Traditional Elements in the Medieval German Political System

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, German modern history scholars, after comparing the developmental trajectories of the political systems of England and France during the same period, proposed the theory of the “German special path” (deutscher Sonderweg). In the more than one hundred years since, this thesis has been a hotly debated topic in German modern historiography. Especially after the 1950s, research on Prussian militarism, the authoritarianism of the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, and other topics seems inseparable from the proposition of the “German special path.” The core argument of this proposition is: in the 19th century, Germany achieved industrialization economically, yet did not embark on the path of a free society or establish a national constitution, thereby creating tensions between agriculture and industry, and between economic and political elites. This then evolved into “national socialism” (Nationaler Sozialismus), ultimately leading to the extreme “National Socialism” (Nationalsozialismus), that is, Nazism.

19世纪末20世纪初，德国近代史学者在比较同一时期英、法两国政制发展轨迹后，提出“德意志特殊道路”（deutscher Sonderweg）论。此后百余年，该论断一直是德国近代史学界热衷讨论的议题。尤其是20世纪50年代后，有关普鲁士军国主义、德意志帝国专制主义、魏玛共和国等方面的研究，似乎都离不开“德意志特殊道路”命题。该命题核心观点是：19世纪德国经济实现了工业化，却未走上自由社会和确立国家宪法的道路，因此在农业和工业之间、经济精英和政治精英之间造成紧张关系，进而演变出“国家社会主义”（Nationaler Sozialismus），最终走向极端的“民族社会主义”（Nationalsozialismus）即纳粹主义。

In 1966, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, founder of the Bielefeld School, published *German Social History from the End of the Old Reich to the Beginning of the New Reich* [n1], which epitomized his two approaches to studying German modernization: first, interdisciplinary research, and second, comparative research. From this, he argued that from the Prussian-dominated German Empire to the end of the Weimar Republic, the Empire exhibited an “antagonistic relationship between tradition and modernity.” It was precisely this antagonistic relationship that prevented Germany from following the path of modernization taken by England and France, leading instead to a structural “defect” and toward Nazism. In several monographs published thereafter, he further elaborated and refined this view, emphasizing the important role of social structure and its evolution in the historical process. Most scholars date the starting point of the “German special path” to the early formation of Prussian militarist centralized authoritarianism in the 19th century, because Prussia, in terms of political system, ran counter to the constitutional monarchies of England and France, embarking on a “special path” of militarist authoritarianism. In the 1980s, a wave of research on the Reformation swept through German academia. While conducting in-depth discussions on the background of the movement, the emergence of Christian denominations, and Martin Luther’s religious thought, scholars also focused on the German special path, pushing its starting point back to the 16th century. However, discussing the historical background of the Reformation requires further tracing back to medieval history, that is, conducting a long-term investigation.

1966年，比勒菲尔德学派创建者汉斯-乌尔里希·韦勒出版《德国现代社会史》一书，集中体现了其研究德国现代化的两种方式：一是跨学科研究，二是比较研究。由此，他认为，从普鲁士占主导的德意志帝国到魏玛共和国结束，帝国存在着“传统和现代之间的对立关系”，正是此种对立关系，才使德国未走上英法那样的现代化之路，而是有了结构上的“缺陷”，走向纳粹主义。他在此后出版的多部专著中进一步阐述和完善了此观点，强调社会结构及其演变在历史进程中的重要作用。多数学者把“德意志特殊道路”的起点定在19世纪普鲁士军国主义集权专制形成之初，因为普鲁士在政制方面与英法君主立宪政体背道而驰，走上军国主义专制“特殊道路”。20世纪80年代，德国学界掀起研究宗教改革运动的热潮，在对该运动的背景、基督教教派产生以及马丁·路德的宗教思想作深入讨论的同时，也聚焦德意志特殊道路，将其起点向前推到16世纪。但讨论宗教改革发生的历史背景，应该进一步追溯中世纪历史，即进行长时段考察。

In the early Middle Ages, Germany and France together experienced the Frankish era. German scholars believe that the Frankish period constitutes the common “prehistory” of Germany and France. However, after the dissolution of the Frankish Empire, the path taken by the German kingdom diverged significantly from that of the French kingdom. Undoubtedly, from a long-term historical perspective, the historical processes of any country or region carry their own customs. The Belgian historian François-Louis Ganshof, when discussing Western European medieval feudalism, argued that “in these countries, the rules embodying the relationship between fief and vassal were, to a large extent, regional or local customs.” To explore the “German special path,” one should sort out the historical context after the emergence of the German kingdom, summarize its distinctive characteristics and traditions compared to other regions of Europe, and thereby deeply grasp Germany’s position and influence in Europe, both historically and today. In the Middle Ages, Germany formed unique traditional elements in its political system: the system of elective kingship, the dualistic structure of church and state, and the Germanic mark system. It was precisely these three traditional elements that shaped the direction of the German political system, causing it to embark on a path different from that of England and France upon entering the modern era.

中世纪早期，德国与法国共同经历了法兰克时代。德国学者认为，法兰克时期是德意志和法兰西共同的“史前史”；然而，法兰克帝国解体后，德意志王国走过的路径与法兰西王国大相径庭。毋庸置疑，从历史长时段看，任何国家和地区的历史进程都带有自身习俗，比利时史家冈绍夫谈到西欧中世纪封建制度时认为，“在这些国家中体现封土—封臣主关系的规则，在很大程度上，都是地区性或地方性习俗”。探究“德意志特殊道路”，应该梳理德意志王国产生以后的历史脉络，总结其与欧洲其他地区的不同特点和传统，进而深刻把握历史上乃至今天德国在欧洲的地位和影响力。在中世纪，德意志在政制方面形成了独特的传统要素：选王制度、政教二元结构、日耳曼人的马尔克制，正是这三个传统要素左右着德意志政制走向，使其在进入近代后走上不同于英法的政制之路。

I. The Political Legacy of the Franks

一、法兰克政制遗产

The medieval “Germany” was a geographical concept with vague boundaries. In the German context, *deutsch* is not synonymous with *German*. *German* is not a tribal name but a geographical concept, originating from the two provinces of Germania established by Caesar west of the Rhine: Germania Superior and Germania Inferior. In *The Gallic War*, Caesar referred to all foreign peoples living in the provinces of Germania collectively as Germans. Because they spoke different languages, the Romans also called them *Barbarians*, a term usually translated in Chinese academia as “barbarians” (蛮族). Tacitus, in his *Germania*, recorded the nomadic tribes that migrated there, such as the Bavarians, Swabians, Franks, and Thuringians. Many European place names derive from the names of these migrating nomadic tribes. However, the German people (deutsch) were not a branch of the Germanic peoples; the concept of “German people” as a geographical term emerged only after the dissolution of the Frankish Empire.

中世纪的“德意志”是疆域模糊的地理概念，在德语语境中，deutsch不是German的同义词。German不是部族名称而是地理概念，源自恺撒在莱茵河以西地区设立的两个日耳曼尼亚行省：上日耳曼尼亚省和下日耳曼尼亚省。恺撒在《高卢战记》中，将居住在日耳曼尼亚省的所有异族人统称为日耳曼人。因为他们说着不同的语言，罗马人又将其统称为Babarian，国内学界通常翻译为“蛮族”。塔西佗在《日耳曼尼亚志》中记述了迁徙至此的游牧部族，如巴伐利亚、施瓦本、法兰克、图林根等，欧洲很多地名都源自迁徙定居的游牧部族名称。但是，德意志人（deutsch）并不是日耳曼人的一支，作为地理概念的“德意志人”出现是在法兰克帝国解体之后。

The Franks were a branch of the Germanic peoples, first appearing in written records in the mid-3rd century. According to the 6th-century account of Gregory of Tours in his *History of the Franks*, the Franks were a large confederation of multiple tribes who migrated from Pannonia to settle along the Rhine. According to Western scholars, compared to other tribes in the provinces of Germania at the same time, the Franks entered Gaul relatively late, had later contact with the Romans, and their civilization developed later. In the mid-5th century, the military leader Merovech of the Salian Frankish tribe expanded from Tournai in present-day Belgium, annexing other tribes. His son, Childeric I, upon succeeding as military leader, was honored as king, considered the first king of the Frankish tribal kingdom, beginning the rule of the Merovingian dynasty of the Frankish kingdom.

法兰克人是日耳曼人的一支，最早见诸文献记载是在3世纪中叶。根据6世纪图尔主教格雷戈里（Gregor von Tours）在《法兰克人史》中的记载，法兰克人是由多个部落组成的大部族，从潘诺尼亚迁徙到莱茵河畔定居。按西方学者观点，与同时期在日耳曼尼亚省的其他部族相比，法兰克人进入高卢地区时间较晚，与罗马人接触较晚，其文明发展也较晚。5世纪中叶，法兰克人萨利尔部落军事首领墨洛维希，从今天比利时境内的图尔奈向外扩张兼并了其他部落，其子希尔代里克一世（ChilderichⅠ）继任军事首领后被尊称为王，被看作法兰克部落王国第一任国王，开始了法兰克王国墨洛温王朝（Merowinger）的统治。

The kingdom established by the Franks in Gaul retained its own political traditions and social customs. First, they entered Gaul through military force, and the martial characteristics of their nomadic people were preserved for a long time. Coupled with continuous warfare in the 6th and 7th centuries, society was often in a state of chaos. The king was surrounded by armed retainers (*comitatus*), often translated in Chinese academia as “扈从” (retinue). The German historian Otto Höfler referred to the kingship of the Frankish kingdom as “retinue kingship” (Gefolgschafts-Königtum), where retainers established a relationship of subordination to the king through oaths. Second, in the newly established kingdom, the Franks maintained the basic social organizational mechanism of the Germanic peoples—the mark. Members of the mark were freemen with equal rights, which was particularly evident in the economic system: each member of the mark received a plot of land (*Huf*) and a homestead, and was protected militarily and judicially. They also enjoyed rights and obligations, participating in the assembly of freemen to decide matters concerning the mark and even the kingdom.

法兰克人在高卢建立的王国依然保持自身政治传统和社会习俗。首先，他们通过武力进入高卢，其游牧民族的军事特质长久保留下来，加之6—7世纪战事不断，整个社会经常处于混战之中。国王身边聚集着武装亲兵（comtitatus），国内学者通常将其翻译为“扈从”。德国史家赫夫勒把法兰克王国王权称为“扈从王权”（Gefolgschafts-K?nigtum），扈从通过誓言与国王建立臣属关系。其次，在新建的王国里，法兰克人保持了日耳曼人的社会基本组织机制——马尔克。马尔克成员是享有平等权利的自由人，主要在经济制度上明显体现出来，即每个马尔克成员都分得一块份地（Huf）和宅基地，并在军事和司法上得到保护，他们也都享有权利和义务，参加公民大会决定马尔克乃至王国事务。

However, as the Frankish kingdom continued to annex other tribes, the king’s power grew increasingly, while the authority of the assembly of freemen gradually weakened. The political rights of mark members became smaller and smaller, leaving only the right to personal freedom under the protection of royal power. It is evident that “protection” was an important factor in the Frankish political system and a very significant foundation for the construction of the medieval feudal political system. The German legal historian Gerhard Wesenberg argued that it was precisely based on this “protection” that the Frankish king during the Merovingian period was the king of the Franks (*rex Francorum*), not the king of the territory ruled by the Frankish kingdom (*rex Franciae*). That is to say, in the Frankish kingdom, personal rule by the king was implemented. The king’s authority relied on his household officials and retainers, who were bound to him by familial ties; they were “those in the service of the king” (*in obsequio regis*). Ganshof referred to these retainers as “free men in a state of dependence” (*ingenui in obsequio*), arguing that this gave rise to the “commendation” system (*commendation*).

然而，随着法兰克王国不断兼并其他部族，国王权力日益增强，公民大会的职权反倒逐步减弱，马尔克成员的政治权利越来越小，所剩仅仅是王权保护下的人身自由权。可见，“保护”是法兰克政制中的重要因素，也是中世纪封建政制建设非常重要的基础。德国法律史家维泽尔认为，正是基于此种“保护”，墨洛温王朝时期法兰克的国王是法兰克人的国王（rex Francorum），不是法兰克王国统治区域内的国王（rex Franciae），也就是说，在法兰克王国中实行的是国王个人统治。国王的治权依靠与其有家族关系的家臣和扈从，他们是“从属于国王”（in obsequio regis）的人。冈绍夫把扈从称为“依附于人的自由人”（ingenui in obsequio），认为由此产生了“委身制”（commendation）。

In the customary law of the Franks, “family” members included not only those related by blood or kinship but also household slaves and retainers without blood ties. These individuals could not participate in social activities as independent free persons and could not leave at will without their master’s permission. They could be given away or sold as property, had no right to decide their own actions or whereabouts, and were obliged to submit completely to the authority of the family head. Precisely because of this, they won the king’s trust, were entrusted with important tasks and granted land as rewards, and enjoyed special privileges to administer the land and the people attached to it, such as judicial power, the right to levy taxes, and even military authority.

法兰克人的习惯法中，“家族”成员不仅是指有血缘和亲缘关系的成员，还包括没有血缘关系的家奴和家臣，他们不能作为独立的自由人参与社会活动，不经主人允许不能随意离开。他们可作为财产被赠送、买卖，没有决定自己行为和去向的权利，必须完全服从家族主人支配。正因如此，他们得到国王信任，被委以重任且获得土地作为赏赐，还享有管理土地和附着在土地上的人之特许权，如司法权、征税权，甚至还有军事权。

These individuals constituted the main body of the aristocracy during the Frankish period. The French historian Duby once said, “The aristocracy was composed of the king’s confidants, who distinguished themselves in battle and obtained land in the division of spoils,” and moreover “they were linked to the king through their oath of fealty.” Marc Bloch pointed out that the meaning of “aristocracy” differed at various stages of the Middle Ages, or rather that the group denoted by the word *edel* was not entirely the same. During the Merovingian period, “the rank worthy of the title of aristocrat clearly had to possess two characteristics: first, it had to have its own legal status, capable of guaranteeing the superiority it claimed and making that superiority practically effective; second, the status had to be hereditary.” The superiority of status was reflected in the *Salic Law*: whether in terms of wergild or other respects, there were great differences between the aristocracy and other ranks.

