rerum Germanicarum (4 vols.) (Stuttgart 1843-1868, reprint ed. Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1969), I, 382. 7 Joachim Leuschner, Germany in the Late Middle Ages, translated by Sabine MacCormack, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1980), 108. 12

This is not to say that there was no foreign influence on the outcome of the election. For the most part, the electors broke down between the supporters of the

Habsburg candidate Friedrich, duke of Austria, while the remainder, including the

Luxemburg faction, supported Ludwig, duke of Bavaria for the office. This group had passed over Heinrich’s son, King Johann of Bohemia (also one of the electors) so as not to establish a direct hereditary link with the previous ruler.8

These two factions were divided over much more than their imperial candidate.

The Habsburgs had been trying to create a hereditary German monarchy since the reign of Emperor Rudolf in the late 13th century, and they were willing to give up numerous imperial claims to receive that. Thus, the Habsburgs were supported by the

French kings, who demanded portions of the western imperial frontier, and the

Papacy, who would be unchallenged in northern and central Italy if the emperors abandoned their claims to that territory. The Habsburgs were oriented towards the east, moving away from their older hereditary possessions in the Rhineland and Swiss

Alps and consolidating territory around the duchy of Austria, which they had held for several decades.9 For the opposition, a hereditary monarchy in the hands of the

Habsburg dynasty would detract from the Luxemburgs’ power, as well as the power of the western ecclesiastical electors. Two of these, the archbishops of Mainz and Trier, controlled territory in the Rhineland, which made them wary of French encroachments in the west. The Luxemburg family itself also held lands near France, although under

8 Peter Herde, “From Adolf of Nassau to Lewis of Bavaria, 1292-1347,” in NCMH, VI, 537. 9 Barraclough, 302. 13

Heinrich, the dynasty had acquired Bohemia as the nucleus of new eastern territories.

In addition to this larger conflict over the course of the imperial lands, there was a smaller dispute present at the election. The electoral duchy of Saxony had been contested between two branches of the ruling family, and therefore two Saxon electors arrived, each taking opposite sides in the conflict.10 It was later established that the

Saxon elector who supported Ludwig, Duke Johann, had the better claim to the elector’s role.11

The traditional coronation for one elected king of the Romans occurred at the

Marienkirche in Aachen, presided over by the Archbishop of Cologne. As Aachen was controlled by supporters of Ludwig, and the Archbishop of Cologne voted for

Friedrich, it was impossible for either to be crowned normally. Instead, Ludwig was crowned at the Marienkirche by the Archbishop of Mainz, while Friedrich’s coronation at Bonn was presided over by the Archbishop of Cologne. Both occurred on the same day, the 25th of November.12

The conflict ensuing from the dispute lasted for eight years, although very little of that time was spent in direct confrontation.13 After a minor dispute over the

10 Herde, 537. 11 Heinrich Mitteis, Die Deutsche Königswahl, (Darmstadt: Wissenschafliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969), 213. 12 Herde, 537; Heinz Thomas, Ludwig der Bayer: Kaiser und Ketzer, (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1993), 68. 13 This was partly due to unrelated events. The army of Leopold von Habsburg, Friedrich’s brother, was defeated by the Swiss Confederation at Morgarten in 1315. Ludwig was also occupied enforcing his claim on the duchy of lower Bavaria after its last duke, Rudolf, died in 1319. Affecting both, the years after 1315 saw a devastating famine affect much of Europe, which limited the ability of lords to 14

Swabian city of Esslingen ended without any resolution of the larger question, the two sides did not meet again until a battle at Mühldorf in 1322. During this conflict,

Ludwig managed to capture Friedrich, effectively ending the dispute.14 Ludwig brought the imperial insignia, kept by the Habsburg family since Albrecht had been elected king in 1298, to Munich, and sent Friedrich to the castle of Trausnitz, where he was imprisoned for the next three years.15 In 1325 Ludwig, attempting to ally the

German dynasties against the pope and French King, pardoned Friedrich and established him as co-king, a position he held until his death in 1330.

Ludwig was forced to consolidate his position among the dynasties of the

German half of the empire because he faced a severe challenge from the papacy. Pope

Clement V had died shortly before the double election; he was not replaced until 1316, when Pope John XXII assumed the title. The new Pope held that any elected king did not control the entire imperium (that is, all lands over which imperial rights were held) until he was crowned emperor in Rome. The Pope therefore assumed responsibility for the Italian half of the empire and appointed King Robert of Naples as his representative.16 During the first six years of his pontificate, John concerned himself with eliminating much of the remaining imperial structure on the Italian peninsula,

mobilize their armies. Benjamin Arnold, Princes and territories in medieval Germany, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 276; Thomas, 89, 78. 14 Leuschner, 108. 15 Gertrude Benker, Ludwig Der Bayer: Ein Wittelsbacher auf dem Kaiserthron 1282-1347, (Munich: Callwey Verlag, 1980), 17. 16 Frank Eyck, Religion and Politics in German History, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998), 212. 15 excommunicating the leading families of cities that had traditionally supported the emperor, including the Visconti leaders of Milan.17

In 1322, Ludwig, having resolved the electoral dispute, asked for recognition from Pope John. At the same time, he assumed his responsibility as king of the

Romans and appointed his own imperial vicar in Italy. This representative, Berthold von Neuffen, Count of Marstetten and Graisbach, was sent with several hundred knights to aid Milan.18 This willingness to move against papal interests in Italy led to a confrontation with Pope John, who accused Ludwig of heresy for supporting the excommunicated Visconti. Among other actions that led to conflict between Ludwig and the Pope were Ludwig’s insistence on using the title of rex and his assumption of administrative duties. In the trial against Ludwig at Avignon, Ludwig’s representative tried to discredit the Pope and force him to call a general council; this tactic was unsuccessful and Ludwig himself was excommunicated in 1324, putting the imperial lands north of the Alps under interdict.19 The Pope’s refusal to address Ludwig by his elected title of rex Romanorum, attested in the sources, has persisted into modern times.20

This situation forced Ludwig to strengthen his position among the German dynasties, leading to his deal with Friedrich in return for an alliance with the

Habsburgs. In addition, Ludwig, through his royal capacity to parcel out lands and

17 Herde, 539 18 Thomas, 128. 19 Eyck, 212. 20 Leuschner, 109. 16 titles that had fallen vacant, managed to name his son, also named Ludwig, as

Margrave of Brandenburg, one of the electoral positions. Although this action did push the Luxemburg family closer to alliance with France, Ludwig was still able to count on support from the electors, as his case against the Pope clearly strengthened their future position.21

There are two accounts of Ludwig’s expedition into Italy in 1327. The first states that Ludwig ventured south in support of his Italian allies, and only once there was he influenced to visit Rome and be crowned emperor. Others believe he intended the coronation all along. Given the natural connection of Rome with the imperial title, and that Ludwig’s policy of supporting his Italian allies would be aided if he did assume the imperial title, this was probably one of his intentions, though he may have entered Italy without a specific plan to go to Rome.

Having been excommunicated for his support of the Milanese, Ludwig first went to that city, where he was crowned with the iron crown of the Lombard kings on

May 31, 1327.22 While there, he met with representatives of the Roman government, who had revolted against King Robert of Naples and driven the papal supporter out of the city. As Ludwig’s support would help protect them from papal recriminations, they offered him an imperial coronation on behalf of the Roman people.23 There was a theoretical constitutional precedent for this, dating to the previous century: an

21 Herde, 540. 22 FRG IV, 202 23 Robert Folz, The Concept of Empire in Western Europe from the fifth to the fourteenth century, Translated by Sheila Ann Ogilvie, (New York: Harper & Row, [1953], 1969), 150. 17 emperor could be crowned as a representative of the Roman people, without a papal representative present.24

Ludwig was crowned emperor of the Romans at St. Peter’s on the 17th of

January 1328. The ceremony was carried out by two bishops loyal to the popular government of Rome, assisted by the leader of the Roman revolt, Sciarra Colonna.25

Since the coronation did not enjoy papal sanction, it was not considered binding by anyone associated with the official church hierarchy. However, Ludwig now had the imperial authority he and his allies required. Recalling the centuries-old precedent of the emperor’s prerogative to confirm a papal election, Ludwig declared John XXII as a heretic and allowed a new Pope, Nicholas V (Pietro de Corvaro) to be elected by the

Roman people.26 Ludwig was then re-crowned as emperor by the new Pope, allowing him to maintain that prior tradition.