这些人构成法兰克时期的贵族主体，法国史家杜比说过，“贵族是由国王的亲信构成，他们在战斗中表现突出，并且在战利品的瓜分中获得土地”，而且“他们是通过对国王的效忠与国王联系在一起的”。马克·布洛赫则指出，“贵族”在中世纪不同阶段含义不同，或者说edel一词所指的人群并不完全相同，墨洛温王朝时期，“配得上贵族称号的等级显然必须具备两个特点：第一，拥有自己的法律地位，能够保证其所要求的优越性，并使优越性实际有效；第二，地位必须是世袭的”。地位的优越性反映在《撒利克法典》中，无论是赔偿金还是其他方面，贵族与其他等级都有很大差异。

As the Merovingian dynasty established itself in Gaul, the Franks successively conquered other Germanic tribes. Especially amid the struggles among the various kings, the structure of the aristocracy changed. Those who served the king, particularly the mayors of the palace, gradually participated in the governance of the kingdom. The mayor of the palace was originally the person in charge of managing the servants within the royal household, but his power gradually expanded until he came to manage the affairs of the kingdom. By the mid-6th century, the mayor of the palace had become the most powerful figure in the Merovingian kingdom, giving rise to two great mayoral families in the struggles for power among the kings: Austrasia and Neustria. In 614, King Clotaire issued an edict allowing the selection of royal officials, including counts and bishops who administered local areas, from among the clan aristocrats of the family’s homeland.

随着墨洛温王朝在高卢地区站住脚，法兰克人先后征服日耳曼其他部族，尤其是在诸王争斗中，贵族结构发生变化，为国王服役的人尤其是宫相逐步参与王国统治。宫相原本是王室内负责管理奴仆的人，其权势逐渐扩大直至参与管理王国的事务。6世纪中叶，宫相成为墨洛温王朝最有势力的人，在诸王权势斗争中形成奥斯特拉西亚和纽斯特里亚两大宫相家族。614年，克洛塔尔国王颁布敕令，允许在其家族所在地的氏族贵族中选出王室官员，包括管理地方的伯爵和主教。

At the end of the Merovingian period, the mayor of the palace, Charles Martel, in order to block the Arab invasion, established a cavalry force capable of fighting. He granted land on the condition of performing cavalry service, combining the original Frankish practice of commendation with the “benefice” (*precarium*) that had already been practiced in the Roman Empire. The so-called “benefice” did not grant the commendee full ownership of the land; it merely conferred “immediate, direct control over the land, i.e., property rights in the modern sense,” a form of leasehold widely prevalent in the late Roman Empire. Commendation and leasehold together formed the basis of the fief system (*Lehnswesen*). At a time when the Roman Empire had collapsed, the Frankish kingdom was rising, and the old political system of Western Europe had lost its effectiveness while a new one had not yet been established, commendation and leasehold forged “a vast network of interpersonal relations crisscrossing all strata of society,” becoming the two most fundamental elements of Western European feudalism.

墨洛温王朝末期，宫相查理·马特为阻挡阿拉伯人入侵，建立有战斗力的骑兵队伍，以服骑兵役为条件封授土地，把法兰克人原有的委身制与早在罗马帝国就已实行的“恩地”结合在一起。所谓“恩地”并不是把土地所有权完全赐予委身者，只是获得“即时地、直接地享有对土地的控制权，即现代意义的物权”，是罗马帝国晚期广为流行的一种佃领地形式。委身制与佃领地制共同构成采邑制（Lehnswesen）的基础。在罗马帝国覆灭、法兰克王国兴起，以及西欧原有政制失去效力、新政制尚未建立之际，委身制和佃领地制铸成了“脉络纵横交错地贯穿于社会各阶层的庞大的人际关系”，成为西欧封建制两个最基本因素。

At the beginning of its founding, the Frankish kingdom began Christianization, starting with the first king, Clovis, leading 3,000 of his personal troops to convert to Christianity in 498. The Roman aristocrats of Gaul, using Christianity as a medium, merged with the Frankish aristocracy to form the aristocratic stratum of the Merovingian dynasty. In 751, Charles Martel’s second son, Pepin the Short, changed the dynasty by resolving difficulties for the Roman Church, laying the foundation for the alliance of church and state in the medieval West. After Charlemagne came to power, on the one hand he continuously expanded outward, enlarging the Frankish territory; on the other hand, he established archbishoprics, granting archbishops various secular rights to balance the power of the aristocracy in newly conquered areas, thereby fostering the power of the ecclesiastical aristocracy and forming a dual structure of church and state within the Western European feudal polity. However, regional or local differences across vast spaces were clearly manifested in the process of feudalization. In Gaul, the heartland where the Franks had established their kingdom, the feudal political system developed relatively fully. The leaders of the original Germanic tribes established vassal relationships with the king through land grants; lord-vassal relations were relatively stable, and the manorial system was gradually established. In the eastern regions later conquered by the Franks, connections between regions were not close. The original Germanic tribes, such as the Saxons, Franconians, Bavarians, and Swabians, gradually transformed into independent duchies, retaining their respective customs and original social organizations to varying degrees, and the phenomenon of the Mark system [n2] of landholding was relatively widespread. The manorial system prevalent in West Francia did not appear extensively in the eastern regions, and it was precisely in the east that the medieval German kingdom emerged.

法兰克王国在建国之初开始了基督教化，起点是498年首位国王克洛维率领三千亲兵皈依基督教。高卢地区的罗马贵族借助基督教与法兰克贵族融合，构成墨洛温王朝的贵族阶层。751年，查理·马特次子小丕平通过为罗马教会解难改换王朝，奠定了西欧中世纪政教联盟的基础。查理大帝执政后，一方面不断对外扩张，扩大了法兰克版图；另一方面设立大主教区，给予大主教各种世俗权利，以平衡新征服地区贵族权势，从而培植了教会贵族势力，在西欧封建政体中形成了政教二元结构。然而，广袤空间内的地区性或地方性差异，在封建化进程中明显体现出来。在法兰克人建立王国的大本营高卢地区，封建主义政制发展比较充分，日耳曼原各个部族的首领通过土地分封与国王建立附庸关系，封君封臣关系较为稳固，庄园制逐步确立。在法兰克人后征服的东部地区，地区之间联系不密切，原日耳曼部落如萨克森、法兰克尼亚、巴伐利亚、施瓦本等逐步转变为独立公国，不同程度保留各自习俗及原社会组织，马尔克制占有土地现象较普遍地保留下来。西法兰克盛行的庄园制未在东部地区广泛出现，而正是在东部产生了中世纪德意志王国。

II. The Elective Kingship, Difficult to Centralize

二、难以集权的选王制

In the mid-9th century, after experiencing foreign invasions and multiple internal wars, the Frankish Empire was divided into three major regions: Germania in the east, Francia in the west, and Lotharingia in the middle. In 840, the Frankish emperor Louis the Pious, following Germanic inheritance customs, divided the three regions among his three sons. In 843, the three brothers signed the Treaty of Verdun, splitting the empire into three parts. In 870, after the eldest brother and his descendants had died, the other two brothers again partitioned his kingdom at Meerssen, thereby dividing Francia into an eastern and a western kingdom. The East Frankish kingdom encompassed most of Germania and Lotharingia, including present-day Netherlands, Alsace, Frisia, the Rhineland, Lorraine, and the Lombard region of Italy, the eastern areas inhabited by Franks, Swabians, Bavarians, and Saxons, as well as the empire’s then-important city of Aachen.

9世纪中叶，法兰克帝国在经历外族入侵及国内多次战乱后形成三大区域：东部的日耳曼尼亚（Germania）、西部的法兰西亚（Francia）以及中间的洛林（Lothringen）。840年，法兰克皇帝虔诚者路易按日耳曼人的继承习俗，把三大区域分给三个儿子。843年，三兄弟在凡尔登签订条约，帝国一分为三。870年，长兄及其子嗣先后去世，另两兄弟在梅尔森再次瓜分了他的王国，由此法兰克被划分为东西两个王国。东法兰克王国涵盖了日耳曼尼亚和洛林的大部分地区，包括今天的荷兰、埃尔萨斯地区、弗里斯兰、莱茵兰、洛林和意大利的伦巴德地区，法兰克人、施瓦本人、巴伐利亚人和萨克森人居住的东部地区，以及帝国当时重要城市亚琛。

It should be emphasized that throughout the early and even middle Middle Ages, there were never fixed, clearly defined dividing lines. The boundaries were roughly the Scheldt, Saône, Meuse, and Rhône rivers, and regional affiliation depended more on the choice of the inhabitants. Puntz clearly stated that regional affiliation depended more on how close the relationship was between the people living in that area and the royal power, on whom they were loyal to and on whom they depended. Finner also believed: “The most prominent feature of Western feudalism is that political loyalty and territory were separate. What determined whom one should obey was not ‘Which country are you from?’ but ‘Who is your lord?’ — feudal relations were cross-regional.” The ruler of East Francia was Louis the German (Ludwig der Deutsche).

应该强调的是，中世纪早期乃至中期，一直都不存在固定、明确的划分界线，大致是以斯梅尔德河、索恩河、默兹河以及罗讷河为界，地区归属更多取决于居民选择。庞茨明确说道，地区归属更多取决于生活在该地区的人与王权的关系是否密切，取决于他们忠诚于谁，依附于谁。芬纳也认为：“西方封建制度最突出的特点就是政治上的忠诚和疆域是分开的。决定应该对谁服从的不是‘你是哪个国家的?’而是‘你的领主是谁?’——封建关系是跨区域的。”领有东法兰克王国的是德意志路德维希（Ludwig der Deutsche）。

The word *deutsch* (German) originates from the Old Saxon *thiod* (meaning “people, tribe”). In the late Carolingian period, the extended meaning of the word was “one who speaks this language,” referring to those within the Frankish kingdom who did not speak a Romance language, i.e., Saxons, Alemanni, Franks, Bavarians, Thuringians, and so on. Or, more precisely, “German” was a linguistic-regional concept, encompassing not only present-day Germany but also parts of northern Italy, northeastern France, the Low Countries (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg), parts of the West Slavic regions, and parts of Austria, the Czech Republic, and Poland.

deutsch（德意志）一词源于古萨克森语thiod（民族、部落之意），加洛林王朝晚期，该词的延伸意义是“讲这个语言的人”，指在法兰克王国境内不讲罗马语言的人，即萨克森人、阿雷曼人、法兰克人、巴伐利亚人及图林根人，等等。或者更确切地说，“德意志”是语言区域概念，不仅包括今天的德国，还囊括今意大利北部、法国东北部部分地区，荷兰、比利时、卢森堡等低地地区，西斯拉夫人居住的部分地区，以及奥地利、捷克和波兰的部分地区。

East Francia was a region conquered after Charlemagne. In this area, duchies were demarcated according to the territories of the various tribes, and the hereditary families were allowed to continue governing in their original manner, on the condition that they convert to Christianity and establish archbishoprics. Consequently, the traditional tribal social organizational structure of this region was relatively well preserved and possessed a considerable degree of independence. The fief system, based on lord-vassal relationships, was far less developed than in West Francia. Neither the “vassal of my vassal is not my vassal” type of layered enfeoffment structure nor the “vassal of my vassal is still my vassal” type of relatively centralized royal rule emerged.

东法兰克是查理大帝后征服的地区，该地按照各部族所在区域划定公爵领地，允许世族家族继续以原有方式治理，前提是必须皈依基督教并设立大主教区。因此，该地区传统部族社会组织结构较完好地保留了下来，且具有相当程度的独立性，而以封君封臣关系为纽带的采邑制远不如西法兰克地区充分，既未出现“我的封臣的封臣不是我的封臣”式层层分封的政体结构，也未出现“我的封臣的封臣还是我的封臣”式较为集权的王权统治。

The kingship of the East Frankish kingdom was virtually a figurehead. The power of the hereditary families continuously increased, and by the 880s, five major powers gradually emerged, each dominating a region: the Carolingian family of Franconia, which inherited the throne; the Liudolfing family of Saxony; the Welf family of Burgundy; the Karmann family of Bavaria; and the Ahalolfing family of Swabia. These formed the core of five great stem duchies (*Stammesherzogtum*).

东法兰克王国王位如同虚设，世族家族势力不断增强，直至9世纪80年代逐渐形成独霸一方的五大势力，即继承王位的弗兰克的加洛林家族、萨克森的柳多夫家族、勃艮第的韦尔夫家族、巴伐利亚的卡尔曼家族和施瓦本的阿洛芬格家族，以其为中心构成五大世族公爵领地（Stammesherzogtum）。

In November 911, after the death of the East Frankish king, the throne was not inherited by his descendants but was filled by a candidate jointly nominated by the five great dukes, with the great families of the East Frankish region thus forming a loose political confederation. It is worth noting that there was no feudal fief-holding relationship between the great duchies and the crown, or rather, there was no clear political subordination; what held the alliance together was merely the common need to resist foreign enemies. The reason was that in the early tenth century the Hungarians had driven deep into the East Frankish region. To resist this powerful invader, the German stem dukes were forced to unite, and in 919 they again elected the then most powerful duke, Duke Henry I of Saxony, as king by election, thus inaugurating the Saxon dynasty. The mid-nineteenth-century German historian Wilhelm von Giesebrecht evaluated Henry I’s election as king as marking “the beginning of a new, German kingdom”; the positivist historiographical master Georg Waitz called Henry I “the German king in the full sense, who ruled over a genuine German kingdom.” After the twentieth century, German historians generally regarded the succession of 919 as an important turning point in medieval German history: “The transfer of rule to Henry I was an important step in the transition from the East Frankish kingdom to the German kingdom.” From then on, in medieval sources, “German” gradually replaced “East Frankish,” and 919 came to be seen as the birth year of the German kingdom, a view widely accepted in German scholarship.