24 H. S. Offler, “Empire and Papacy: The Last Struggle,” in Church and Crown in the Fourteenth Century, A. I. Doyle, Ed., (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2000), II.35. [Offler] Ludwig was probably also influenced in this decision by the presence in his court of the philosopher Marsiglio of Padua, an accused heretic who had fled his post at the University of Paris after finishing his Defensor Pacis, which, while largely abstract, seemed to be anti-papal and anti-monarchical. Marsiglio is still well-known as an early theorist of popular sovereignty, which allowed for the creation of an emperor by popular acclamation. See Herde, 540. 25 Thomas, 206-207. 26 Both the declaration of John XXII as heretical and the willingness of Pietro de Corvaro to be created anti-pope stem from a major theological schism within the Franciscan order. The Pope supported the official Franciscan hierarchy, which held that the poverty preached by St. Francis did not need to be enforced on the order as a whole. The opposition, known as Spirituals or the Fraticelli, claimed the absolute poverty of Christ and the apostles, and criticized those within the church who amassed wealth. Many of this group would later flee the papal court, finding refuge, by default, with Ludwig, the de facto anti-papal leader in Western Europe. Among these were the theologian William of Ockham, who became a fierce supporter of Ludwig against the 18

Soon after this, Ludwig left Rome to continue campaigning in support of his northern Italian allies. However, by the time he returned north of the Alps in 1330, many of his actions had ended in failure. His pope, Nicholas V, had recanted and reconciled himself with John XXII. His closest allies among the leading Italian dynasties had died or were negotiating greater autonomy from the imperial administration. When Ludwig heard the news that his former opponent and co-king since 1325, Friedrich von Habsburg, had died, he left Italy for good (although King

Johann of Bohemia, at the time an ally of Ludwig, did campaign briefly in northern

Italy in support of the imperial allies).27

Ludwig’s relations had soured too much with John XXII for any reconciliation before the death of the latter in 1334. His successor, Pope Benedict XII, did not have the political interests of John XXII, but was influenced enough by King Philip VI of

France so as not to concede too much to Ludwig. The emperor, for his part had also attempted to resolve the situation, but he would have been forced to give up too much to maintain his legitimacy among his noble peers.28 Throughout the German half of the empire, it seemed like public opinion was in support of Ludwig’s stand against

Benedict. During the spring of 1338, Ludwig called a Reichstag to meet at Frankfurt, intending to use this to support his anti-papal policies. The urban and knightly classes voiced their support, approving measures condemning the papal interdict against the

Pope. As the Spirituals believed their doctrine of poverty to be more correct than that of the papal hierarchy, they felt justified in considering Pope John as an unrepentant heretic. See Eyck, 212-213 and Leuschner, 111. 27 Herde, 542, and FRG I, 411. 28 Eyck, 214. 19 empire.29 The Reichstag later that year also approved a new law, that an elected rex

Romanorum did not require papal recognition. There is some evidence that the schismatic Franciscans at Ludwig’s court were involved with this.30

The electors, led by Baldwin of Trier, uncle of King Johann of Bohemia, in agreement with this sentiment (although acting more conservatively), simultaneously acted to preserve their own rights of election by declaring that the Pope had no right to oversee or confirm their selection of a new rex Romanorum.31 While the electors, who were meeting at Rhens, did not go to the lengths that the Reichstag had, they did act to increase their own power; under their declarations, the assembled electors were the most powerful authority in the empire. Ludwig, always trying to maintain a level of consensus with the other dynasties, agreed to most of this. He departed from the principle of popular sovereignty to put forth a doctrine based on a divine source for the imperial dignity.32 Many of these declarations would later be codified in the Golden

Bull of 1356, promulgated by Ludwig’s successor, Emperor Charles IV.

Throughout this period, Ludwig was still managing a system of dynastic alliances designed to advance the Wittelsbach family into as many different areas as possible. While doing this, he was often forced to cede territory to his rivals. One

29 Herde, 545. 30 See Matthias von Neuenberg: “Princeps quoque Frankenfort decretum quoddam de consilio quorundam fratrum Minorum confectum sub sigillo suo magno in quo inter alia declaravit…” FRG, IV, 212. Also see Eyck, 214. 31 Mario Krammer, Ed. “Kurfürstentag zu Rense,” in Quellen zur Geschichte deer deutschen Königswahl und das Kurfürstenkollegs, (Darmstadt: Wissecnschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972), 91. 32 Leuschner, 113. 20 particular case was that of Carinthia, a duchy south of the Habsburg domains in

Austria. After Heinrich, Duke of Carinthia, died in 1335, Ludwig authorized the transfer of the vacated duchy to the Habsburgs, per the terms of an agreement he had made with his colleague Friedrich before his death. This was challenged by the king of Bohemia, whose son was married to the duke’s daughter. However, Abbot Johann von Viktring, the chaplain of Duke Heinrich, managed the transfer into Austrian hands.33

The ramifications of this action had lasting effects. Duke Heinrich’s daughter and her Luxemburg husband kept the alpine territory of Tirol. In 1341, Ludwig annulled the marriage, intending to marry her to his own son, Ludwig, Margrave of

Brandenburg. While some of Ludwig’s supporters (notably Marsiglio of Padua and

William of Ockham) defended his actions as within the bounds of imperial law, the

Pope again intervened with a condemnation of Ludwig. This time, the Luxemburg family, represented by Archbishop-Elector Baldwin of Trier and King Johann of

Bohemia, did not support the emperor.34 As they stood to lose the most, the

Luxemburgs reacted with strong opposition to the emperor, breaking up the agreements that had been in place since the meeting at Rhens in 1338.

A new pope, Clement VI, replaced Benedict XII in 1342. Clement, the former

Cardinal Pierre Roger, had known the son of King Johann of Bohemia, Charles, when

33 FRG I, 417. 34 Herde, 547, Leuschner, 114. 21 the king’s son was growing up at the royal court in Paris.35 This personal relationship allowed Clement to exploit the rift between Ludwig and the Luxemburgs. The opening came in 1346, when Clement was able to remove Archbishop Heinrich of

Mainz, a supporter of Ludwig, from his electoral position, replacing him with Gerlach von Nassau, who was willing to support the Luxemburgs.36

Clement followed this move with another, definitive excommunication of

Ludwig, essentially giving permission to the electors, of whom the Luxemburgs controlled the majority, to depose Ludwig in favor of Charles. Charles, for his part, agreed to relinquish many of the imperial rights Ludwig had claimed in favor of the pope, except that of papal review of the election.37 As Ludwig did not agree with this action, another conflict was imminent. However, this dispute was put aside so that

Johann and Charles could go to the aid of King Phillip VI of France; both fought at

Crécy, and Johann died on the battlefield. Charles returned to the empire, and was crowned at Bonn (as in 1314, the traditional coronation site, Aachen, was controlled by supporters of Ludwig).38 However, the threatened dispute between Charles and

Ludwig was averted in 1347, when Ludwig died suddenly, leaving Charles firmly in control of the empire.

35 Thomas, 330. 36 Heinrich Schütz, “Ludwig der Bayer” in Baldwin von Luxemburg: Festschrift aus Anlass des 700. Geburtsjahres, (Mainz: Verlag der Gesellschaft für Mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte, 1985), 86. See also FRG IV, 49. 37 Herde, 549. 38 Eyck, 215. 22

Ludwig’s reign as king and emperor elicited many reactions from his contemporaries. Some have already been discussed here, especially those of his most vocal supporters. As will be seen, however, most of the sources are ambivalent regarding Ludwig. This is understandable, given that few emperors of his era did more both to advance and sabotage imperial causes. For much of his reign he wielded his power well, making alliances and aiding his own family. However, his efforts also alienated one of the most important families of the empire, which led to the final conflict he could not avoid. 23

2. Historiography: Understanding Medieval Chronicles

“Historiography is a medium dependent on its author.”1 So observes Michael

Menzel in an essay introducing a collection of sources from the reign of Ludwig of

Bavaria. This might be obvious to most, but it is also one of the major challenges to understanding the content and concepts of medieval chronicles. Their authors were not only products of the wider historical context introduced in the previous chapter, but also of their own personal lives and experiences, including their family, education, and even the places they lived while they were writing. Historians of the middle ages approached their craft with a set of philosophical and literary understandings that are entirely unfamiliar to the modern scholar. Not only did chroniclers have a much different attitude towards the past, but different ideas about the association of the past with the present.

To the seventh-century scholar Isidore of Seville, history was the subset of narrative that referred to things that had happened; the written word of another historian was all that was needed.2 However, chroniclers often have little concern for accurate representations of historical events. Far more often, medieval chroniclers saw the past as malleable. In addition, these historians saw themselves as imitators and continuers of not only the established historical traditions that had survived since

1 “Geschichtsschreibung ist ein von seinem Autor abhängiges Medium.” Michael Menzel, “Quellen zu Ludwig dem Bavaria,” Zeitschrift für Bayerische Landesgeschichte, vol 60, no. 1 (1997): 75. 2 Deborah Mauskopf Deliyannis, “Introduction,” in Historiography in the Middle Ages, Deborah Mauskopf Deliyannis, ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 3. 24 antiquity, but also the Christian history contained in the Bible. If something had been written down and survived, it attained the status of historical canon, a practice that led to numerous medieval chronicles incorporating ahistorical legends and mythical accounts into their work.

In addition, there was little acceptance of change over the course of history.