911年11月，东法兰克国王逝世后并未由后裔继承王位，而是由五大公爵联合推举出即位者，东法兰克地区的大家族以此种方式结成松散的政治联合体。值得一提的是，各大公国与王权之间不存在封建采邑关系，抑或可以说没有明确的政治从属关系，维系联盟只是抵御外敌的共同要求。原因在于，10世纪初匈牙利人曾长驱直入东法兰克地区，为抵御强大入侵者，德意志世族公爵不得不联合起来，于919年再次以选举方式推举当时实力最强大的萨克森公爵海因里希一世为国王，开始了萨克森王朝。19世纪中叶德国史家威廉·封·吉泽布莱希特评价，海因里希一世被选为国王标志“一个新的、德意志王国的开始”；实证主义史学大家乔治·维茨称海因里希一世是“完全意义的德意志国王，他统治着一个真正的德意志王国”。20世纪以后，德国史家普遍认为，919年王位交替是德意志中世纪历史上一个重要转捩点：“统治权转交给海因里希一世，这是从东法兰克王国向德意志王国过渡的重要一步。”自此之后，在中世纪史料中，“德意志”逐渐取代“东法兰克”，919年被视为德意志王国的诞生年，该观点在德国学界获得广泛认同。

The “German kingdom” was a political confederation composed of the Duchy of Saxony, the Duchy of Alemannia, the Duchy of Bavaria, the Duchy of Franconia, and, after its return in the 1020s, the Duchy of Lorraine; the five great duchies enjoyed equal political status. Professor Tellenbach of the University of Freiburg, in explaining the transformation of the East Frankish kingdom into the German kingdom, emphasized that although royal authority was established in the newly founded German kingdom, because the king was elected by the dukes, the dukes were not the king’s vassals; they each held important offices in the realm and played a decisive role in determining the affairs of the kingdom; they enjoyed considerable autonomy and self-governance, and a considerable degree of independence. Rabe also held that, unlike in medieval France, the Germanic political tradition and the original rights of the nobility were largely preserved in Germany, and rights were not fused with fief-holding rights; therefore, from the very beginning the king did not establish a primitive personal dependency relationship with the stem dukes as their feudal lord.

“德意志王国”是由萨克森公国、阿雷曼公国、巴伐利亚公国、弗兰克公国，以及10世纪20年代后回归的洛林公国构成的政治联合体，五大公国享有同等政治地位。弗莱堡大学特伦巴赫教授阐述东法兰克王国转变为德意志王国时强调，在新建立的德意志王国中虽然确立了国王权威，但由于国王由公爵选举产生，所以公爵不是国王的封臣，他们分别担任王室重要职务，在决定王国事务时有举足轻重的作用；他们享有相当大的自主权和自治权，有相当大的独立性。拉贝也认为，与中世纪法国不同的是，日耳曼人的政治传统和贵族的原始权利在德意志大多被保留下来，权利未与采邑权融合；因此，从一开始国王就不是作为公爵的封君与世族公爵建立原始人身依附关系的。

After ascending the throne, Henry I, with the help of the great duchies, won a major victory against the Hungarians, eliminating the threat of foreign invasion. To consolidate the Saxon dynasty’s throne, he changed the Frankish custom of dividing the inheritance among sons, designating his second son as heir, and also stipulated that the lawful heir must be elected by the dukes, proclaimed by the archbishop as “chosen by God, designated by the monarch, elected by the dukes,” acclaimed by the people, and anointed with holy oil before the altar of the cathedral. Thus the German kingdom produced its unique elective kingship. The elective kingship lacked a clear legal basis; the legitimacy of the royal heir lay in recognition by the princely nobility; the elective kingship also did not negate the hereditary succession of the royal family, so that in the Middle Ages the reigning king repeatedly designated a young son as heir, leading to repeated instances of child kings ascending the throne—for example, Otto I’s son Otto III was elected king at age six, Frederick II ascended the throne at age three, and so on.

登上王位的海因里希一世借助各大公国，在抗击匈牙利人时取得重大胜利，消除了外族入侵威胁。为巩固萨克森王朝王位，他改变了法兰克人诸子继承王位的习俗，指定次子为继承人，还规定合法继承人必须经由诸公爵选举，由大主教宣布是“由上帝选定的、君主指定的、诸公爵选举的”，接受民众的欢呼，并在大教堂圣坛前接受涂油膏礼。自此，德意志王国产生了特有选王制度。选王缺乏一定法律依据，王位继承人的合法性在于得到诸侯贵族认可；选王制也没有否定王位的家族世袭，因此在中世纪多次出现由时任国王指定幼子为王位继承人，一再上演幼儿国王登基现象，如奥托一世之子奥托三世6岁被选为国王，弗里德里希二世（Friedrich Ⅱ）3岁登基，等等。

Undoubtedly, the elective kingship was unfavorable to centralization and could only exacerbate political fragmentation. In the mid-eleventh century, the five-year-old Henry IV ascended the throne, with the Archbishop of Cologne and the Archbishop of Mainz acting as regents; they held great power and strove to expand their spheres of influence, while secular and ecclesiastical nobles also took the opportunity to plunder royal lands without restraint. After Henry IV began to rule in person at age twelve, he forcefully reclaimed royal lands, inevitably coming into sharp conflict with the nobility. At the same time, the Roman Church, having undergone reform, threw off the long-standing interference of secular power in church affairs, especially in the appointment of bishops and archbishops, and ultimately came into direct conflict with Henry IV over the appointment of the Archbishop of Milan, thereby triggering the half-century-long Investiture Controversy. In the struggle, the pope allied with the anti-royalist forces in Germany, using religious authority to excommunicate Henry IV. The German secular nobles then took the opportunity to elect another king, and received the pope’s promise to crown the new king. As a result, Henry IV was forced to submit to the pope and beg for the lifting of his excommunication. This was the first time the German ecclesiastical and secular nobility used the elective kingship to oppose royal power; election became a powerful political weapon to curb royal (imperial) power, and thereafter there were repeated instances of opposing ecclesiastical and secular princely factions electing kings, leading to situations of two or even three rival kings, as well as the emergence of “count-kings” controlled by the princes and so-called “clerical kings” manipulated by archbishops, and even the election of foreign kings who never set foot in Germany.

毋庸置疑，选王制不利于集权，只能加剧政治分裂。11世纪中叶，5岁的海因里希四世（Heinrich Ⅳ）登基，由科隆大主教和美因茨大主教摄政，他们大权在握，竭力扩大势力范围，教俗贵族也借机肆无忌惮地掠夺王室领地。海因里希四世12岁亲政后，强势收回王室领地，不可避免地与贵族发生激烈冲突。同一时期，罗马教会经过改革，摆脱了世俗权力长期以来对教会事务的干预，尤其是对主教和大主教的任命，最终因为米兰大主教任命与海因里希四世产生直接冲突，由此引发长达半个世纪之久的主教授职权之争（Investiturstreit）。在争斗中，教皇与德意志反国王势力结成联盟，利用宗教权力对海因里希四世处以绝罚。德意志世俗贵族则趁机另选国王，并得到教皇为新王施加冕礼的承诺。由此，海因里希四世不得不向教皇低头，请求解除对他的绝罚。这是德意志教俗贵族第一次利用选王制对抗王权，选王成为遏制王（皇）权的强有力政治武器，在此后多次出现相互对立的教俗诸侯结派选王的现象，形成两王并立乃至三王鼎立局面，还出现由诸侯控制选出的“伯爵国王”（Grafenk?nig），以及由大主教操纵选出的所谓“教士国王”，甚至还选出从未到过德意志的外籍国王。

The elective kingship was not only used by the German ecclesiastical and secular nobility to curb royal power but also served as a strong basis for them to demand privileges. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, the four-year-old Frederick II ascended the throne with the support of the Roman Church and the German ecclesiastical princes; he grew up under the protection of the pope and the Archbishop of Cologne, and after coming of age and ruling in person, in order to win over the ecclesiastical nobility, he issued the decree *Confoederatio cum principibus ecclesiasticis* (Alliance with the Ecclesiastical Princes). The decree stipulated that the emperor must safeguard the economic interests of the Church, grant all economic privileges to the ecclesiastical princes, and forbid anyone from building castles or founding cities against the will of the Church; it expanded the judicial authority of the ecclesiastical princes and protected their various rights over cities, including the right to mint coinage; and so on. The emperor confirmed in written law the legality of the existing rights of bishops and archbishops, forbade the establishment of new toll stations and mints in their territories, forbade free cities from accepting serfs belonging to bishops, and forbade the unrestricted payment of taxes and currency in the bishops’ cities. The decree also stipulated that the king must forbid officials and vassals in his own domain from infringing on church property, and ensure that secular forces submit to ecclesiastical penalties.

选王制不仅被德意志教俗贵族用来扼制王权，而且是他们索要特许权的有力依托。13世纪初，4岁的弗里德里希二世在罗马教会和德意志教会诸侯支持下登上王位，在教皇和科隆大主教庇护下长大，成年亲政后为了拉拢教会贵族颁布了《与教会诸侯联盟》（Confoederation cum principibus ecclesiasticis）法令。法令中写明，皇帝要维护教会的经济利益，给予教会诸侯所有经济特权，禁止任何人违背教会意愿修建城堡、建立城市；扩大教会诸侯的司法审判权，保护其控制城市的各种权利以及铸币权；等等。皇帝以成文法形式确认主教和大主教已有权利的合法性，禁止在领地设立新关卡和铸币所，禁止自治城市接受主教的依附农，禁止未加限制地在主教的城市里支付税金和货币。该法令还规定，国王必须禁止直辖区的长官和封臣侵害教会财产，确保世俗力量服从教会的处罚。

Ten years later, Frederick II’s son Henry (VII), having lost in a fierce conflict with the great secular nobles, was forced to issue the *Statutum in favorem principum* (Decree in Favor of the Princes). In this decree, the king renounced the supreme judicial authority, the right of escort, the right to mint coinage, the right to levy tolls, and the right to build castles and cities within the territorial domains of the princes; he guaranteed that coinage minted by the princes would be valid currency in the cities; he granted the princes the right to defend cities; and he required the townspeople to uphold the princes’ rights. The decree also explicitly stipulated that townspeople might not form associations or alliances on their own, and that even the king might not approve such alliances without the permission of the city’s lord. It can be seen that these two decrees not only greatly weakened royal (imperial) authority but also erected legal obstacles to the formation of alliances among the urban estate, preventing the German king from moving toward centralization.

10年之后，弗里德里希二世的儿子海因里希（七世）在与世俗大贵族激烈的冲突中失利，不得不颁布《有利于诸侯的法令》（statutum in favorem principum）。在该法令中，国王宣布放弃在诸侯邦国领地内的最高司法权、侍从权（Geleitrecht）、铸币权、征收关税权、建立城堡和城市权；保证诸侯铸造的货币在城市内有效通行；给予诸侯防御城市的权利；要求市民维护诸侯权利。法令还明确规定，市民不得擅自结成同盟或者建立联盟，如果未经城市领主许可，即使国王也不得予以认可。可见，这两个法令不仅很大程度上削弱了王（皇）权权威，而且也为市民阶层建立联盟设立法律障碍，避免德意志国王走向集权。

Nevertheless, German historians still give a positive evaluation to the two aforementioned decrees, generally regarding them as important milestones in medieval German history. They are important not because new power relations were formed in Germany, but because the new power relations were fixed in legal form. The German legal historian Wolf believes that these two decrees of the 13th century had constitutional significance: they were no longer directed at individuals, neither at individual princes nor at individual cities, but at all ecclesiastical and secular princes, and at all cities and burghers. The two decrees recognised in legal form the autonomy and self-determination of the princes, who had the right to demarcate the boundaries of their territories and set up border defences, so that the territories acquired fixed borders. The lord’s fief-right was weakened by the widespread system of land leasing within the territory, and the governance model of “to whom one is loyal, to whom one is attached” was no longer implemented within the territory. This change in the territories is called by German scholars the “territorialisation of the fief system” (Territorialisierung des Lehnswesens), because “in the late Middle Ages, the fief-right characterised by the person of the lord weakened and was unified within the territorialised system.” The territory acquired the modern concept of sovereignty (Souveränität), and the territorial state (Territorialstaat) replaced the duchy and the county.

尽管如此，德国史家仍然给予上述两个法令正面评价，普遍认为这是德意志中世纪历史上的重要里程碑，它们之所以重要，不是因为在德意志形成了新的权力关系，而是将新权力关系以法律形式确定了下来。德国法制史家沃尔夫认为，13世纪的这两项法令具有宪法意义，它们不再是针对个体，既不针对个体诸侯，也不是针对个体城市，而是面向所有教俗诸侯，以及所有城市和市民。两部法令以法律形式认可诸侯自治权和自决权，他们有权为领地划定疆界，设置边防线，从而使领地有了固定疆域，领主的采邑权因疆域内广为盛行的土地租赁制度而削弱，领地内不再实行“忠诚于谁，依附于谁”的施政模式。领地的此种变化被德国学者称为“采邑制的领土化”（Territorialisierung des Lehnswesens），因为“在中世纪晚期，以领主个人为特征的采邑权消弱了，统一在了领土化的制度中”。领地有了现代国家的主权（Souver?nit?t）概念，邦国（Territorialstaat）取代了公爵领地和伯爵领地。

The formation of the territorial state intensified the chaos of royal elections. German scholars call the period after the mid-13th century the “Great Interregnum” (Interregnum, 1254–1273). The “Great Interregnum” does not mean there was no king, but that during this period Germany repeatedly experienced chaos in royal elections, and even the English and French monarchies took the opportunity to covet the German throne. The struggle for the throne evolved into an international dispute, interwoven with territorial disputes with England and France. It was not until the 1350s that the seven prince-electors (Kurfürst) reached agreement and elected a new king. To secure the stability of his political position, the new king did not hesitate to compromise with the great nobles, and in 1356 promulgated the Golden Bull (Goldene Bulle). German scholars generally regard the Golden Bull as the first basic law of the medieval German Empire, for the first time stipulating in legal form the procedure for electing the king. First, it fixed in law the seven prince-electors entitled to elect the king: the Archbishops of Mainz, Cologne and Trier, the King of Bohemia, the Count Palatine of the Rhine, the Duke of Saxony, and the Margrave of Brandenburg. Second, it stipulated the various rights of the prince-electors: not only the right to elect the emperor, but also the right to participate in imperial legislation; the three archbishops enjoyed absolute religious authority within the German Empire; the four secular prince-electors were required to implement primogeniture; the territories of the prince-electors could not be divided by any means. Third, it established the election procedure: the Archbishop of Mainz, as Imperial Grand Chancellor, presided over the electoral process, and was required to notify all prince-electors within one month of the reigning emperor’s death, inviting them to Frankfurt to elect a new “King of the Romans.” Only after a candidate had been approved by four secular prince-electors and recognised by the three archbishop-electors could he be crowned by the Archbishop of Mainz, becoming the legitimate German king, and then receive the imperial coronation from the Roman Pope in Rome. German scholars call this an “elective monarchy” (Wahlmonarchie).

邦国制的形成加剧了选王乱象，德国学者把13世纪中叶后的一段时间称为“大空位”时期（Interregnum，1254—1273年）。“大空位”并不是没有国王，而是该阶段德意志一再出现国王选举乱象，甚至英法王权也借机觊觎德意志王位，王位之争演变为国际纠纷，与英法的领地之争交织在一起。直至14世纪50年代，7大选帝侯（Kurfürst）才达成一致，推举出新国王。新国王为了保证其政治地位的稳定，不惜向大贵族妥协，于1356年颁布《金玺诏书》（Goldene Bulle）。德国学者普遍认为，《金玺诏书》是中世纪德意志帝国第一部基本法，第一次以法律形式明文规定了国王选举程序。首先，以法律形式确定了有权选举国王的7位选帝侯：美茵茨大主教、科隆大主教、特里尔大主教、波希米亚国王、莱茵行宫的伯爵、萨克森公爵和勃兰登堡的马尔克伯爵。其次，规定了选帝侯的各项权利：不仅有权选举皇帝，还有权参与帝国立法；3个大主教在德意志帝国境内享有绝对宗教权威；4位世俗选帝侯必须履行长子继承制；选帝侯的领地不可通过任何形式被分割。再次，确定了选王程序：美茵茨大主教为帝国大首相，主持选帝程序，必须在执政皇帝逝世后一个月内通知各选帝侯，邀请他们到法兰克福选举新“罗马国王”，候选者只有经过4位世俗选帝侯同意，并经过3位大主教选帝侯认可，才能由美茵茨大主教为其施加冕礼，成为合法德意志国王，再由罗马教皇在罗马为其施行皇帝加冕礼。德国学者称之为“选帝君主制”（Wahlmonarchie）。

The Golden Bull established the election procedure in legislative form, to some extent curbing the princes’ arbitrary use of the royal election, and also protected the rights of the prince-electors in legislative form. The prince-elector’s territorial state gained complete autonomy in politics, economy, justice and military affairs, making it even more difficult to break through the long-standing multi-headed politics of Germany. The king’s power was confined to his own territorial state. In the 15th century, when England and France, centred on the monarchy, gradually overcame feudal fragmentation and entered the process of nation-state formation, the seemingly powerful Holy Roman Empire could not overcome the divisive obstacles created by the prince-electors, delaying Germany’s progress toward a unified modern state.

《金玺诏书》以立法形式确立了选王程序，某种程度上抑制了诸侯对选王的随意利用，也以立法形式保护了选帝侯的权利，选帝侯邦国在政治、经济、司法和军事上有了完全自主性，使德意志长期以来形成的多头政治更难突破，国王的权力局限在自己的邦国领地内。15世纪英法以王权为中心逐步克服封建分裂，步入民族国家进程时，貌似强大的神圣罗马帝国则无法逾越选帝侯造成的分裂障碍，延缓了德意志走向统一的近代国家之进程。

III. The Dual Mechanism of Church and State with Mutual Checks and Balances

三、相互制衡的政教二元机制

In the medieval Western Europe, the Christian Church was a factor of decisive importance, and its role in the political system had already been determined in the Frankish period. The conversion of the early Frankish king Clovis to Christianity marked the starting point of the Christianisation of medieval Western European society; the alliance between Pepin and the Roman Pope established the concept of “divine right of kings”; Charlemagne’s church policy laid the foundation for the dual political mechanism of church and state. After the dissolution of the Frankish Empire, the imperial polity disappeared again on the European continent.

中世纪西欧，基督教会是举足轻重的因素，在政制中的作用于法兰克时期就已确定。法兰克早期国王克洛维皈依基督教，是中世纪西欧社会基督教化的起点；丕平与罗马教皇结盟，确定了“君权神授”观念；查理大帝的教会政策奠定了政教二元政治机制。法兰克帝国解体后，帝国政体在西欧大陆再次消失。

When Otto I succeeded to the German throne, he faced the dual threat of internal rebellion and external invasion. Although Otto established an aristocratic ruling group centred on his family members, the family alliance did not guarantee centralised rule. To this end, Otto I inherited Charlemagne’s church policy, not only granting bishops, archbishops and secular great nobles equal rights, but more importantly, he took control of the appointment of bishops, archbishops and abbots, hoping thereby to cultivate a new force capable of restraining the great nobles. To control the church, he appointed his youngest brother Bruno as Archbishop of Cologne and granted him special privileges, including the right to fortify the city of Cologne, open markets, mint coins, and levy customs duties, making Cologne the most important city in the kingdom. By virtue of his religious authority as archbishop, Bruno effectively balanced ecclesiastical and secular political forces, stabilising the situation in the Lorraine region. Otto I found a new model in Bruno’s method of governing Lorraine, training a large number of clerics in the palace chapel and appointing them as bishops and archbishops in various regions, granting them the same judicial, customs, market and minting rights as dukes, making them agents of the crown within the territories of the various dukes. At the same time, Otto I also established monasteries in various places, granting them large tracts of land, and giving the abbots administrative and judicial authority over the lands they received. Historians call this the “Ottonian Privilege” (Ottonianum). Through the “Ottonian Privilege,” Germany established a system of imperial church (Reichskirchensystem), cultivating ecclesiastical nobles capable of contending with the secular nobility, who became an important pillar of royal rule. Otto’s church policy forged a dual political structure of church and state for Germany, laying the groundwork for long-term subsequent fragmentation.

奥托一世继位德意志国王时，面临内乱外侵双重威胁。尽管奥托建立了以家族成员为核心的贵族统治集团，但家族的联合并未保证集权统治。为此，奥托一世承袭查理大帝的教会政策，不仅给予主教、大主教和世俗大贵族同等权利，更重要的是掌握了主教、大主教和修道院院长任命权，希冀以此培植能抑制大贵族的新力量。为掌控教会，他任命最小的弟弟布鲁诺为科隆大主教并给予特许权，包括在科隆市设防、开办市场和铸币所、征收关税等，科隆成为王国最重要的城市。布鲁诺凭借大主教宗教权威，有效平衡了教会和世俗政治势力，稳定了洛林地区的局势。奥托一世从布鲁诺治理洛林的方式中找到新模式，在宫廷教堂培养大批教士，任命他们为各地主教和大主教，给予与公爵同样的司法审判权、征收关税权、开办集市权和铸币权，成为王权在各公爵领地内的代理人。与此同时，奥托一世还在各地建立修道院，赠予其大量土地，给予修道院院长对所获土地的行政管理权和司法审判权，史家称之为“奥托特恩权”（Ottonianum）。通过“奥托特恩权”，德意志建立了王国教会制度（Reichskirchensystem），培植能与世俗贵族抗衡的教会贵族，后者成为王权统治重要支柱。奥托的教会政策为德意志打造了政教二元政制结构，为此后长期分裂埋下伏笔。

In the late 950s, the Roman Church was not only embroiled in the struggles of the Roman city nobility but also faced military threats from other forces in Italy. The then Pope had no choice but to send an embassy to Otto for help. Otto saw an opportunity to extend the “Ottonian Privilege” to the Roman Church and led his army into Italy. In early 962, the Pope, having stabilised his position with Otto’s military assistance, crowned Otto in St. Peter’s Basilica according to Roman imperial tradition. Thus, Otto regarded himself as Charlemagne’s successor, calling himself Otto the Great (Otto der Große), and an empire reappeared in Western Europe—the German Empire. At the same time, an unwritten rule was established in Germany: only the German king could receive the “Roman Emperor” coronation from the Pope in Rome. Consequently, after being crowned emperor, the German king would immediately designate his son as the new king, leading to the phenomenon of “boy kings” appearing repeatedly in the Middle Ages.

10世纪50年代末期，罗马教会不仅陷入罗马城内贵族争斗中，还面临意大利其他势力武力威胁，时任教皇不得不派使团向奥托求助，奥托看到了把“奥托特恩权”推向罗马教会的机会，率军直入意大利。962年初，在奥托军事援助下稳住脚跟的罗马教皇，依据罗马帝国传统，在圣彼得大教堂为奥托戴上皇冠。由此，奥托自认为是查理大帝继承者，自称奥托大帝（Otto der Gro?e），西欧再次出现一个帝国——德意志帝国。与此同时，在德意志形成不成文的规定：只有德意志王才能在罗马由教皇施“罗马皇帝”加冕礼。因而，德意志国王在加冕为皇帝后，都立刻指定子嗣为新国王，从而在中世纪多次出现“儿国王”现象。

The Roman Pope’s original intention was to use Otto to escape the grip of the Roman city nobility, emphasising the “divine right of kings,” and that Otto’s duty should only be to protect the Roman Church. This obviously ran counter to the aims of the German monarchy, and the two sides fell out. The Pope then turned to the Byzantine emperor for help. Otto again marched into Italy, deposed the Pope and appointed his own vassal to succeed him, reiterating the “Ottonian Privilege” while adding new content: the election of the Pope required the emperor’s permission, and the newly elected Pope had to swear an oath to the emperor’s envoy, fulfilling his obligations to the emperor. Thereafter, the German emperor frequently interfered in papal appointments. In the hundred-odd years from 955 to 1057, 12 of the 25 popes of the Roman Church were installed on his recommendation, and 5 of the 13 popes recommended by the Roman nobility were deposed by him.

罗马教皇的初衷是为了借助奥托摆脱罗马城贵族的钳制，强调“君权神授”，奥托的职责只应是保护罗马教会，这显然与德意志君权的目的背道而驰，双方因此反目。教皇转而向拜占庭皇帝求援，奥托再次进军意大利，废黜教皇并指定他的封臣接任，在重申“奥托特恩权”的同时增添新内容：选举教皇时须经皇帝允许，新当选的教皇要向皇帝特使宣誓，履行对皇帝的义务。此后，德意志皇帝经常染指教皇任免，从955年到1057年百余年间，罗马教会25位教皇中有12位是其推举就任的，罗马贵族推举的13位教皇中有5位被其废黜。

In the early 10th century, the Abbey of Cluny in France, seeking to prevent interference from secular nobles, initiated a reform whose main content was the purification of monastic life. This reform not only received support from the Roman Church but also won the approval of secular monarchs, who saw in it an opportunity to curb the power of local aristocratic forces. The monastic reform movement soon spread to many parts of Western Europe, giving rise to various reform schools. In the early 11th century, Leo IX, who became pope at the appointment of the German emperor, launched reforms whose content included opposing simony, regulating clerical discipline, and establishing clerical celibacy. These reforms, especially the decree on papal elections promulgated in 1059, completely discarded the right of secular monarchs to appoint or remove popes, strengthened the independence of the Church, and also aroused the Roman Church’s lust for power.

10世纪初，法国克吕尼修道院为防止世俗贵族干预，开启以整肃修道院生活为主要内容的改革。该改革不仅得到罗马教会支持，也得到世俗君王赞同，后者从中看到了遏制地方贵族势力的契机。修道院改革运动很快波及西欧多地，形成各种改革流派。11世纪初，在德意志皇帝指定下就任教皇的利奥九世，开启以反对买卖圣职、规范教士纪律、确立教士独身制等为内容的改革。这些改革内容，尤其是1059年颁布的有关选举教皇的敕令，完全摒弃世俗君主任免教皇的权利，增强了教会独立性，也激起罗马教会的权力欲。

First, the reformed Roman Church, through the decree on papal elections and its opposition to simony, prevented secular princes from interfering in the investiture of churches and monasteries; in particular, the power to appoint and remove the Roman pope fell entirely into the hands of the newly established College of Cardinals, which to a large extent weakened the control that secular monarchs had exercised over the Christian Church since the Frankish period. Second, the pope sent legates to various parts of Western Europe, extending his influence beyond Rome and even the Italian peninsula, in an attempt to become the supreme authority of Christendom, wielding real power and unrestricted by territorial boundaries. Finally, the Roman Church, relying on its power to invest bishops and archbishops, intervened in the political affairs of various countries. The ambition of the Roman Church to seek power after the reform ultimately led to a direct conflict with the German emperor Henry IV in the 1070s over the appointment of the Archbishop of Milan, initiating the Investiture Controversy that lasted for more than half a century. The pope, for the first time, imposed excommunication on the emperor to force him into submission; the nobles who opposed Henry IV took the opportunity to elect another king, forcing Henry IV to seek the pope’s forgiveness as a penitent and embark on the “Road to Canossa” (Canossagang).