Despite the acknowledgement that change occurs (borders move, kingdoms fall), medieval chroniclers not only associated their own concepts of the present with those of the past, but also allowed themselves to be influenced by accounts of past events.3

Of course, this does mean that what chroniclers wrote about contemporary events was very much associated with what has been written about the past. In this way, history was revered as a continual source of tradition, able to inform decisions made in the present.4

This is not to say that there was no reason for the writing of history during the middle ages. Just because the past was seen as inseparable from the present does not mean that events in the present did not require explanation. Given that so many medieval chronicles are concerned with the major events and leading families throughout the empire, it may not be too far off to see a political purpose in their writing. The empire was in decline as a political entity, and clearly did not wield the same power as it had under earlier dynasties. However, this is not how the chroniclers

3 Harald Kleinschmidt, Understanding the Middle Ages, (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2000), 251. 4 Gabrielle Spiegel, The Past as Text, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997), 85. 25 of the time would have seen it. Rather, to them, while the empire may have been going through a period of conflict, many of the preexisting political ideals remained valid.5

In later chapters, this thesis will discuss the political concepts drawn from the work of three medieval chroniclers from the reign of Ludwig the Bavarian. Since the wider political and social context of the early 14th century has already been reviewed, it remains to introduce the three chroniclers whose writing will be examined. This context is evident in how they wrote, what they saw as important, and it can be related to their own political ties. All three wrote in Latin, as they were all products of the

Church’s educational system and members of the religious hierarchy. Heinrich von

Diessenhoven and Matthias von Neuenberg were both clerics and canon lawyers, and

Johann von Viktring was a Cistercian monk and later an abbot. However, each was also closely tied into the secular leadership of the Empire (Johann less than the others, due both to his remote position in Viktring, and to the general detachment of the monastic life from the mechanics of dynastic politics). All three were Germans, in that their first language was likely a dialect of German, even Johann von Viktring, who may have originally been from Lorraine, near Metz. This should not suggest, however that they saw themselves as part of a larger German nation, despite the fact that each refers to foreign rulers as if they were national leaders (e.g. Rex Francorum or Rex Anglorum).

5 D. J. A. Matthew, “Reflections on the Medieval Roman Empire,” History vol. 77, no. 3 (Oct. 1992): 370. 26

These three chroniclers also form a microcosm of the problems in studying late medieval historiography, especially within the Empire. Scholars familiar with chronicles written in Northwest Europe, from the same period, might expect to see the emergence of national chronicles, detailing the rise of a particular group of people to prominence in international affairs. To a certain extent, this is a valid expectation, and parts of these chronicles suggest such an intention. However, this is more common in vernacular chronicles, rather than the Latin chronicles studied here. These chroniclers were also influenced by earlier imperial historians of the High Middle Ages, who composed chronicles supporting the centrality of the Empire to history. Despite the preponderance of German-speakers in the imperial office and administration (and, indeed, among those who wrote these histories), this sort of history does not fall entirely under the category of national history. As is evident from the international aspect of the medieval empire, whether during this era or before it, the ideal of universal rule was still widely held.

One common method of historical writing in the late middle ages was the world history. This is closely related to the imperial histories already discussed, as many writers of world histories presented the emperor (and often the pope as well) as the culmination of history. There were some world histories, however, that did not fit into this dualistic scheme, with pope and emperor at different poles. They drew from 27 both classical authors and scriptural sources to portray history as a succession of ever more important eras, with the Christian era last and most impressive.6

Martin von Troppau was a Dominican monk from Silesia who was active in the Church during the mid-13th century. His contribution to Latin historiography was the dualistic Pope-Emperor Chronicle, in which these two great positions (a level beyond the individual men holding such offices) of the Middle Ages form an axis around which all of history revolves.7 Matthias von Neuenberg and Johann von

Viktring both consciously modeled portions of their own works on Martin and often borrowed a great deal of his material, especially when they were writing about earlier centuries. Heinrich von Diessenhoven, even though his work was derived from a slightly different tradition of ecclesiastical history closely associated with the papal court, still shows the influence of Martin’s dualistic worldview.8 Both organize their chronicles similarly, giving separate successive chapters to each Pope and Emperor.

Heinrich von Diessenhoven was a cleric from the minor nobility of southern

Germany, who studied at the University in Bologna before being appointed to a position in Beromünster (near Luzern in modern Switzerland). During the 1330s, he served as an envoy from Otto von Habsburg to the papal court in Avignon, also serving as a papal chaplain under John XXII. It was during this time that he began his

6 Rolf Sprandel, “World Historiography in the Late Middle Ages,” in Historiography in the Middle Ages, Deborah Mauskopf Deliyannis, ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 157. 7 K. Schnith, “Martin. 16. M. v. Troppau”, in Lexikon des Mittelalters, 10 vols. (Stuttgart: Metzler, [1977]-1999), 6, cols 347-348. 8 Sprandel, “World Historiography”, 157-160. 28 career as a historian. After this period, he was appointed to a position at the cathedral in Konstanz, but was forced to flee under papal interdict in 1343, returning the next year.9 His chronicle was meant as a continuation of the Historia ecclesiastica nova written by Ptolemy of Lucca, which had left off with the year 1313. Heinrich began his supplement with the Papal election of John XXII in 1316, and appropriated the divisions of Ptolemy’s chronicle.10 He would continue this work through the 1360s.

Although Heinrich had some disagreements with the papacy, particularly with

Clement VI, he was a supporter of the papal position against Ludwig. Still, he recognized the necessity of some imperial rights, provided they did not interfere with papal claims.11 He did have notable Habsburg connections, though there is little evidence of this in his writing; not only did he serve Otto von Habsburg, but his father,

Johann Truchsess von Diessenhoven, held a high position in the court of Friedrich of

Habsburg, and formed a part of the delegation that Friedrich sent to Pope John XXII in early 1322. Other members of his family served the Habsburgs as well, including several of his brothers.12 In addition, Ptolemy of Lucca, on whose work Heinrich modeled his chronicle, may have held republican sympathies, although he was a

9 “Heinrich von Diessenhoven” in Deutsches Literatur Lexikon, Bruno Berger and Heinz Rupp, eds. (Bern: Franke, 1968-), 7. col 718. 10A. Huber, “Vorrede,” in Heinricus de Diessenhoven und andere Geschichtsquellen Deutschlands im späteren Mittelalter, Johann Friedrich Böhmer, ed. Fontes Rerum Germanicarum, vol. IV. (Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta’schen Buchhandlung, 1868. Reprint ed. Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1969), xiii. 11 K. Schnith, “Heinrich, 101. H. (Truchseß) v. Diessenhoven,” in LdM, 4, cols 2090. 12 FRG I, xi-xii. 29 strong supporter of papal superiority.13 This may have also influenced Heinrich’s writing.

Matthias von Neuenberg was nearly an exact contemporary of Heinrich von

Diessenhoven, although from the Breisgau region near Freiburg. Like Heinrich, he also studied canon law in Bologna; as will be seen later, this educational experience led to some similar ideas. After leaving Bologna, Matthias held positions in Basel and

Strassburg, the latter under Bishop Berthold von Buchek, whose biography he would later write.14 As a part of this office, Matthias also participated in negotiations on behalf of Bishop Berthold at Avignon in 1335 and 1338. Through this experience,

Matthias gained much of the knowledge that would later make its way into his writings.15

Although Matthias’s chronicle (Cronica) is a continuation of Martin von

Troppau’s world history, he does not follow Martin’s organization, in which each pope and emperor were given separate chapters of their own. Instead, Matthias arranges his work chronologically by the emperors, giving the popes a subsidiary position after their corresponding secular counterpart. It appears that, despite his close association with the church hierarchy, Matthias did not intend to highlight the papal side of the conflict. He is a partisan of the Habsburg family, which is not surprising

13 Charles T. Davis, “Roman Patriotism and Republican Propaganda: Ptolemy of Lucca and Pope Nicholas III,” Speculum, vol. 50, no. 3 (July, 1975), 416-417. 14 K. Schnith, “Matthias, 6. M. v. Neuenberg,” in LdM, 6. cols 404. 15 Brunhölzl, “Matthias von Neuenberg” in Die Deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon, Wolfgang Stammler, Ed. (Berlin/ Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter and Co., 1933-1955), 5. cols 671-672. 30 given their large holdings in his native Breisgau (although it is not clear whether he had a similar close personal connection to the dynasty as Heinrich von Diessenhoven).

In Rolf Sprandel’s estimation, Matthias is a realist regarding the empire, not drawing any unnecessary attention to the state itself.16 He views Ludwig the Bavarian as conflicted. In the words of Heinz Angermeier:

In an unsurpassable way, Matthias von Neuenberg has laid out the contrast in Ludwig’s nature, as he admires and distances himself from him, comparing him to an eagle who flies long and slow, equally foolish and clever, careless and full of worries, cautious and impetuous, depressed and cheerful, cowardly and courageous, and ascends luckily through all misfortune, while his wings are already clipped.17

There is a sense that Matthias is consciously attempting to provide a neutral view of

Ludwig and the empire, without allowing too much of the contemporary conflict to affect his writing.18

Johann von Viktring, unlike the previous two chroniclers, was not a canon lawyer. Rather, he was a monk, a member of the Cistercian monastery at Viktring in

Carinthia (a province of modern Austria). He was older than either Heinrich or

16 Sprandel, “World Historiography,” 164-165. 17 “In unübertrefflicher Weise hat Mathias von Neuenberg den Gegensatz in Ludwigs Natur herausgestellt, als er ihn, zugleich bewundernd und distanziert, mit einem Adler verglich, der lange und langsam fliege, zugleich töricht und klug, achlos und sorgenvoll, träge und ungestüm, niedergeschlagen und heiter, kleinmütig und tapfer sei, in allem Unglück doch glücklich aufsteige, während ihm schon die Flügel versengt seien.” Heinz Angermeier, Das alte Reich in der deutschen Geschichte, (Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1991), 54. 18 Sprandel, “World Historiography,” 179. 31