首先，改革后的罗马教会通过选举教皇敕令以及反对买卖圣职，阻止世俗诸侯染指教会和修道院授职，尤其是罗马教皇任免权完全掌握在新设立的枢机主教团手中，很大程度上削弱了自法兰克时期以来世俗君王对基督教会的掌控。其次，教皇派遣使节到西欧各地，影响力超出罗马乃至意大利半岛，企图成为掌有实权、不受疆域限制的基督教世界最高权威。最后，罗马教会凭借对主教和大主教的授予权干预各国政治事务。改革后罗马教会谋求权力的野心，最终在11世纪70年代任免米兰大主教时，与德意志皇帝海因里希四世产生正面冲突，开始了持续半个多世纪的主教授职权之争。教皇首次对皇帝处以绝罚迫使其就范，与海因里希四世抗衡的贵族借机另选国王，迫使海因里希四世以忏悔者身份请求教皇宽恕，走上了“卡诺萨之路”（Canossagang）。

In medieval history, the Roman pope repeatedly intervened in the political affairs of England and France and excommunicated their kings, but this never produced the same political impact as in Germany, because the relationship between the English and French monarchies and the Roman Church was not so close; bishops, archbishops, and even abbots were vassals of the king, and there was no electoral mechanism capable of counterbalancing royal power. The Canossa event was less a submission of the German king to the pope than a compromise and concession to the German ecclesiastical and secular princes. Undoubtedly, the struggle between church and state exacerbated Germany’s fragmentation. In the early 1220s, Frederick II again clashed with the Roman Church over power; the German ecclesiastical princes threatened to side with the pope, who excommunicated Frederick II, forcing him to compromise with the ecclesiastical princes and promulgate the decree *Confoederatio cum principibus ecclesiasticis* (Alliance with the Ecclesiastical Princes). Yet he did not achieve his intended goal; even until his death he was not absolved by the pope and could only be buried in the habit of an ordinary monk.

中世纪历史上，罗马教皇多次干预英国和法国的政治事务，对其国王处以绝罚，但都没有产生像在德意志这样的政治影响，因为英法王权与罗马教会的关系没有那么密切，主教、大主教乃至修道院院长都是国王的封臣，缺乏能够与王权抗衡的选王机制。卡诺萨事件与其说是德意志国王对教皇的屈从，不如说是其对德意志教俗诸侯的妥协让步。毋庸置疑，政教之争加剧了德意志的分裂。13世纪20年代初，弗里德里希二世与罗马教会再次发生权力之争，德意志教会诸侯以倒向教皇要挟，教皇更是处以弗里德里希二世绝罚，迫使其不得不向教会诸侯妥协，颁布《与教会诸侯联盟》法令。但他并未达到预期目的，甚至直到辞世都未得到教皇赦免，只能穿普通修道士的僧衣下葬。

The dualistic mechanism of church and state in the German polity persisted throughout the Middle Ages. German bishops and archbishops occupied a very important position in the political mechanism, not only intervening in royal power but even determining the choice of king. Among the seven prince-electors established in the 13th century, three archbishops held seats, enjoying the right to elect the king and to crown the new king. In 1245, the archbishops of Cologne and Mainz, without the participation of secular princes, convened only bishops and archbishops to elect a king, the “priest-king” (Pfaffenkönig). In the 13th and 14th centuries, England and France successively completed the transition from a feudal personal union polity to a modern parliamentary monarchy; the role and influence of ecclesiastical nobles gradually weakened, absolutist royal power was established, and they moved toward unified nation-states. Germany, however, remained a loose empire with numerous states and multiple political centers. It was precisely this situation that provided the political soil for the formation of confessions during the Reformation. During the Reformation, England and France successively established the dominant Christian confession within their territories, but Germany established the principle *cuius regio, eius religio* (whose realm, his religion). In the late Middle Ages, when religion had not yet been completely separated from politics, or politics had not yet been fully secularized, “salvation of the soul” was the business of the prince, not of each individual believer. Therefore, *cuius regio, eius religio*, translated into German according to the linguistic conventions of the time, meant “the prince determines the faith” (wes der Fürst, wes Glaub). Although *cuius regio, eius religio* provided political guarantees for the expansion and development of Protestant church organizations, it also increasingly delayed the process of German nation-state formation and hindered Germany’s progress toward a modern state. To this day, Germany has no unified state church; in the federal system, each state decides its own dominant confession. Consequently, apart from Christmas and secular holidays, Germany still has no nationally unified religious holidays.

德意志政制中的政教二元机制在中世纪贯穿始终，德意志主教、大主教在政治机制中占据相当重要的地位，不仅干预国王权力，甚至决定国王人选。13世纪确立的7大选帝侯中，大主教占据3席，享有选举国王及为新国王施加冕礼的权利。1245年，科隆和美茵茨的两大主教甚至在没有世俗诸侯参与下，仅召集主教和大主教就选出了国王，即“教士国王”。13—14世纪，英国和法国相继完成从封建的个人联合政体向近代议会君主制过渡，教会贵族的作用和影响力逐步减弱，确立了绝对主义王权，并走向统一民族国家，德意志仍然是松散大帝国，邦国林立且有多个政治中心，正是此种情形为16世纪宗教改革时期教派形成提供了政治土壤。宗教改革时期，英国和法国先后确立国内占统治地位的基督教教派，但德意志则确立“教随国定”（cuius region，eius religio）原则，在宗教还没有与政治完全剥离开，或说政治还没有完全世俗化的中世纪晚期，“灵魂得救”是诸侯的事务，而不是每个信仰者的事情。所以，cuius region，eius religio按照当时的语言习惯翻译为德语意为“信仰诸侯定”（wes der Fürst，wes Glaub）。“教随国定”虽然为新教教派组织扩张和发展提供了政治保障，但也愈加延缓了德意志民族国家形成的进程，阻碍了德意志迈向现代国家的步伐。直至今日德国也没有统一的国教，在邦联制政体中各州自己决定主导教派。因此，除圣诞节和世俗节日外，直至今日德国也没有全国统一的宗教节假日。

IV. The Mark Principle

四、马尔克制原则

An important reason why the German kingdom took a different path from England and France in the process of feudal political development lies in the different mechanisms by which its society was organized. The feudalization of land in the Frankish period was the foundation of the benefice system, and its social organizational structure was the manorial system. The manor was an economic unit, an association for organizing social production; it was both a unit for managing land and a unit for taxation, as well as a unit for jurisdiction. The Chinese scholar of Western European feudal society, Mr. Mark Yao (马克垚), regards the manor as a specific organizational form of agricultural production in feudal Western Europe, in which there existed labor rent, and therefore also various powers for controlling the peasants. Like England and France, Germany formed its social structure on the basis of the feudal land system, but, as discussed above, because the degree of feudalization in the eastern Frankish region was weaker, the Germanic Mark element persisted over the long term and continued to exert influence.

德意志王国在封建政制进程中之所以与英法所走道路不同，重要原因在于其组织社会的机制不同。法兰克时期土地封建化是采邑制度的基础，其社会组织结构是庄园制。庄园是经济单位，是组织社会生产的联合体，既是经营土地的单位，也是赋税单位，同时还是司法单位。我国研究西欧封建社会的学者马克垚先生，把庄园看作封建西欧农业生产中的一种特定组织形式，其中存在着劳役地租，因而也就存在控制农民的各种权力。德意志与英法一样，都是在封建土地制度基础上形成了社会结构，但如上文所述，由于法兰克东部地区封建化程度较弱，日耳曼人的马尔克制因素长期存留下来，持续发挥影响。

The Mark system was the most basic social organizational mechanism of the Germanic peoples. The Latin etymology of *Mark* is *margo* (boundary), referring to a settlement with clearly defined borders, usually comprising one or several natural villages in the area of migration, with “Mark stones” (Markstein) serving as boundary markers. The Mark was also the most basic economic unit at the grassroots level of society, carrying the meaning of protecting common property, the so-called *Gewere* system. The German scholar Karl von Amira believed that the term was very rich in meaning, encompassing the concept of a community, playing a role in social organization, and also including the community’s protection of its members, making it difficult to express with modern vocabulary. The Germanic king usually distributed land in units of Marks, and the Mark then distributed it to each member in the form of allotments; members had the right to dispose of common property, to decide whether to accept new members, and to participate in deciding major affairs of the group. The Mark was also the legal unit of Germanic grassroots society, stipulating the obligations that each member had to fulfill: to observe various regulations; to attend citizens’ assemblies; to participate in the construction and maintenance of bridges, roads, and other public facilities; and so on. German scholars call this basic social group the Mark community (Markgenossenschaft).

马尔克制是日耳曼人最基本的社会组织机制。马尔克（Mark）的拉丁词源是margo（边界），指有明确边界的移民居住点，通常包含所迁徙地的一个或几个自然村落，以“马尔克石碑”（Markstein）作为边界线。马尔克也是社会最基层经济单位，具有保护共同财产之意，即所谓Gewere制度。德国学者巴德尔认为，该词含义非常丰富，具有社团概念，起到了社会组织的作用，还包含社团对成员的保护，很难用现代词汇表述。日耳曼国王通常以马尔克为单位分配土地，马尔克再以份地形式分配给每位成员，成员有权支配共同财产，决定是否接受新成员，以及参与决定团体重大事务。马尔克也是日耳曼人基层社会法律单位，规定了每个成员必须履行的义务：遵守各种规定；参加公民会议；参与筑桥修路以及其他公共设施的建设和维护；等等。德国学者把此种基础社会团体称为马尔克共同体（Markgenossenschaft）。

The Germanic tribes that migrated into the Roman Empire successively established tribal kingdoms. Not only did they use the Mark organization mechanism to transform the Roman large-estate society, but they themselves also underwent certain changes. The French scholar François Guizot believed that this was the result of the mutual decline and integration of two societies, the Germanic peoples and the Roman Empire. However, the Germanic tribes were at different levels of development, had earlier or later contact with the Roman Empire, and were influenced to varying degrees. Consequently, during the Frankish Kingdom period, development in the eastern and western regions was highly uneven. The western region was the base where the Franks founded their state; the benefice system was the foundation of royal rule, and the feudal lords organized socio-economic activities in the form of manors. The manor was a product of the fusion of the Roman large-estate system with the Germanic Mark social organization mechanism, so it was not merely a simple economic mechanism. Marc Bloch emphasized, “The lord was not only the leader in management; he also exercised ruling power over the tenants.” The American economic historian James Westfall Thompson explicitly stated, “The manorial system once prevailed in parts of all Central and Western Europe, that is, within the Latin and Germanic Christian states: it was a form of government, a social structure, and an economic system.” In this system, peasants engaged in agricultural production formed a legal relationship of personal dependence with the lords, and free peasants were reduced to dependent peasants.

迁至罗马帝国的日耳曼各部族先后建立部落王国，不仅用马尔克组织机制改造罗马大地产制社会，自身也发生一定变化。法国学者基佐认为，这是日耳曼人和罗马帝国两种社会各自衰微和相互融合的结果。然而，日耳曼人各部族发展水平不同，与罗马帝国接触时间有早有晚，受其影响程度也有所不同，因而在法兰克王国时期，东部和西部地区的发展很不平衡。西部地区是法兰克人立国大本营，采邑制是王权统治的基础，封建主以庄园形式组织社会经济活动。庄园是罗马帝国时期的大地产制与日耳曼人马尔克社会组织机制融合的产物，所以不仅仅是简单经济机制，布洛赫强调，“领主不仅是经营上的领导者，他还对佃农们行使着统治权”；美国经济史学家汤普逊则明确说道，“庄园制度曾流行于所有中欧和西欧的部分，即在拉丁与日耳曼基督教国家境内：它是一种政府形式，也是一种社会结构、一种经济制度”。在此种体制中，从事农业生产的农民与领主结成了人身依附的法律关系，自由农民沦为依附农。

East Francia was a region conquered later by the Franks. As mentioned earlier, the East Frankish kings were elected by princes who had developed from clan nobles during times of crisis caused by foreign invasions. They did not form a lord-vassal benefice relationship with the king; the duchies and counties possessed varying degrees of autonomy and self-determination, especially in Saxony. As Engels analyzed, “Among the Germans who conquered the Roman Empire, the state arose directly from the conquest of vast foreign territories… Because the conquered and the conquerors were at roughly the same stage of economic development, and thus the economic base of society remained unchanged, the clan system was able to continue for centuries in an altered, territorial form, namely, as the Mark system.”

东法兰克是法兰克人后征服的地区，正如前文所述，东法兰克国王是在外族入侵的危机时刻由世族贵族发展而来的诸侯选立，他们与国王之间没有结成封君封臣式采邑关系，公爵领地和伯爵领地有着程度不同的自治权和自决权，尤其萨克森地区更是如此。正如恩格斯分析的，“在战胜了罗马帝国的德意志人中间，国家是直接从征服广大外国领土中产生的……由于被征服者和征服者差不多处于同一经济发展阶段，从而社会的经济基础依然如故，所以，氏族制度能够以改变了的、地区的形式，即以马尔克制度的形式，继续存在几个世纪”。

Because the system of benefices granted through layers of enfiefment was insufficiently developed, the East Frankish region formed a loose feudal political system. Moreover, the social structures of East and West Francia also showed clear differences, which can be seen from the different names for rural social organization mechanisms. After the 7th century, the term *mansus* appeared more frequently in West Frankish documents, commonly translated in Chinese scholarship as “manor” (庄园). In East Frankish documents, the most common term was *hoba* (= *Hof*, i.e., *Hufe*), usually translated as “Hufe” (胡符) or “allotment” (份地). German scholars have conducted in-depth research on the word *hoba*. Some scholars believe it had the attribute of a land unit; some think it was merely an area of land in terms of agricultural economy; others argue that in the early Frankish dynasty, it was only used to indicate the location of a manor, and it was not until Charlemagne’s legislation that it was clearly used as a land unit; still others point out that the meaning of the word varied greatly in documents from different periods—before the 9th century it usually referred to an allotment in the Mark, and afterward it referred to a peasant’s farmstead. However, scholars seem to have a consensus: the Hufe land was not the lord’s land but the property of the peasant community, distributed to community members in the form of allotments. The peasants who received the allotments enjoyed ownership and use rights.