Matthias, having been born during the 1270s.19 He may originally have been from the area of Metz, in Lotharingia, but he spent the majority of his life in the eastern parts of the Empire. Viktring was a daughter monastery (in the Cistercian manner) of the foundation at Villars in Lotharingia, where Johann probably began his career before arriving in Carinthia in the early 14th century.20 Despite the fact that he was elected abbot in 1312, Johann did not stay at Viktring his entire adult life; he was also a chaplain to several secular rulers, first accompanying King Johann of Bohemia into

Italy and then serving two successive rulers of Carinthia, Duke Heinrich and Duke

Albrecht of Austria.21 Even later, he served as chaplain to Patriarch Bertrand of

Aquilea. He also probably kept his position of abbot until his death in the 1340s.22

19 Alphons Lhotsky, “Johann von Viktring” in Europäisches Mittelalter: Aufsätze und Vorträge, Hans Wagner and Heinrich Koller, Eds. (Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1970), 132-133. 20 Some modern scholars believe that Johann’s level of education demonstrated his foreign roots, believing that he arrived in Carinthia as an adult. Johann not only quotes the bible, but he often quotes classical authors as well, especially Ovid and Sallust. See B. Schmeidler, “Johann von Viktring”, in Die Deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon, Wolfgang Stammler, Ed. (Berlin/ Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter and Co., 1933-1955), 2. cols 642-643. Also see FRG I, 414. 21 Johann came to the service of Duke Heinrich in 1334. After Heinrich’s death, he served the new overlord of Carinthia, Duke Albrecht “Johann von Viktring” in Deutsches Literatur Lexikon, Bruno Berger and Heinz Rupp, eds. (Bern: Franke, 1968-), 8. cols 642-643. and “Johann von Viktring, 1. Leben”, in LdM, 5. cols 519, and H. Dopsch, “Heinrich, 54. H. VI., Hzg. v. Kärnten und Gf. v. Tirol” in LdM, 4. cols 2070-2071. 22 Alphons Lhotsky placed Johann’s probable death in 1345 (although he has no direct evidence), while Werner Goez lists it in 1347. One explanation for the later date is that his successor as abbot, Nikolaus, was vested on 31. October, 1347. Lhotsky, 133, Werner Goez, Translatio Imperii, (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1958), 211, and Schmeidler, 2. cols 638-639. 32

Johann’s universal historical pretensions can be seen in the title of his major contribution to history, the Liber certarum historiarum. This was a six-volume history in the papal-imperial tradition, covering the years from 1230 to 1341.23 Much of this may have been drawn from earlier historians. Johann called his work a ‘supplement’ to these earlier chronicles; whether this truly was his intention is unclear.24 Not only does he seem better-read than his contemporaries, but his Latin is also better, showing signs of education.25 The Liber certarum historiarum begins with the Babenburg

Dukes of Austria in the mid-13th century; Johann possibly intended to create a specifically Carinthian/ Austrian history. However, it is clear by the time he begins discussing Ludwig the Bavarian that he is writing more in the style of a classic imperial history, though an imperial history with definite national, Austrian roots.26

He does have a certain loyalty to the imperial office, as well as Ludwig himself, despite his political connections to both the Luxemburg and Habsburg families.27

23 Eugen Hillenbrand, “Der Gesichtsschreiber Johann von Viktring als politischer Erzieher” in Festschrift für Berent Schweineköper, Helmut Maurer and Hans Patze, Eds. (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbeke Verlag, 1982), 438. 24 Rolf Sprandel is conflicted on this account. At one point, he states “…Johannes of Viktring wishes to name his work a subplementum [sic]. because it is intended to expand upon alia chronicalia.” Later, however, he writes, “Johann von Viktring is among the few chroniclers of the late Middle Ages who do not see themselves actually in the role of someone writing a continuation, even if he does have most of his material (as regards content) from previous sources…” Alphons Lhotsky believes that Johann was responsible for much of his own material and direction, although this was much more evident in his later works. See Sprandel, “World Historiography”, 158, 164 and Lhotsky, 138, 147. 25 H. Dopsch, “Johann. 2. Werke”, in LdM, 5. cols 519-520. 26 Naturally, this is Austria in the sense of the medieval duchy, held in the mid- 14th century by the Habsburg dynasty, rather than the modern state. 27 Sprandel, “World Historiography”, 163-164. 33

These connections were probably very helpful, especially when Johann is relating contemporary events. Some of his political ideals were influenced by the work of earlier chroniclers. From Martin von Troppau, Johann borrowed the dating of the

Carolingian-era “translatio imperii” to the year 757 (the two principals being Pope

Stephen II to Pepin).28 Johann also takes material from the 12th century chronicler

Otto von Friesing, who was closely associated with the Emperor Friedrich I. This also may have influenced his writing on contemporary issues, especially concerning the relationship between the pope and the emperor. Among Johann’s other works were a history of ancient Rome based heavily on classical historians, the Cronica

Romanorum (which suggests the advanced education he had received), a history of the monastery of Viktring, and possibly a history of Carinthia, now lost.29

Much like all three of these writers were influenced by earlier chroniclers, they, in turn, influenced others. At least four continuations had been tacked on to

Matthias’s Cronica by the late 1370s.30 This is not to say, however, that these chroniclers intended their work to be recopied and spread widely. However, there was no reason for these writers to expect that the educational level (and clerical occupation) of their readers would differ much from their own.

This brings up one final point on the subject of medieval chronicles: the status of the intended audience. All three of the chroniclers studied here were members of the church hierarchy who wrote their works in Latin. In an era when vernacular

28 Goez, 211. 29 Scmeidler, col. 641. 30 Brunhölzl, col 672. 34 historical writing (which appealed to the nobility) was already widespread, it is most likely that their primary audience would have been men like themselves: educated clerics, whether secular (canon lawyers like Heinrich or Matthias) or ordered (monks like Johann). Regardless of the particulars, each reader or listener would be encountering the text in a language other than their first. This raises some questions of linguistic choice that will be studied further in subsequent chapters. 35

3. Rex/regnum

For much of 14th century Europe, rule by king (rex) was the standard form of government. Outside of the German speaking principalities of central Europe, sovereign states generally were considered kingdoms (regna). This applied whether the state was home to an established native monarchy (such as France or England) or a constitutional monarchy occupied by foreign dynasts (Bohemia or Sicily, for example). It was also normally used for an elected but uncrowned emperor. This concept of government had ancient roots (theoretically dating among Western

Europeans to the Roman period), and like other noble titles, such as dux or comitatus, it is common in the sources. The concept was not necessarily linked with hereditary inheritance, although in many states this was becoming increasingly the norm. Some kings were elected, most notably the king of the Romans, as a precursor to his receiving the imperial title. In the sources looked at here, it is the most common term for a head of state, associated with significant power and prestige.

Like nearly all medieval writers before them, the chroniclers of the 14th century were dependent on classical authors. Among the Romans prior to the establishment of the empire, rex referred almost exclusively to foreign leaders, as it was associated with despotism and servitude. Regnum, as well, was considered the antithesis of the concept of libertas.1 Even during the imperial period, regnum was

1 Werner Suerbaum, Vom Antiken zum Frühmittelalterlichen Staatsbegriff, (Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1977), 38. 36 rarely used to describe the Roman state; principatus being more common.2 The common Roman concept of imperium will, of course, be considered later.

During the later imperial period, the roots of the medieval concept rex/ regnum appear in Roman descriptions of the Germanic peoples of Northern Europe. Because these groups did not have the developed republican system that Roman writers were familiar with, their forms of leadership were considered to fall under the category of regnum.3 This demonstrates an evolution in the concept from prior Roman definitions, for the Germans were also considered to define the idea of libertas far better than most Romans.4 It is also during the later imperial period that the barriers between regnum and imperium begin to break down, especially in Christian writers.

This holds even in some cases where either term can refer to the imperial Roman state.5

Therefore, while Latin scholarship provided the linguistic basis for a concept of leadership, in real terms this was defined by the actions of Germanic war leaders who had established themselves in control of territory in Northern Europe. These leaders, along with their close supporters (the forerunners of the medieval nobility) were responsible for associating both rex and regere with their forms of government.

This root of the medieval concept of rex cannot be overlooked. Even during the 14th

2 Suerbaum, 90. 3 Suerbaum, 92ff. 4 Suerbaum, 93 and Otto Brunner, Werner Conze and Reinhart Koselleck, Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe; historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, (Stuttgart: E. Klett, 1972-1990), IV, 145. 5 Suerbaum, 116, 142, 272. 37 century, chroniclers continued to use regal titles that had persisted since late antiquity.

Some of these stemmed from the custom of many distinct Germanic populations to have one overall leader with the title rex. Even after these groups had been subsumed into sedentary populations, their leaders often maintained the ancient title.6 Early on, this was an elective office, and the rex therefore was the one chosen to rule (regere), theoretically representing his followers and peers.7

As these rulers eventually converted to Latin Christianity during the fifth and sixth centuries, their conception of rule began to take on Christian elements, most notably an increasing tendency to define their position theocratically. Adopting a divine sanction for rule was already present in late Roman times, and scholars believe that the idea entered Northern Europe by way of the imperial court at Constantinople, and the influence of Roman-educated bishops north of the Alps. This sort of language became a constant facet of medieval rulership, and, naturally, a major source of conflict with spiritual authorities. Some scholars have suggested that the increasing use of theocratic language coincided with a decline in elective rule, as leaders distinguished themselves and their families from their followers.8 However, given the persistence of rule by acclamation, especially in central Europe, these two ideas of rulership seem to have coexisted for several centuries. In the Empire, of course, elective rule of one sort or another remained in place well into the 15th century.