由于层层分封的采邑制发展不充分，东法兰克地区形成松散的封建政治体制。不仅如此，东、西法兰克的社会结构也有明显差异，可以从农村社会组织机制不同名称中看出来。7世纪以后，西法兰克地区文献中出现较多的是mansus，国内学界通常译为“庄园”；东法兰克地区文献中最常出现的是hoba（=hof，即Hufe），通常译为“胡符”或“份地”。德国学者对hoba这个词做过深入研究，有学者认为，该词具有土地单位属性；有学者认为，其只是在农业经济方面的一个土地面积；也有学者认为，法兰克王朝早期，它只是用以说明庄园的所在地，直到查理大帝的立法中才明确作为土地单位被使用；还有学者指出，在不同时期文献中，该词含义有很大差异，9世纪以前通常指马尔克中的份地，之后则指农民的农庄。但学者似乎有一点共识，即胡符地不是领主的土地，而是农民共同体的财产，以份地形式分配给共同体成员，得到份地的农民享有所有权和使用权。

The meaning of the medieval farmstead (*Hof*) differs greatly from its modern meaning, and even today German historians still debate its meaning. Some scholars believe the farmstead was used to support the peasant household, but in reality its connotation was richer. The Austrian historian Alfons Dopsch argued that the farmstead was the dwelling place of the peasant household, the unit for the household’s leased land, and the unit of measurement for paying rent and taxes. Undoubtedly, in the medieval feudal system, the farmstead was the lord’s land, just as Pierre Boissonnade said, “There was no lord without land,” and “there was no land without a lord.” The lord’s land was divided into two categories: demesne land and smallholdings. Demesne land was cultivated by peasants through corvée labor; they held the lord’s unfree farmsteads (*mansi serviles*) and performed corvée for the lord. Smallholdings referred to free farmsteads (*mansi ingeniles*) and semi-free farmsteads (*mansi lidiles*), which paid rent in kind to the lord. The Polish historian Witold Kula believed that neither corvée nor taxes were assigned to individual peasants but to each farmstead; the farmstead could be said to be a unit of measurement for the lord’s taxation. Because of rent and corvée, the farmstead became a component of the seigneurial system.

中世纪农庄（Hof）的含义与其现代意义有很大区别，直至今天德国史家对其含义还存在争议。有学者认为，农庄是用于赡养农民家庭的，但实际上其内涵丰富。奥地利史家多普施认为，农庄是农民家庭居住之所，也是家庭租赁耕地的单位，还是缴纳租金和赋税的计量单位。毋庸置疑，在中世纪封建制度中，农庄是领主的土地，正如布瓦松纳所说的，“没有一个领主是没有土地的”，而且“没有一块土地是没有领主的”。领主的土地分为自营地和小地产两类，自营地由农民以服徭役的方式耕种，他们领有领主的非自由农庄（mansi serviles），为领主服徭役；小地产则指自由农庄（mansi igenuiles）和半自由农庄（mansi lidiles），向领主缴纳实物地租。罗森那认为，无论是徭役还是赋税，都不是分派给农民个人的，而是分派到各个农庄，农庄可以说是领主纳税的一个计量单位。因为地租和徭役，农庄成为领地制的组成部分。

“Seigneurial system” (*Grundherrschaft*) is a modern concept. The German historian Hans-Werner Goetz explained: “The seigneurial system is related to property and land, that is, to land possession: control of land is the indispensable foundation of the seigneurial system. As a technical term, this concept simultaneously contains fixed meanings of organization, management, and use, that is, understanding the seigneurial system from an economic perspective. Furthermore, ‘seigneurial system’ also contains the meaning of ruling power derived from land possession and related to it. Of course, it is not rule over the countryside, but rule over the people living in the countryside—this is the social perspective of the seigneurial system. Combining these two factors, wherever land is possessed and the right to rule over people can be exercised, there is a seigneurial system.” The farmstead within the feudal seigneurial system inherited the most basic legal principles of the Mark: protection, freedom, and autonomy.

“领地制”（Grundherrschaft）是现代概念，德国史家格茨诠释道：“领地制与财产和土地有关，也就是与土地占有有关：支配土地是领地制不可缺少的基础。作为技术术语，该概念同时含有组织、管理和使用方面的固定含义，即从经济角度理解领地制。此外，‘领地制’还含有从占有土地中派生出来的、与之相关的统治权力之意。当然不是对农村的统治，是对农村居住的人之统治，此即领地制的社会角度。把这两个因素组合起来说明，哪里占有了土地，能对人实施统治的权利，哪里就有领地制。”封建领地制度中的农庄，承袭了马尔克最基本的法律原则：保护、自由和自治。

The principle of “protection” often mentioned in German medieval historical research originated from the Germanic tribes and maintained the ruling (governing) relationship between lords and the lower social strata. Free men, semi-free men, and slaves within the Mark community were all protected in terms of judicial judgment, inviolability of acquired land, and usufructuary rights. Protected Mark members had a certain degree of legal freedom. “Freedom” had different meanings in different periods. In the early Middle Ages, freedom mostly referred to not being bound by the lord’s corvée; more precisely, the mode of land management and the form of taxation determined the peasant’s legal status. During the Frankish Empire, besides the feudal lords’ lands, there also existed royal fiscal lands. After the empire disintegrated, lands in West Francia were either enfeoffed as benefices or usurped, and the fiscal lands gradually disappeared. However, in East Francia, fiscal lands persisted for a long time. In the regions where fiscal lands were located, the Germanic method of land distribution was preserved: farmsteads were organized within the Mark and placed directly under the protection of the king’s judicial authority. From a legal perspective, the peasants were free men, had their own farmstead courts, and practiced self-governance, but they could not freely migrate without the lord’s permission—that is, they bore the obligation of non-migration (*Schollenpflicht*). Otherwise, they would lose the protection of the king’s judicial authority and be reduced to dependent peasants of the feudal lords.

德国中世纪史研究中常提到的“保护”原则，源自日耳曼人部落，维系着领主与社会下层之间的统治（管理）关系。马尔克共同体中的自由人、半自由人和奴隶，都受到司法审判、所获土地不受侵犯及用益权方面的保护。被保护的马尔克成员在法律上有一定自由。“自由”在不同时期含义不同，中世纪早期的自由多指不受领主徭役束缚，更确切地说，对土地的经营方式以及赋税形式决定了农民的法律身份。法兰克帝国时期，除封建领主的土地外，还存在着王室国库领地。帝国解体之后，西法兰克地区的土地或作为采邑被分封，或被侵占，国库领地也随之逐渐消失，但在东法兰克国库领地依然长期存在，国库领地所在地区保留了日耳曼人土地分配方式，农庄被组织在马尔克中，直接置于国王司法权保护下。从法律视角看，农民是自由人，有自己的农庄法庭，进行自我管理，但未经领主许可不得自由迁徙，即负有不能迁徙的义务（Schollenpflicht），否则将失去国王司法权保护，沦为封建主的依附农。

After the 10th century, a “second great reclamation movement” spread across Western Europe. The Kingdom of France, under the leadership of the Cluniac reform movement, brought wasteland and forest under cultivation. In the Kingdom of Germany, Otto the Great and the Duke of Saxony actively promoted a northeastern frontier policy, initiating the centuries-long colonization of the eastern Slavs (Ostsiedlung). Successive emperors and great ecclesiastical and secular princes deliberately used the Mark mechanism [17]17 The Mark (马尔克) was a form of early medieval Germanic territorial and communal organization, based on the common use of land (especially forest and pasture) by a village community. It was revived and adapted in the eastern colonization. to establish settlements in newly reclaimed areas, allocating homesteads, garden plots, and allotments to the peasants who joined the reclamation, granting them hereditary leasehold rights, rights of usufruct, and rights of inheritance, and providing them with a certain degree of legal protection. They were called royal freemen, reclamation freemen, or sandland free peasants, and so on. As Engels said, in medieval France, “the peasant’s land always became the landlord’s land, and at best was given back to the peasant for use only on condition that he paid rent and performed corvée. Thus the peasant was transformed from a free landholder into a rent-paying, corvée-performing dependent peasant, or even a serf”; but “east of the Rhine, however, a considerable number of free peasants still existed.” [18]18 Friedrich Engels, “On the History of the Prussian Peasantry” (1885), in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Collected Works, vol. 26 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1990), p. 248. The translation follows the standard English edition. German historians generally believe that the German eastward movement, from both a legal and an economic perspective, created a new model of social relations in the countryside, namely a significant weakening of peasant dependency, mainly manifested in three aspects: first, personal freedom; second, inheritable property rights; and third, participation in the construction of communal relations in order to safeguard inheritable property.

10世纪后，西欧普遍展开“第二次大拓荒运动”，法兰西王国在克吕尼修道院改革运动引领下垦殖荒地和林地；在德意志王国，奥托大帝以及萨克森公爵等积极推行东北边疆政策，开启了持续几个世纪对于东部斯拉夫人的殖民运动（Ostsiedlung），历任皇帝和教俗大诸侯都有目的地以马尔克机制在新拓荒地区立居民点，将宅基地、园地和份地分配给参加拓荒的农民，使其享有世袭租借使用权、土地用益权和继承权，给予他们法律上一定的保护。他们被称为王室的自由人、拓荒自由人或沙滩地自由农，等等。正如恩格斯所说，中世纪法兰西，“农民的土地总是变成了地主的土地，在最好的情形下，也要叫农民缴纳代役租、提供徭役，才归还给农民使用。可是，农民却从自由的土地占有者变成缴纳代役租、提供徭役的依附农民，甚至农奴”；但是，“在莱茵河以东，却还存在着相当多的自由农民”。德国史家普遍认为，德意志东进运动无论从法律角度还是经济角度看，都在农村中形成新社会关系模式，即农民依附性大大减弱，主要表现在三个方面：一是有了人身自由；二是有了可继承的财产权；三是为维护可继承的财产而参与共同体关系建构。

The large number of free peasants that emerged from the eastward movement changed the agricultural economic structure of Germany. Land leasing appeared relatively early, and agricultural products entered the circulation of commodities, invigorating commodity trade. This was an important economic foundation for the rise and development of medieval cities. Free peasants also served as a “reserve army” for the citizenry of the emerging cities. After the large-scale eastward colonization movement of the 12th century, many cities appeared, especially in the newly developed eastern regions. For example, 38 new cities were built along the banks of the Oder River alone.

东进运动中出现的大量自由农民改变了德意志农业经济结构，较早出现土地租赁，农产品进入商品流通轨道，活跃了商品贸易，这是中世纪城市兴起和发展的重要经济基础；自由农民也是新兴城市市民的“储备军”，12世纪大规模东进殖民运动之后，尤其在东部新开发地区出现多座城市，如仅在奥德河两岸就新建38座城市。

In the 12th century, there were only 250 cities in the region between the Elbe and Saale rivers; by the 13th century, this number had surged to 2,000. Cities varied in size. Small cities generally had fewer than 2,000 inhabitants; medium and large cities had more than 2,000, and some as many as 5,000 or more. Apart from merchants, almost all citizens evolved from free peasants. The Belgian scholar Henri Pirenne believed that from the 11th century onward, rural inhabitants were attracted to cities. In some cities, 30% of the inhabitants still engaged in agricultural production. Perhaps it can be said that in the 12th and 13th centuries, no other region in Western Europe saw cities spring up like mushrooms after rain as Germany did. James Westfall Thompson even argued that “in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, Germany was the ‘most outstanding’ nation of citizens in Europe.” [19]19 James Westfall Thompson, Economic and Social History of the Middle Ages (300–1300) (New York: Century, 1928), vol. 2, p. 789.

12世纪，易北河至萨勒河流域仅有250座城市，13世纪剧增至2000座。城市规模不同，小城市一般不足2000名居民，中、大城市则超过2000名居民，多的可至5000名居民以上，除商人外，市民几乎都是从自由农民演变而来。比利时学者皮雷纳认为，从11世纪起，农村居民就受到城市吸引。在一些城市，30%的居民仍从事农业生产。或许可以说，12—13世纪的西欧，再没有哪个地区像德意志一样，城市如雨后春笋般涌现，汤普逊甚至认为，“13、14和15世纪，德意志是欧洲‘最杰出的’市民国度”。

Located in the center of Europe, Germany had a well-developed river system and unique geographical conditions for long-distance trade. The reclamation movement of the 12th and 13th centuries, especially the eastern colonization movement, promoted agricultural development. Abundant agricultural products further increased trade vitality, undoubtedly an important economic factor in the rise of German cities during this period. Thompson affirmed that medieval cities were a product of economic forces. However, although the city emerged as a new social mechanism, it still contained elements of the Mark. First, freedom: “City air makes one free,” a very popular political proverb in Germany at the time, illustrates a characteristic of the medieval city. The freedom of the city cultivated a new social group within feudal society—the citizen (civis civitatis). “Citizen means the freedom of those dwelling within the walls” (Civitas autem dicitur libertas sive habitantium immunitas), as a 13th-century chronicler explained. [20]20 The Latin phrase is a gloss from a 13th-century legal text, often cited in discussions of medieval urban freedom.