6 GG, VII, 197. 7 GG IV, 157. 8 Walter Ullmann, Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages, (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1966), 117. 38

Another facet of regnum that evolved over this period was its association with sovereignty. This is a continual, although not constant, process throughout the entire medieval era (and, indeed, beyond it).9 Power was gradually consolidated in fewer hands; even in the Imperial lands, where there was significant political fragmentation, this process is evident. The result of this is fewer individuals who can legitimately claim the title of rex or label their domains as regna, in proportion to the wider areas controlled. Regnum, therefore, became associated more with the extent of territory controlled than number of followers.10 In the case of the empire, sovereignty included claims to universal rule, something that will be discussed in a later chapter.

In addition, there was also a growing tendency to justify the exercise of sovereign power in legal terms, aided in the13th century by increasing numbers of political theorists.11 The increasing complexity of government often favored the employment of educated men, usually leading to the establishment of universities to serve them. These provided the theorists and philosophers places to congregate and share ideas. The translation of Aristotle’s Politics in the mid 13th century sparked a renewal of political thought that would have a major effect on the concepts of rex and regnum.12

9 Wolfgang Reinhard, “Introduction: Power Elites, State Servants, Ruling Classes and the Growth of State Power,” in Power Elites and State Building, Wolfgang Reinhard, Ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 1. 10 GG, VII, 197. 11 GG, VI, 104. 12 Joseph Canning, A History of Medieval Political Thought 300-1450, (London: Routledge, 1996), 129. 39

The situation in the 14th century intersects many of these processes. Although the political theorists of the late 13th century had provided for a major shift in how chroniclers approached their political subjects, many earlier concepts were still valid.

There was still a religious undertone to royal power, having evolved since earlier conflicts with the papacy, yet still largely undiminished over the course of the high middle ages. As the authors of the Latin chronicles were generally clerics (even when trained in law), religious facets of rex and regnum were still prevalent. However, given the conflicts of the early 14th century, even this can be seen to be changing. In part due to the religious nature of rulership, many royal lines had become hereditary; if a ruler has a divine element, then surely that is something to be passed to his children.

However, various councils still elected some reges by acclamation, including the king of the Romans, the uncrowned emperor. In many places, fundamental sovereignty was also largely unquestioned, though many conflicts erupted over opposition to royal overreaching.13 For chroniclers within the empire, though, sovereignty was nearly always being contested, whether between rival dynasties or emperor and pope, and it therefore forms a major focus of their accounts.

Most of the references in the chronicles to reges and regna refer to foreign rulers. Considering only two men within the empire (the King of Bohemia and the uncrowned emperor) had the right to refer to themselves as rex, this is not surprising.

The other references fall into two categories. The first, in a practice dating back

13 Antony Black, Political Thought in Europe 1250-1450, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 137. 40 centuries before the late middle ages, refers to reges by the name of the people they rule, while the second refers to the territory ruled. The latter is far more common, given the evolution of sovereignty discussed earlier; rulers had become so associated with the territories they controlled that the territory became the operative .

However, this has not completely forced out the tendency to name kings according to the population they rule (expressed in the genitive). Hence Heinrich von

Diessenhoven often (though not always) refers to Philip V, Charles IV or Philip VI as the rex Francorum, a title dating to late antiquity.14 Heinrich also refers to Edward II of England as Rex Anglorum, another archaic title, and mentions the coronation of

Charles of Luxemburg as rex Bohemorum in 1347.15 Matthias von Neuenberg does not use this construction when referring to France or England. Johann von Viktring uses the construction occasionally, once discussing the conflict inter regem Anglie et

Francorum, while elsewhere he mentions the rex Bohemorum.16 He is possibly influenced by his own study of ancient historians; at one point, during an account of the destruction of Italian cities by Odoacer, who sacked Rome in 476, he refers to the king as rex Rugorum.17 Going further afield, Johann does discuss the rex Ruthenorum

(Ruthenians), rex Tartarorum, and rex Granatorum (Granadans).18 This might indicate that, to Johann, this construction was more suitable to rulers from outside the

Western European circle (although, as seen above, he did occasionally use the genitive

14 FRG IV, 18, 20, 25, 33, 38. 15 FRG IV, 27, 61. 16 FRG I, 382, 397, 405 and elsewhere. 17 FRG I, 440. 18 FRG I, 438, 439. 41 for closer kings). Matthias uses the construction rarely, once when discussing the rex

Scotorum (Scots), and then again when referring to King John of Bohemia after his death at Crécy as rex Bohemie et Alamanorum.19 Use of the genitive construction is not found elsewhere in the chronicle of Matthias, nor in either of the others; the only explanation may be that King John was the son of Emperor Henry VII, who may have been known by the title rex Alamanorum, although rex Romanorum, referring to the uncrowned emperor, is much more common in the sources.20 That particular usage will be discussed further below.

The second, and far more common, mode of reference is to label rulers by the territory they control. This holds true regardless of the method of succession to the throne, or the personal origin of the ruler. Therefore, in all three chronicles can be found references to the rex Francie and rex Anglie, both native dynasties which, by the 14th century, succeeded via heredity. Some evidence of the contemporaneous conflict between these two states is included in Heinrich’s chronicle: the text of a letter to Pope Clement VI from Edward III, regis Francie et Anglie.21 Into this category would also fall Johann’s reges Castelle et Arragonie,22 as well as rex

19 FRG IV, 239, 236. 20 Matthias is also the only one of the three to use the titles rex Alemanorum or rex Alemannie, possibly suggesting some amount of French linguistic influence in his Upper Rhine homeland. 21 FRG IV, 39. 22 FRG I, 382, 439. 42

Hyspanie et Castelle (presumably Hyspanie refers to Leon) and rex Granati et

Marrochie, both in the chronicle of Matthias.23

The other widespread form of rulership, most common in Central and Eastern

Europe, was the outside dynast chosen by native nobles. The chroniclers also label these according to the territory controlled. Thus, all three refer to King Johann of

Bohemia as rex Bohemie (with the one exception noted above, in the chronicle of

Johann von Viktring).24 Charles of Anjou, king of Hungary, is also present in all three chronicles, always as rex Ungarie.25 Similarly, Robert, the Angevin king of Naples, is referred to by Johann as rex Sicilie26 and Matthias as rex Cecilie, immo Apulie once and rex Apulie elsewhere.27

It should be clear from the preceding examples that the concept of rex/ regnum, while common in the sources, only referred to a limited set of rulers. In this way, it is similar to any title used by the chroniclers, whether dux, comitatus, or episcopus, all of which occur often. However, in most of these instances, the usage is not controversial. This changes when the chroniclers discuss the imperial succession, for the traditional title for an uncrowned emperor was rex romanorum. This recalls the first, more archaic description of rex, as the leader of a specific group of people, in this case, the Romans.

23 FRG IV, 217. 24 FRG I, 381 and elsewhere, and FRG IV, 18, 197 and elsewhere. 25 FRG I, 385 and elsewhere, and FRG IV, 18, 204 and elsewhere. 26 FRG I, 382. 27 FRG IV, 214, 209 Matthias also has one reference to “Sycilie, terram Roberti regis.” FRG IV, 203. 43

Ludwig himself did not undergo a Roman coronation until the 14th year of his reign. His co-king Friedrich Habsburg was never formally crowned. The period before 1328 is significant in the sources as well; much of the conflict over the imperial title is shadowed in the varying methods of discussing both Ludwig and Friedrich.

Because Heinrich VII was the first emperor crowned in Rome since Friedrich

II in 1220, his immediate predecessors died while still only using the title rex. This fact was not lost on the chroniclers. Johann refers to rex Adolfus, of the Nassau dynasty (r. 1292-1298) and Albertus rex Romanorum of Habsburg (r. 1298-1308).28

Heinrich likewise recalls both reges, Albrecht and Adolf, when discussing their respective nephews, Friedrich Habsburg and Gerlach von Nassau.29

Outside of writing about royal predecessors, references to rex Romanorum should be found in two places in the accounts of Ludwig’s reign, during the first 14 years, and during the last year, when Charles of Luxemburg is elected as his rival.

Heinrich von Diessenhoven, who clearly opposes any concessions to the results of the

1314 election, never once refers to either Ludwig or Friedrich as rex. This is partly because Heinrich only writes a single chapter on the years 1316-1333. In his one mention of Ludwig, in the context of the trial against him at Avignon, he does not report any title.30 This continues through other parts of chronicle, though Heinrich

28 FRG I, 386, 389, 436. 29 FRG IV, 46, 49. 30 FRG IV, 16. 44 does occasionally use the title dominus for Ludwig.31 He does not use the construction rex Romanorum until discussing Charles of Luxemburg’s election in 1346, after

Ludwig’s excommunication: “Ubi predicti principes convenerunt et Karolum filium regis Bohemie in regem Romanorum elegerunt…” Afterwards, Heinrich often refers to rex vero Karolus or uses the title rex Romanorum.32 Ludwig, predictably, is still without a title at his death a year later.33 Heinrich’s treatment of Ludwig should be no surprise; he was clearly partisan, even when not directly supporting the papal position.

It is interesting that Heinrich rarely, if ever, uses the verb regere, considering that it was rather common among the other chroniclers.

Matthias von Neuenberg is slightly more liberal with the royal title. He refers to both Ludwig and Friedrich as electi Romanorum, while a short time later he writes about Friderici regis.34 However, the majority of his references to either Ludwig or

Friedrich in the period before 1322 and the battle of Mühldorf include no title for either. After this event, which settled the disputed succession, Ludwig is referred to as

Ludewico Romanorum.35 This also entitles him to the office of rex Mediolanense.36

In addition, Matthias considers the year 1327 to be the thirteenth year of Ludwig’s

31 FRG IV, 32. In an example of Heinrich clearly denying Ludwig any title, he recalls the 1341 peace between Ludwig and Philip VI of France: “De concordia inita inter regem Francie et Ludewicum…” FRG IV, 35. 32 FRG IV, 51, 54. 33 FRG IV, 61. 34 FRG IV, 181. 35 However, note that Matthias does not use rex. FRG IV, 200. 36 Milan (Lombardy), was typically an imperial possession, which crowned the king separate from his regal or imperial coronations. FRG IV, 200. 45 reign, dating to the disputed election.37 Friedrich, however, is not allowed the royal title, even though he and Ludwig technically shared the kingship after 1325; in the few instances he is mentioned by Matthias, he is referred to as the dux Austrie.38 After the election of Charles of Luxemburg, Matthias does refer to him as rex Romanorum.39

However, in his accounts of the final year of Ludwig’s life, he continues to use the same title, princeps, as he had used for Ludwig since his Roman coronation in 1328

(this will be addressed further in the next chapter).40 Unlike Heinrich, Matthias does use regere occasionally, and only in specific reference to a rex.41

In Johann von Viktring’s chronicle, he presents a still slightly different conception of rex. Like Matthias, he does occasionally refer to Friedrich Habsburg as rex. However, he continues to use this title (though hardly every time Friedrich is mentioned) up to and even after Friedrich’s death in 1330.42 Ludwig, however, does not receive a title from Johann, although he does refer to him as winning the regnum

Romanorum in battle with Friedrich.43 Johann, in his account of Ludwig’s Italian expedition, also refers to his littera regalis, confirming the office of the Count of

37 FRG IV, 202. 38 FRG IV, 203. 39 FRG IV, 239. 40 FRG IV, 240. 41 When discussing the Capetian succession to the French throne: “…Philippus pulcher rex Francie, qui regnavit tempore Clementis pape quinti…quibus Ludowico et Philippo post mortem patris regnantibus et sine prole defunctis, cum Karolus frater eorum regnaret.” FRG IV, 237. 42 “Anno domini m.ccc.xxx.iii. venit Iohannes rex Bohemie in Austriam. Et quia iam dudum consorte caruit, inter eum et Elizabeth, Friderici regis filiam…” FRG I, 413. See also references to Friedrich as rex, FRG I, 390, 393, 405. 43 FRG I, 397. 46

Tirol. Immediately after this passage is Johann’s account of the coronation of Ludwig at Milan.44 This, however, is not accompanied by any indication that Johann would begin to refer to Ludwig as rex. This is not Johann’s final word on Ludwig’s status, though. Interestingly, he does begin to occasionally refer to Ludwig as imperator, something that will be discussed in more depth in the next chapter. This particular usage only increases through the course of Johann’s sixth book, which runs from the death of Duke Heinrich of Carinthia in 1335 through Johann’s retirement from writing in 1343. Unlike the other two chroniclers, Johann obviously does not discuss the election of 1346 and the subsequent conflict between Ludwig and Charles.

The overall evidence from the chronicles, therefore, seems to point towards a bias against Ludwig, at least in the case of his role as rex Romanorum. There is a good amount of support for the widespread use of rex and regnum, when dealing with foreign leaders as well as deceased reges Romanorum. Given that members of this society seem to have placed significant importance on their titles (not only rex, but other noble titles such as dux and comitatus as well), it is conceivable that this was seen as a political statement, registering the chroniclers’ opposition to Ludwig’s claims. It is nearly impossible for the widespread omission of one single title to occur without conscious intent. Looking at the incidence of the concept of rex/regnum, though, is not nearly enough to shed light on these conflicts. Since more than half of

44 Specifically, “…in die sancto pentecostes corona ferrea coronatur.” FRG I, 403. 47

Ludwig’s reign was spent as the putative emperor, the concept of imperator/imperium also requires examination. That is the subject of the next chapter. 48

4. Imperator/imperium

Like rex/regnum, the subject of the previous chapter, the medieval concept of imperator/imperium has ancient roots. However, unlike rex/regnum, the source of this concept is clearly Roman. Indeed, even in the middle ages, the idea of Rome is inseparable from the concept of imperator/imperium; as has been already seen, even into the 14th century the Roman king was not an emperor without being crowned in the city of Rome itself. Closely tied with this was the idea at the root of Ludwig’s conflict with Pope John XXII, that the pope had the right to approve the emperor’s election before he sanctioned his coronation. However, even given this conflict, it was still necessary for Ludwig to receive a crown in Rome to be considered emperor. Even though his coronation was presided over by a schismatic monk, it is apparent from the chronicles that this was entirely necessary.

The connection with Rome gave rise to a mystical connection with the ideas of imperator/imperium during earlier parts of the middle ages. While this had largely died out by the early 14th century, it was a key facet of earlier understandings of the imperial role, with which the chroniclers would likely have been familiar. This also carries with it implications of universal rule, which were also preeminent during some parts of the middle ages. As with the mystic facet of imperator/imperium, by the period of this study, any real pretensions to universality were entirely nonexistent.

This is not to say that universality was not still closely tied to the concept in the 14th century. Rather, while it may have been a goal, it is clear that most chroniclers of the 49 time understood that this was impossible to attain. There is little mention of universality in the chronicles; though all three authors would naturally be opposed to any universal claims made by Ludwig himself, there is no sense that this sentiment is limited to contemporary events. It is clear that Ludwig was more concerned with protecting his own dynastic holdings rather than exercising any universal right to rule.

Along with universality goes the idea of imperial uniqueness, the idea that only one man can hold that particular office. Even those opposed to the emperor respected this, to the extent that they would formally depose a reigning emperor before a new one could be elected, as happened near the end of Ludwig’s life. This is obviously a major contrast with the concept presented in the previous chapter, as there is no account of any ruler termed imperator outside of Ludwig and his predecessor Heinrich von Luxemburg. Whereas use of the term rex was common within Europe (if proscribed within certain constitutional bounds), and even more common when referring to distant lands, imperator is obviously much more rare. Associated with this was the idea of a translatio imperii, which supported the transference of imperium from the Romans, to the Franks and later to other Germanic dynasties. This idea remained valid through the 14th century, attested to in a number of chronicles and political works.1 Even as ideas of the universal imperium faded away, and the prospect of a Roman coronation was often slight, this imperial uniqueness was maintained.

1 Goez, 199. See also GG III, 174. 50

The association of the empire with Rome occurred in the sources on two levels. The first recalled ancient Rome, an empire that controlled the entire known world, while the second associated Rome with the heart of the Church, whose bishop, the pope, was the most important prelate in Europe. Both of these ideas were vital to the concept of imperator/imperium and both are well attested in the sources. Like rex/regnum in the previous chapter, the terms imperator and imperium are relics of classical Rome. Before the establishment of the Roman Empire, the idea of imperium was linked to military authority. Over the course of the imperial period, though, it became associated solely with the supreme ruler, the emperor. This is the beginning of the association of imperator with absolute authority.2 The Roman empire during this period was also (for obvious reasons) closely tied to the idea of Rome as an imperial capital, which would be significant. The scale of imperial-era construction contributed to much of the mystical association with Rome during the middle ages; the city had grown and decayed over such a long period of time that it may have seemed ageless, while the ancient ruins appeared far greater than anything erected since.3

Such a mental ideal of Rome was vital to the conception of imperator/imperium during the early middle ages. This translated into a substantial political claim on Rome and Italy, even after imperium had passed to Germanic rulers.

Another key was the continuing perception that the empire, through Rome, embodied universal rule (regardless of the political realities of late antiquity). Originally, this

2 GG III, 171. 3 David Mayernik, Timeless Cities, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2003), 86. 51 was supported by Christian intellectuals who saw the Church subsuming the old imperial structure and territory.4 The empire was recognized as the leading political entity, created with the cooperation of God in order to provide structure for the rise of

Christianity.5 However, when the empire had faded away in the West, and the papacy evolved into a powerful entity in its own right, that office took over many of the particularly religious aspects of Latin Europe. Eventually, it claimed the right to bestow imperium, which it utilized in creating Charlemagne as the first Germanic imperator. From that point, the concept of imperium was a political reality, established in Western Europe and ostensibly wielding authority over all the regnae

(although its superiority was often in dispute).6 This was also where the Germanic principle of elective leadership became associated with the concept, along with the identification (discussed in the previous chapter) of an uncrowned emperor as rex

Romanorum, maintaining the Roman connection discussed earlier.