地处欧洲中部的德意志水系发达，有从事远程贸易得天独厚的地理条件，12、13世纪的拓荒运动尤其是东部殖民运动促进了农业发展，丰富的农产品进一步增加了贸易活力，无疑是该时期德意志城市兴起的重要经济因素。汤普逊肯定地说，中世纪城市是经济力量的产物。然而，城市虽然作为新的社会机制出现，但其中依然有马尔克要素。首先是自由，“城市的空气使人自由”，这句在当时德意志非常流行的政治谚语，说明了中世纪城市的一个特征。城市的自由在封建社会中培植了新社会群体——市民（civiscivitatis），“市民意味着居住在墙内居民的自由”（Civitas autem dicitur libertas sive habitantium im munitas），是13世纪编年史家所作的说明。

Freedom was the most important legal boundary distinguishing urban from rural inhabitants in the Middle Ages. The German historian Dieter Scheler emphasized that “only by understanding freedom as a legal phenomenon, linked to a community, a legal system, and public order and rule, and by analyzing the development within specific communities, demarcated legal systems, and particular ruling relationships, does the analysis become more meaningful.” [21]21 Dieter Scheler, “Freiheit und Herrschaft im mittelalterlichen Deutschland,” Historische Zeitschrift 235 (1982), p. 567. Citizens with personal freedom spontaneously organized associations—guilds and corporations—which were “oath-bound communities” (Eidgenossenschaft) formed according to Germanic customary law. As the German historian Stobbe analyzed, the citizen community established on the basis of an oath was the first step toward urban self-governance. The second step was that the citizen community, possessing a social organization, gradually demanded participation in urban administration, establishing municipal institutions in the management of urban affairs, with judicial, administrative, and defensive functions. An important sign of an autonomous city was the formation of city leagues based on economic interests, such as the Rhenish City League, the Swabian City League, and even the Hanseatic League. The emergence of several regional economic centers based on city leagues was an indispensable economic foundation for the formation of the German territorial state system (邦国制) in the 14th century.

自由是中世纪区别城市居民和农村居民最重要的法律界限。德国史家迪斯坎普强调，“只有把自由作为一种法律现象，与一个共同体、一种法律制度以及治安和统治联系起来，分析具体的共同体、划分了界限的法律制度和特定统治关系范围内的发展才更有意义”。有人身自由的市民自发组织了社团——行会和同业公会，是按日耳曼习惯法结成的“誓约共同体”（Eidgenossenschaft）。正如德国史家施托普分析的，以誓约为依据建立的市民共同体，是城市实现自治的第一步；拥有社会组织的市民共同体，逐渐提出参与城市管理的要求，在管理城市事务中建立市政机构，具备司法、管理和防卫职能，是第二步；自治城市的重要标志是基于经济利益按地区结成城市同盟，如莱茵城市联盟、施瓦本城市联盟，乃至汉萨同盟。以城市同盟为基础出现多个地区性经济中心，是14世纪德意志邦国制形成不可或缺的经济基础。

V. The Loose Great Empire

五、松散的大帝国

From the 12th century onward, Western Europe experienced a series of major historical events, such as the great reclamation movement driving significant progress in the feudal economy, economic development changing the hierarchical social structure, the Papal Revolution altering the dualistic political structure of church and state, and the 12th-century Renaissance enriching social culture and knowledge. These changes pushed Western Europe to gradually emerge from its fragmented feudal political system. Especially as the 14th century began, the socio-economic structure gradually became disconnected from the original feudal polity. The prevalence of money rent and the disintegration of the manorial system (领地制) [22]22 The manorial system (领地制) refers to the medieval seigneurial regime based on the lord’s demesne and peasant labor services, which was in decline by the 14th century. greatly weakened the various original rights of the feudal lord class. This presented a paradox: on the one hand, because the feudal lords’ methods of exploiting peasants had changed significantly, their power at the local level, especially at the village level, was correspondingly weakened; on the other hand, the disintegration of the manorial system broke the original social structure. The effectiveness of customary law, which Bloch called a “double-edged sword” in restraining the nobility, was diminished. Peasant rights and interests could not be guaranteed, forcing them to resort to armed resistance.

自12世纪起，西欧经历一系列重大历史事件，如大拓荒运动带动封建经济长足进步，经济发展改变等级社会结构，教皇革命改变政教二元政治格局，12世纪文艺复兴丰富了社会文化知识。上述变化推动西欧逐渐从分裂的封建政治体制走出来，尤其是进入14世纪，社会经济结构逐步与原有封建政制脱节，货币地租盛行以及领地制解体，在很大程度上弱化了封建主阶层原有各种权利。这就呈现一种悖论，一方面因为封建主剥削农民的方式有了很大变化，在地方上的权力尤其是在村镇层次的权力相应被削弱；另一方面，领地制的解体导致原有社会结构被打破，被布洛赫称为“双刃剑”的习惯法制约贵族的效力被减弱，农民权益无法得到保证，迫使他们不得不武力反抗。

The peasant uprisings in France and England in the 14th century and the German Peasants’ War in the 16th century all occurred for this reason. Perry Anderson argued that socio-economic changes triggered shifts in power, “the result was that political and legal coercion was transferred upward to a centralized, militarized summit—the absolutist state. While this power was weakened at the village level, it was centralized on a national scale. The result was the strengthening of the royal state apparatus, whose permanent political function was to suppress the peasant and citizen masses at the bottom of the social hierarchy.” [23]23 Perry Anderson, Lineages of the Absolutist State (London: NLB, 1974), p. 19. He discussed that the change in the form of lordly exploitation of peasants in the late Middle Ages, namely the prevalence of money rent, was by no means insignificant. On the contrary, it was precisely this change that altered the form of the state, giving rise to the “absolutist state,” which represented “a break with the pyramidal, fragmented monarchy and its entire medieval social structure of manorialism and vassalage.” “Essentially, absolutism was nothing other than a redeployed and re-equipped apparatus of feudal rule, designed to fix the peasantry once again in their traditional social position—a disregard for and resistance to the gains the peasantry had won through the widespread conversion of rent. In other words, the absolutist state was never an arbiter between the nobility and the bourgeoisie, still less an instrument of the bourgeoisie against the nobility; it was the new political shield of a threatened nobility.” [24]24 Ibid., p. 18.

14世纪法国和英国的农民起义，16世纪的德国农民战争都是基于此种原因发生的。安德森认为，社会经济变革引发权力变化，“其结果便是政治、法律强制向上转移到中央集权化、军事化的顶峰——绝对主义国家。这种权力在村社层次上被削弱的同时，全国范围内却实现了集权化。结果是强化王权机器，其常备政治功能便是将农民和市民群众压制在社会等级制度的最底层”。他谈到，中世纪晚期领主对农民剥削形式的变化，即货币地租的盛行并非微不足道，恰恰相反，正是这一变化改变了国家形式，出现了“绝对主义国家”（Absolutist state），它是“与金字塔式的四分五裂君主制及其领地制、封臣制这一整套中世纪社会结构的决裂”。“从本质上讲，绝对主义就是：经过重新部署和装备的封建统治机器，旨在将农民再度固定于传统社会地位之上——这是对农民由于地租广泛转化所获得的成果的漠视和抵抗。换言之，绝对主义国家从来不是贵族与资产阶级之间的仲裁者，更不是资产阶级反对贵族的工具，它是受到威胁的贵族的新的政治盾牌”。

The absolutist state is mainly embodied in the absoluteness of royal power, that is, absolutist royal power, or absolute monarchy. The British scholar Hobhouse regards “the absolute” as “a force capable of reconciling all contradictions; in the absolute, the various components of reality are closely interconnected according to their fundamental principles so as to form a consistent whole, and when we perceive them partially or in a fragmented manner, incomplete understanding gives rise to various apparent contradictions.” The French scholar Althusser, summarizing the characteristics of absolute monarchy, states: “The political rule of absolute monarchy was merely a new political form adopted at the stage of commodity economy development to maintain feudal rule and the mode of exploitation.” During this historical period, the development of the commodity economy strengthened private property from below, while the arbitrary power of the monarch strengthened public authority from above, and the monarchy achieved centralization.

绝对主义国家主要体现在王权的绝对上，即绝对主义王权，或绝对君主制。英国学者霍布豪斯把“绝对”看作“能调和一切矛盾的力量”，“在绝对中，现实的各个组成部分都会按照其基本原则互相紧密联系，以便构成一个始终如一的整体，而当我们是部分地或者是分散地认识它们时，由于了解得不完全，就会引起各种表面上的矛盾”。法国学者阿尔都塞在总结绝对君主制特点时说，“绝对君主制的政治统治只是在商品经济发展阶段为保持封建统治及剥削方式而产生的新政治形式”。在这一历史时期，商品经济的发展自下而上强化了私有财产，而君主专断权力则自上而下强化了公共权威，君主政体实现了集权化。

Since the 11th century, the historical processes of England and France differed, but after entering the 14th century they converged, forming an absolutist monarchical system. However, Germany, which shared the same “root” of feudalism with France, was unable to establish centralized rule due to the long-term existence of traditional elements; it could only form a loose great empire on the basis of a confederation. The British scholar Finner argues: “It can hardly be considered an empire, nor even a state. In any case, it was not a single German state. It became an anachronistic, fictitious entity, now composed of hundreds of independent duchies and bishoprics, even kingdoms.” When the French king had an absolutist political center in Paris and the English monarchy established a fortress of autocratic royal power in London, Germany never established a fixed capital as the imperial political center, nor could the empire have a fixed seat for administrative institutions. Moreover, due to the strong independence of the various grand duchies, especially after the establishment of the federal system, the emperor rarely intervened in local affairs and lacked the administrative mechanisms indispensable to a centralized monarchy.

自11世纪以来，英国和法国历史进程各有不同，但进入14世纪之后殊途同归，形成专制君主制政体。然而，与法国封建制度“同根生”的德意志因为传统因素长期存在，王（皇）权无法建立集权统治，只能在邦联制基础上形成松散大帝国。英国学者芬纳则认为，“它很难算是一个帝国，甚至也算不上是一个国家。无论如何，它都不是一个单一的德意志国家。它变成了一个不合时宜的、虚构的东西，现在它是由数百个独立的公国和主教辖区，甚至王国共同组成”。当法王在巴黎有了绝对君主制政治中心，英国王权在伦敦建立专制王权堡垒时，德意志始终没有确立固定首都作为帝国政治中心，帝国也就不可能有固定的行政管理机构所在地，更何况由于各大公爵领地独立性较强，尤其是邦国制确立之后，皇帝几乎很少干预地方事务，也缺少集权君主制不可或缺的行政管理机制。

The Golden Bull [25]25 The Golden Bull of 1356 was a decree issued by Emperor Charles IV that regulated the election of the king of Germany, establishing the seven prince-electors and their privileges, and effectively formalizing the political fragmentation of the Holy Roman Empire. promulgated in the mid-14th century explicitly stipulated that the candidate proposed by the seven prince-electors would succeed as king, attempting to avoid the fragmentation of having two or even multiple kings ruling simultaneously. However, this measure made the prince-electors even more dominant, leading to serious disagreements during the election of the king, with neither side compromising and even resorting to armed conflict. To enhance their own political strength, the opposing sides sought external forces they could rely on, and England and France took the opportunity to scheme for the German throne, turning the German king-election into an international event. The prince-elector system not only failed to prevent dual elections for the throne but instead exacerbated the empire’s political fragmentation, forming regions within the empire each with their own political centers.

14世纪中叶颁布的《金玺诏书》明确规定，由7位选帝侯提出的候选人继任国王，试图规避两王甚至多王并立的分裂局面，然而此举使得选帝侯更加独大，在选王时产生严重分歧，互不妥协甚至兵刃相向。对立方为增强自己的政治实力，寻找可借助的外部力量，英国和法国乘机而入图谋德意志王位，使德意志的选王演变为国际事件。选帝侯制度不仅没有防止王位的双重选举，反而更加剧了帝国政治分裂，帝国内形成了具有各自政治中心的区域。

In the western region, the three ecclesiastical prince-electors of Mainz, Cologne, and Trier controlled the ecclesiastical territories in the middle and lower reaches of the Rhine, as well as nearly all secular territories in this area. The Count Palatine of Heidelberg, one of the four secular prince-electors, dominated the Alsace region; the later-rising Count of Württemberg, centered on Stuttgart, demarcated a stable political region. In the northern part of the empire, the Archbishop of Bremen, the Duke of Mecklenburg-Pomerania, the Teutonic Order, and Livonia each governed independently, in addition to the Hanseatic League of cities controlling trade in the North Sea and the Baltic. In the central part of the empire, the Archbishop of Magdeburg expanded his sphere of influence to the middle reaches of the Elbe River; the Prince-Elector of Brandenburg, based in Berlin, expanded his sphere of influence; the bishops of Würzburg and Bamberg united their ecclesiastical territories to form a joint administrative district. In the eastern and southeastern parts of the empire were the territories of Bohemia and Moravia.

在西部地区，美因茨、科隆和特里尔三大教会选帝侯，控制莱茵河中游和下游教会地区的教会领地，同时还几乎掌控此地区所有世俗领地。四大世俗选帝侯之一的海德堡行宫伯爵一直在埃尔萨斯地区主沉浮；后起的符腾堡伯爵以斯图加特为中心，划定了稳固政治区域。在帝国北部，不莱梅大主教、梅克伦堡-波莫瑞公爵、德意志骑士团以及立沃尼亚各自为政，此外还有控制北海和波罗的海贸易的汉萨城市同盟。在帝国中部，马格德堡的大主教将其势力范围扩大到易北河中游地区；勃兰登堡的选帝侯以柏林为基础，扩大势力范围；维尔茨堡和班贝克的主教自行把教会领地联合起来，形成联合管辖区。帝国东部和东南部，则是波希米亚和摩拉维亚的属地。

Entering the 15th century, autocratic rule in England and France grew increasingly stronger, and during the century-long war between the two countries, national consciousness emerged in each. The German scholar Lutz argues that around 1490, royal power in several European states had established centralized rule, strong enough to subdue resistance forces, exclude external influences, unite various groups of people, and cultivate a common consciousness, but this phenomenon did not appear in Germany. Because the numerous large and small states, various types of cities, and city leagues were politically independent and had no unified economic interests, the territorial sovereignty of the states not only dismembered the emperor’s power but also greatly weakened the empire’s financial resources, and the functions and authority of the Imperial Diet were severely constrained. From the mid-15th century onward, several German emperors attempted to eliminate the empire’s political fragmentation through reform, ushering in an era of imperial reform. Emperor Sigismund of the House of Luxembourg first proposed judicial reform, but it was shelved due to his death before implementation. Frederick III, who inaugurated the House of Habsburg, convened the first “Imperial Diet” (Reichstag) in German history at Worms in 1495. Not only was the scale of the Diet expanded (including, besides prince-electors and princes, lesser nobles, clergy, and representatives of citizens from 65 cities), but its content also touched on the interests of all social strata. The Worms Imperial Diet changed the structure of the imperial court diet (Hofstag) that had existed since the Middle Ages; the issues raised and the resolutions adopted also took on the character of a parliamentary monarchy, and this Diet proposed further judicial and monetary reforms.