Over the course of the middle ages, through the 13th century, the concept of imperator/imperium evolved, much as rex/regnum had. The religious identification with imperium had barely survived the many conflicts with the papacy, and, much like the religious facet of rex/regnum, had lost a great deal of strength.7 The Roman ideal remained, although the imperial hold on the Italian territories had grown weaker as

4 Folz, 5. 5 Mathhew, 367. 6 GG III, 173. 7 Gabor Klaniczay. “Representations of the Evil Ruler in the Middle Ages,” in European Monarchy, Heinz Duchhardt, Richard A. Jackson and David Sturdy, Eds., (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992), 79. 52 various Italian polities began to assert their autonomy.8 These areas would remain contested even during Ludwig’s reign. This did not alter the necessity for a Roman coronation, though it became a challenge (leading to the 91 year gap between the imperial coronations of Friedrich II and Heinrich VII). In addition, in the 13th century many of the German dynasties exploited the power vacuum to extend their own power, leading to a decline in the amount of real political influence an emperor could wield.9

This also led to changes in the electoral system. Whereas reges Romanorum were elected prior to the 13th century by general acclamation of the leading nobles, by the midpoint of that century a select group had emerged as the only electors whose choice mattered.10 By the time of the disputed election, there is no indication in the sources that this development created questions of legitimacy. Part of this may have been because those elective positions that remained, half of which were ecclesiastical, allowed dynastic competition without relying too much on direct heredity.

The political chaos during the second half might have allowed the territories claimed by the medieval empire to go their separate ways under the various dynasties.

However, the pull of the older concept of imperium was too great, with its insistence on universal monarchy and political control over imperial lands north and south of the

8 Timothy Reuter, “The Medieval German Sonderweg,” in Kings and Kingship in Medieval Europe, Anne J. Duggan, Ed. (London: King’s College, 1993), 207. 9 Heinrich Mitteis, The State in the Middle Ages: A comparative constitutional history of feudal Europe, translated by H.F. Orton, (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1975), 323. 10 Benjamin Arnold, Princes and territories in medieval Germany, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 26. 53

Alps.11 Therefore, a coherent Italian strategy was vital to any rex Romanorum who wished to be crowned as imperator. This had been impossible during the dynastic conflicts of the late 13th century. This was compounded by a papacy that had successfully defended its rights against the emperors during the 13th century, while being largely co-opted by the French monarchy at the beginning of the 14th century.

Thus, the papacy was doubly opposed to any rex Romanorum unwilling to recognize the changed nature of imperium.

Therefore, among the major facets of the concept of imperium during

Ludwig’s reign were an active Italian policy, centered on a Roman coronation. The imperial connection with Rome, however tenuous in political fact, still exerted a strong pull on the minds of Ludwig, his advisors, and apparently many of his educated subjects, if the chroniclers are any indication. There was still a pretense of universality within the empire, however minor it seemed to those outside the German- speaking lands. Much of the once-strong mystical aspect of imperium had dissipated, and the emperor’s power was theoretical, as imperial authority was derived from the dignity of the office.12 However, the office still promised enough power that noble dynasties could augment their own position by holding it. This was essentially the only reason for any sort of conflict over the position of imperator.

As canon lawyers, Heinrich von Diessenhoven and Matthias von Neuenberg were probably both familiar with 12th and 13th century legal rulings regarding imperial

11 Matthew, 367. 12 Offler, 220. 54 rights, especially those that had inspired the renewed study of canon law at Bologna under Gratian. This not only included the idea that church law was superior to secular law, but that even the emperor himself was subject to both sets of laws.13 While this would raise the pope above all others, another trend in canon law supported the superiority of general councils over any individual ruling, even one established by the pope.14 Early in his conflict with the papacy, Ludwig had called upon this principle, especially when it became obvious that Pope John XXII was moving against him for political reasons.

Heinrich clearly would not have even recognized Ludwig’s right to call for a council. Throughout Ludwig’s reign, Heinrich never referred to Ludwig by any title other than dominus (a generic term for nobility), though he occasionally used the papal-approved Ludewicus de Bawarie.15 When it was necessary to distinguish

Ludwig from others, Heinrich relied on several formulaic constructions to refer to

Ludwig’s assumed title. These included: “Ludewicus, qui se imperatorem intytulebat…”;16 “Ludewicus qui se imperatorem appellabat…”;17 and “Ludewicus, qui se gerebat pro imperatore…”18 Heinrich also includes a letter written by Ludwig to Clement VI, soon after the latter had been elected to the papacy. Ludwig, still

13 David S. Clark, “The Medieval Origins of Modern Legal Education: Between Church and State,” American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 35 (1987), 677-678. 14 W. M. Spellman, Monarchies 1000-2000, (London: Reaktion Books, 2001), 176. 15 FRG IV, 23, 27, 48. 16 FRG IV, 19. 17 FRG IV, 26, 46. 18 FRG IV, 36. 55 attempting to clear his name with the papal court, does not refer to his imperial title once in the letter (at least the copy that Heinrich provides). This is something to which the chronicler draws the reader’s attention.19

In the case of the imperial office, however, Heinrich clearly supports the

Luxemburgs. Although his chronicle only begins in 1316, he does refer several times to the previous emperor, Heinrich, without any qualifications.20 In addition, during the crisis at the end of Ludwig’s reign, he specifically notes how, after his election,

Charles immediately sent a delegation to pope Clement VI in order to confirm his title.

A short while later, Heinrich addresses the newly elected rex Romanorum: “O rex

Karole, tu ingressus canonice, operare ut iura imperii reformentur…”21 Given that

Heinrich’s native sympathies would have probably been with the Habsburgs (see Ch.

2), this would seem to indicate that he strongly supported the papal side of the conflict.

However, he was willing to support imperial rights that did not conflict with the pope; like Ptolemy of Lucca, whose chronicle Heinrich was continuing, he supported the placement of the spiritual hierarchy over secular lords.

The chronicle of Matthias von Neuenberg does not take the same strong political stances against Ludwig’s claims. There are still numerous examples of

Ludwig referred to as either dominus, but Matthias does use imperator more often

19 Immediately following the text of the letter, Heinrich writes: “In hac epistola Ludewicus tytulum imperialem non posuit ex humiliatione, sperans se absolutionem et compositioem posse consequi cum apostolica sede quam offendit, de quo supra.” FRG, 42-43 20 FRG IV, 20, 62. 21 FRG IV, 51. 56 than either Heinrich or Johann (prior to 1335). He is also the only chronicler studied here to use the either princeps or cesar to refer to the emperor.22 In the case of the former, it is doubtful that he intends this in the classical sense (i.e. as a synonym for imperator, as used by Augustus). Rather, it seems to be another generic title for nobility; not only does he refer to Ludowicus princeps in 1319, but among other references he discusses “…imperator et principes electors.”23 As for the title of imperator, Matthias uses it in his few references to emperor Heinrich, and in several instances regarding Ludwig.24 Matthias also provides several examples of the use of imperium in reference to the area controlled by the emperor.25

Given his extensive discussion of the designs of Friedrich against Ludwig, he was probably more familiar with the Habsburg faction. While his sympathies may have been with that dynasty, there is not enough positive evidence to be sure. In one indication of what he saw as proper imperial behavior, Matthias criticizes Charles of

Luxemburg for fleeing the battlefield of Crécy in 1346 while bearing the imperial arms.26 This may have seemed “unknightly” for someone in his position, especially after the efforts Charles and Pope Clement VI had gone through to ensure the

22 For examples of princeps, see FRG IV, 204, 226. For cesar, see FRG IV, 190, 203. 23 FRG IV, 194, 212. 24 FRG IV, 187, 211, 231. 25 FRG IV, 202. 26 FRG IV, 236. 57 election.27 Overall, however, Matthias does not seem to have any partisan leanings regarding his use of imperator.

There are two sections in the chronicle of Johann von Viktring where he uses the term imperator. Like the other two chroniclers, he does refer to Heinrich by that title.28 He also uses it for Ludwig, but unlike Matthias, he does not mix this in with other means of reference. As was seen in the previous chapter, Johann seemed to favor Friedrich von Habsburg after the disputed election, even referring to him as rex after his death, while Ludwig receives no title throughout the first 20 years of his reign. The specific point in his narrative where Johann switches from no title to imperator is the beginning of his sixth and final book, which begins with the death of

Duke Heinrich of Carinthia. From that point until the end of the chronicle in 1343

Johann uses the title imperator specifically to refer to Ludwig.29

This seems to be related to Johann’s role in the transfer of Carinthia to the

Habsburg family, despite the marriage of the heiress to a younger son of king Johann of Bohemia. Treating this territory as vacant, Ludwig had exercised his right to distribute it when he made a deal with Friedrich of Habsburg in the late 1320s. When

Duke Heinrich died, Johann, the duke’s chaplain, was involved in the negotiations. It is at this point that he begins to refer to Ludwig as imperator in his chronicle. This

27 Klaus Schreiner, “Correctio Principis,” in Frantisek Graus, Ed. Mentalitäten im Mittelalter: Methodische und Inhaltliche Probleme, (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbeke Verlag, 1987), 221. 28 FRG I, 375, 405. 29 For example: “Edwardus rex Anglie venit ad imperatorem Ludewicum” and “…imperator Ludewicus…cepit effectu operas ebullire…” FRG I, 432, 442. 58 seems significant, though it is difficult to give a specific rationale for such a switch.

Regardless, it is clear that Johann’s consideration of Ludwig underwent a very sharp change during this period.

Unfortunately, much less is clear about the chroniclers’ use of imperium/imperator than rex/regnum. This is partly due to the lack of comparative examples, as only two men during this period can technically use the imperial title.

However, this might serve as evidence for the uniqueness of the title, as discussed above, at least for those within the empire. The same goes for the universal aspect of the imperial office; given the discussion of Ludwig’s dealings with other European leaders, there is no sense that he is dealing with his political inferiors. There is also little evidence for the religious aspect of the imperial office, even in the accounts of

Ludwig’s coronation at Rome, when he made some of his most explicit statements regarding religion. Like the previous chapter, though, there does seem to be a bias against Ludwig, if more inconsistent (due to Johann’s switch after Ludwig’s imperial coronation). This is most prevalent in Heinrich’s chronicle, but it is also present in

Johann, while Matthias is more ambivalent towards the title. 59

Conclusion

The reign of emperor Ludwig was obviously a period of conflict and polarization along political and religious lines. Direct criticism is rare in these particular chronicles, limited to anecdotal evidence such as Matthias von Neuenberg’s account of Charles’ flight from the battlefield or Heinrich von Diessenhoven’s formulaic rejection of Ludwig’s imperial title. However, there are other methods to quietly oppose and discredit such figures. As outlined above, this includes denying recognition as rex or imperator, despite the clear understanding of the meaning of such concepts and their application in other instances. The intended audience for such works probably contributed to this; by the 14th century, Latin was mainly a clerical and legal language. Given that members of these groups were familiar with the church hierarchy, if not a direct part of it, it would not be surprising if chronicles like these were guilty of some bias. However, the existence of some statements supporting

Ludwig is also interesting.

In an earlier era, historians may have ascribed this to causes such as German nationalism, which has been identified as a major source of the pro-imperial events of

1338. It should be clear, though, that in at least the case of Johann von Viktring, his change of opinion was precipitated by an entirely different event, much less momentous, but personally important. Matthias’s support, even less common than

Johann’s and much more sporadic, may have been influenced by even less important events. None were entirely opposed to the imperial office; despite their occasionally 60 personal animosity towards Ludwig himself, they seemed to support his predecessor,

Heinrich. Even Matthias, critical of Ludwig’s successor, Charles, still referred to him by his elective title.

Much of the study of Ludwig’s reign has focused on partisan statements made by representatives of the major participants. While this is a good approach, and it might be the most fruitful, given that it involves much less speculation than the ideas discussed in this work. However, a comparative study of works composed outside of the direct influence of either Ludwig or the papacy can be useful. At the very least, this approach is able to reveal some interesting statements regarding the major figures of this period of conflict. 61

Bibliography

Angermaier, Heinz. Das alte Reich in der deutschen Geschichte: Studien über Kontinuitäten und Zäsuren. München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1991.

Arnold, Benjamin. Count and Bishop in Medieval Germany: A Study of Regional Power 1100-1350. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991.

Arnold, Benjamin. Medieval Germany, 500-1300: A Political Interpretation. London: MacMillan Press, 1997.

Arnold, Benjamin. Princes and Territories in Medieval Germany. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Auty, Robert, Ed. Lexikon des Mittelalters. Munich: Artemis-Verlag, 1977-.

Barraclough, Geoffrey. The Origins of Modern Germany. New York: Capricorn Books, 1963.

Battenberg, Friedrich. Herrschaft und Verfahren: Politische Prozesse im mittelalterlichen Römisch-Deutschen Reich. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995.

Benker, Gertrud. Ludwig der Bayer: Ein Wittelsbacher auf dem Kaiseerthron 1282- 1347. München: Verlag Callwey, 1980.

Berg, Dieter and Hans-Werner Goetz, Eds. Historiographia Medievalis. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1988.

Berger, Bruno and Heinz Rupp, Eds. Deutsches Literatur Lexikon. Bern: Franke, 1968-.

Black, Antony. Political Thought in Europe 1250-1450. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Böhmer, Johann Friedrich, Ed. Johannes Victoriensis und Andere Geschichtsquellen Deutshclands im Vierzehnten Jahrhundert. Fontes Rerum Germanicarum, vol. I. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta’schen Buchhandlung, 1843. Reprint ed. Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1969. 62

Böhmer, Johann Friedrich, Ed. Heinricus de Diessenhoven und andere Geschichtsquellen Deutschlands im späteren Mittelalter. Fontes Rerum Germanicarum, vol. IV. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta’schen Buchhandlung, 1868. Reprint ed. Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1969.

Brunner, Otto, Werner Conze and Reinhart Koselleck. Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe; historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. Stuttgart: E. Klett, 1972-1990.

Canning, Joseph. A History of Medieval Political Thought 300-1450. London: Routledge, 1996.

Clark, David S. “The Medieval Origins of Modern Legal Education: Between Church and State,” American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 35 (1987): 653-711.

Davis, Charles T. “Roman Patriotism and Republican Propaganda: Ptolemy of Lucca and Pope Nicholas III,” Speculum, vol. 50, no. 3 (July, 1975): 411-433.

Deliyannis, Deborah Mauskopf, Ed. Historiography in the Middle Ages. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Du Boulay, F. R. H. Germany in the Later Middle Ages. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983.

Duggan, Anne J., Ed. Kings and Kingship in Medieval Europe. London: King’s College, 1993.

Eyck, Frank. Religion and Politics in German History: From the Beginnings to the French Revolution. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: MacMillan Press Ltd., 1998.

Ferguson, Wallace. Europe in Transition 1300-1520. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1962.

Folz, Robert. The Concept of Empire in Western Europe from the Fifth to the Fifteenth Century. Translated by Sheila Ann Ogilvie. New York: J. & J. Harper Editions, 1969.

Goez, Werner. Translatio Imperii. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1958. 63

Graus, Frantisek. Mentalitäten im Mittelalter: Methodische und Inhaltliche Probleme. Vorträge und Forschungen, vol. 35. München: Jan Thorbeke Verlag Sigmaringen, 1987.

Grundmann, Herbert. Wahlkönigtum, Territorialpolitik und Ostbewegung im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert. München: Deutsch Taschenbuch Verlag, 1977.

Heers, Jacques. Parties and Political Life in the Medieval West. Trans. by David Nicholas. Europe in the Middle Ages: Selected Studies, vol. 7, ed. by Richard Vaughan. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1977.

Heyen, Farnz-Josef and Johannes Mötsch, eds. Balduin von Luxemburg. Mainz: Verlag der Gesellschaft fuur mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte, 1985.

Jones, Michael. The New Cambridge Medieval History: Vol. VI c. 1300-c. 1415. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Kern, Fritz. Die Reichsgewalt des Deutschen Königs nach dem Interregnum. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliches Buchgesellschaft, 1966.

Kleinschmidt, Harald. Understanding the Middle Ages. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2000.

Krammer, Mario, ed. Quellen zur Geschichte der deutschen Königswahl und das Kurfürstenkollegs. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972.

Kraus, Andreas. “Das Bild Ludwigs des Bayern in der bayerischen Geschichtsschreibung der Frühen Neuzeit.” Zeitschrift für Bayerische Landesgeschichte, vol 60, no. 1 (1997): 5-70.

Leuschner, Joachim. Germany in the Late Middle Ages. Europe in the Middle Ages: Selected Studies, vol. 17. Translated by Sabine MacCormack. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1980.

Matthew, D. J. A. “Reflections on the Medieval Roman Empire,” History vol. 77, no. 3 (Oct. 1992): 363-390.

Maurer, Helmut and Hans Patze, eds. Festschrift für Berent Schweineköper. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1982.

Menzel, Michael. “Quellen zu Ludwig dem Bayern.” Zeitschrift für Bayerische Landesgeschichte, vol 60, no. 1 (1997): 71-86. 64

Mayernik, David. Timeless Cities. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2003.

Mitteis, Heinrich. Die deutsche Königswahl. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969.

Mitteis, Heinrich. The State in the Middle Ages: A comparative constitutional history of feudal Europe, translated by H.F. Orton. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1975.

Nehlsen, Hermann and Hans-Georg Hermann, eds. Kaiser Ludwig der Bayer: Konflikte, Weichenstellungen und Wahrnehmung seiner Herrschaft. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2002.

Offler, Hilary Seton. Church and Crown in the Fourteenth Century. Studies in European History and Political Thought, ed. A. I. Doyle. Variorum Collected Studies Series. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2000.

Patze, Hans, Ed. Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsbewusstsein im späten Mittelalter. Vorträge und Forschungen, Band 31. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1987.

Reinhard, Wolfgang, Ed. Power Elites and State Building. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Spellman, W. M. Monarchies 1000-2000. London: Reaktion Books, 2001.

Spiegel, Gabrielle. The Past as Text. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.

Sprandel, Rolf. Chronisten als Zeitzeugen. Kollective Einstellungen und sozialer Wandel im Mittelalter, Neue Folge, Band 3. Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 1994.

Suerbaum, Werner. Vom Antiken zum Frühmittelalterlichen Staatsbegriff. Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1977.

Thomas, Heinz. Ludwig der Bayer: Kaiser und Ketzer. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1993.

Ullmann, Walter. Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1966.

Wagner, Hans and Heinrich Koller, Eds. Europäisches Mittelalter: Aufsätze und Vorträge. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1970. 65

Wilks, Michael J. The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages: The Papal Monarchy with Augustinus Triumphus and the Publicists. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, vol. 9. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1964.

Zophy, Jonathan W. An Annotated Bibliography of the Holy Roman Empire. Bibliographies and indexes in world history No. 3. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.