进入15世纪，英法两国专制统治日益加强，在两国之间历时百年的战争中各自滋生了民族意识。德国学者卢茨认为，1490年前后欧洲多个国家的王权都建立了集权统治，强大到足以使反抗力量屈服，也能排除外来影响，把各群体民众联合在一起，培育共同意识，但这种现象在德意志没有出现。因为大大小小的邦国、多种类型的城市和城市同盟在政治上具有独立性，在经济上也没有统一的利益相关性，邦国的领土主权不仅肢解了皇帝权力，也极大地削弱了帝国财政来源，帝国会议的职能和权限都受到很大制约。15世纪中叶起，德意志几任皇帝试图通过改革消除帝国政治分裂，开启帝国改革时代。卢森堡王朝的西吉斯蒙德皇帝最先提出司法改革主张，但尚未推行就因离世而搁浅。开启哈布斯堡王朝的弗里德里希三世于1495年在沃尔姆斯召开德意志历史上第一次“帝国会议”（Reichstag），不仅会议规模扩大了（除选帝侯和诸侯外，还有中小贵族、教士以及来自65个城市的市民代表），而且内容涉及社会各阶层利益。沃尔姆斯帝国会议改变了自中世纪以来帝国宫廷会议（Hofstag）的建制，所提出的议题和作出的决议也都具有了议会君主制性质，并且在这次会议提出了进一步推行司法改革和货币改革的议题。

However, because the political fragmentation caused by the federal system was not eliminated, and the struggle between the princes and royal (imperial) power persisted, the reforms did not achieve the goal of centralization. The German historian Angermeier argues that the purpose of the Worms Imperial Diet was not imperial reform but an attempt to expand the sphere of influence of the House of Habsburg with the help of the princes; the princes and various social estates also sought to maintain their acquired rights. It was precisely because the king and the princes had different goals that there was opposition and a game between the two forces, but this game did not lead to the unification of state power; instead, it further intensified the fragmentation of power. Moraw, a professor of history at the University of Göttingen, does not regard the Worms Imperial Diet as a political “reform” (Reform) but rather as a “reconstruction of the imperial constitution” (Umgestaltung der Reichsverfassung).

然而，由于邦国制造成的政治分裂没有消除，诸侯与王（皇）权之间的较量依然存在，所以并未通过改革达到实现集权的目的。德国历史学家安格迈尔认为，沃尔姆斯帝国会议的目的并不是进行帝国改革，而是企图借助诸侯力量扩张哈布斯堡家族势力范围；诸侯及各社会等级也在力求维护已获权利，正是因为国王和诸侯目的不同，因此存在两股势力的对立和博弈，但博弈未导致国家权力统一，反而进一步加剧了权力分裂。哥廷根大学历史系教授莫拉夫不认为沃尔姆斯帝国会议是政治“改革”（Reform），而是将其视为“帝国制度的改建”（Umgestaltung der Reichsverfassung）。

Another important factor in the fragmentation of imperial power lay in the opposition between church and state that had existed since the Middle Ages. The Christian church had always occupied a pivotal position in medieval Western European society. After the 12th century, the return of classical Greek philosophy and the introduction of Arab culture enriched European society’s knowledge and understanding; knowledge liberated reason, and reason changed people’s ways of belief. The heretical movements of the 13th century further emphasized individual faith, challenging the authority of the Christian church. Especially after the “Avignon Papacy,” [26]26 The Avignon Papacy (1309–1377) was a period when the popes resided in Avignon, France, under the influence of the French crown, which severely weakened papal authority and prestige. the religious authority of the church shifted. The political theory of “divine right of kings” was replaced by secular political theory in England and France, and royal power, while achieving centralization, also brought the national church under its control. But in Germany, the political theory of “divine right of kings” had not yet been broken. In the mid-13th century, the papacy was still interfering in German power struggles, and the coronation ceremony performed by the pope remained an important symbol confirming legitimate succession to the throne. For this reason, the German emperor continued to meddle in papal affairs.

帝国权力分裂的另一重要因素在于中世纪以来存在的政教对立。基督教教会在中世纪西欧社会一直占据举足轻重的地位，12世纪以后，希腊古典哲学回归和阿拉伯文化传入，丰富了西欧社会对知识的了解和认识，知识解放了理性，理性改变了人们的信仰方式。13世纪的异端运动更是强调个体信仰，基督教教会权威受到挑战，尤其是在“阿维尼翁之囚”之后，教会的宗教权威发生移位，“君权神授”的政治理论在英、法两国已被世俗政治理论取代，王权在实现集权化的同时也控制了本国教会。但在德意志，“君权神授”的政治理论还没有被破除，13世纪中叶教廷还在插手德意志权势斗争，由教皇实施的加冕礼仍然是确认合法继承王位的重要标志之一。为此，德意志皇帝依然在染指教廷事务。

After the “Avignon Captivity,” the papacy that returned to Rome fell into fierce opposition over the candidates for pope, resulting in a situation of two opposing papacies and three popes, and a period of the “Western Schism” (Abendländisches Schisma, 1378–1417) that lasted forty years. The schism intensified the struggles among the German princes during the election of the king. To bridge the split, the German emperor intervened repeatedly, even personally urging and directing the papacy to convene a general council at Constance. Moreover, the German church at all levels still enjoyed the same political and economic privileges as the secular princes, possessing considerable independence and autonomy, and was a powerful force in Germany’s political fragmentation, especially since three of the seven prince-electors were archbishops. Therefore, before and during the Reformation, theological and doctrinal disputes within the church were often entangled with political struggles among the territorial lords; church events frequently transformed into political struggles over power, causing divisions among the princes and forming two major camps: the Catholic princely camp and the Protestant princely camp. After the Reformation, both England and France had unified church institutions, which were placed under absolutist or autocratic royal power. But in Germany, the Reformation inaugurated an era of confessionalization. Confessionalization stamped the German Reformation with a dual character: on the one hand, it was hailed as an early bourgeois revolution, promoting society’s advance toward modernity; on the other hand, confessionalization further strengthened the independence of the territorial states, thereby delaying the political unification of the Empire.

“阿维尼翁之囚”后，重返罗马的教廷因教皇候选人产生激烈对立，由此出现两个教廷对立、三位教皇鼎立的局面，出现长达40年之久的“西方教会大分裂”期（Abendl?ndisches Schisma，1378—1417年）。教会分裂加剧了德意志诸侯选王时的争斗，为弥合分裂，德意志皇帝多次参与其中，甚至亲自督促和干预教廷在康斯坦茨召开普世宗教会议。此外，德意志各级教会依然享有与世俗诸侯相同的政治和经济特权，具有相当独立性以及自治性，是德意志政治分裂中一股强大势力，更何况在7大选帝侯中大主教占据3个席位。因此，在宗教改革之前和之中，教会有关神学和信仰的争论常常与邦君之间的政治争斗纠缠在一起，教会的事件常常转化为与权势有关的政治斗争，在诸侯中产生分化，形成两大阵营，即天主教诸侯阵营和新教诸侯阵营。宗教改革之后的英法都有了统一教会机构，其都被置于绝对主义王权或专制王权之下。但在德意志，宗教改革则开启了一个教派化时代。教派化为德国宗教改革运动打上了两面性印记：一方面它被誉为早期资产阶级的革命，促进社会向现代化迈进；另一方面，教派化更增强了邦国独立性，从而延缓了帝国在政治上的统一。

VI. The Territorial States within the Empire

六、帝国中的邦国

A major reason for the political difficulty of unifying the German Empire was the formation of the territorial-state system (邦国制) in the 14th century. During the “Great Interregnum,” the German princes exploited the chaos of royal elections to expand their power and extract privileges from the royal (imperial) authority, thereby forming territorial states with sovereign significance.

德意志帝国在政治上难以统一的一大重要原因是14世纪形成了邦国制。“大空位”时期，德意志诸侯利用选王时的混战扩充实力，向王（皇）权索取特许权，由此形成了具有主权意义的邦国。

The territorial state was formed on the basis of feudal lordship (领地制), which was a complex综合体 encompassing economic, political, and social factors, reflecting a state of medieval rural society and economy. The French historian Marc Bloch said, “From the economic point of view, the coexistence of a large estate with many small holdings within the same organization is the most basic feature of the manorial system.” Lordship involved not only land ownership but also the control and management of land, inevitably also involving the social relations between people connected to the land, i.e., relations of personal dependence. In the early Middle Ages, because land was held as hereditary fiefs, the lordship was a unit of rule. The most basic unit within lordship was the manor. The renowned German scholar of medieval rural society, Baader, defined the manor as: a place of assembly, a place of taxation, a place of court (Dinghof). The manor thus became a corporate body of rights, accompanying or replacing the power of the state and the family.

邦国在封建领地基础上形成，领地制是包含了经济、政治、社会诸多因素的复杂综合体，体现了中世纪农村社会和经济的一种状态。法国历史学家马克·布洛赫说，“从经济角度看，一份大产业与许多小地产在同一个组织中的共存是领地制的最基本的特征”。领地制不仅涉及土地所有权，还关系对土地的支配和经营，必然也涉及与土地相关的人与人之间的社会关系，即人身依附关系。中世纪早期的土地因施行世袭采邑，领地是一个统治单位。领地制中最基本的单位是庄园，德国研究中世纪农村社会的著名学者巴德尔给庄园下的定义是：一个聚集所在地，一个赋税所在地，一个法庭所在地（Dinghof）。庄园因此成为一个权利联合体，伴随或取代了国家和家庭的权力。

The territorial-state system was formed in the 14th century, the period of the dissolution of the manorial system, but the formation of territorial states was not a result of the dissolution of the manor; rather, it can be said that the dissolution of the manor was a precondition for the formation of territorial states. An important factor leading to the dissolution of the manorial system was the transformation of land management methods into a leasehold system, accompanied by a change in the form of rent, i.e., rent in kind and labor services were replaced by money rent, thereby dissolving feudal personal dependence and highlighting individual personhood. In England and France, individual personhood was an important social foundation for the centralization of royal power; in Germany, because the territories of the princes all had strong independence, in their struggles with royal power the princes obtained more and more rights, which coalesced into power. The princes gained absolute authority within their own territories, and the territories thus acquired the character of modern territorial sovereignty.

邦国制形成于庄园制解体的14世纪，但邦国的形成不是庄园解体的结果，可以说是邦国形成的一个前提条件。导致庄园制解体的重要因素是土地经营方式转变为租赁制，地租形式同时发生改变，即实物地租和徭役地租被货币地租取代，由此解除了封建人身依附关系，人的个体性凸显出来。在英国和法国，人身的个体性是王权集权化重要社会基础；在德意志，由于诸侯的领地都有很强独立性，在与王权争斗中，诸侯获得越来越多的权利，这些权利汇聚成权力，诸侯在自己领地有了绝对权威，领地从而具有近代领土主权的性质。

As early as the 13th century, the term “sovereignty” appeared in historical documents, used to describe the supreme judicial power of the king. The English scholar Hoffman, in his book *Sovereignty*, emphasized that “sovereignty” in the 13th century mainly manifested as monarchical centralization, viewing medieval sovereignty as “the overall power of a political community.” The English scholar Jennings argued that “the doctrine of sovereignty is a theory that emerged at the end of the Middle Ages for the purpose of promoting the secular state’s liberation from church control.” German scholars, however, more often expounded the meaning of sovereignty from the perspective of the territorial-state system. Diestelkamp believed that in the 13th-century German Empire, the pyramidal fief system was still evident, but the nature of its structure had already changed somewhat, with regional governance emerging within territorial areas, “rule over individuals was increasingly clearly based on control over territory.” He attributed this change in the form of rule to the “regionalization of the fief system.” The legal historian Willoweit explored the changes in “sovereignty” in terms of vassal relations from a legal perspective, arguing that during this period the power of the territorial lord had equal jurisdiction over all subjects, no longer recognizing distinctions among subjects such as judicial privileges, protected rights, and fief rights.

早在13世纪的历史文献中就出现了“主权”一词，用于说明王权的最高司法权。英国学者霍夫曼在《主权》一书中强调，13世纪的“主权”主要表现为君主集权，他把中世纪的主权看作“一个政治共同体总体上的权力”。英国学者詹宁斯则认为，“主权学说是中世纪末期，为了促进世俗国家摆脱教会控制的目的而产生的一种理论”。德国学者则更多从邦国制角度阐述主权含义。迪斯特尔坎普认为，在13世纪德意志帝国，金字塔式的采邑制仍很明显，但其结构的性质已有所改变，在领地区域内出现地区性治理，“对个人的统治越来越明显地建立在对地区的控制上”。他把这种统治形式的改变归结为“采邑制的区域化”。法学史学者威洛维特从法学角度探讨“主权”在臣属关系上的变化，认为该时期邦君的权力对所有臣民都有同等权限，不再认可用于划分臣民之间差异的诸如司法特许权、受保护的权利和采邑权等。

The rise and development of medieval cities was undoubtedly an important factor in changing the overall structure of society. The great land reclamation movement of the 12th century promoted a comprehensive agricultural boom in Western Europe and stimulated commercial activity, an important foundation for the rise and development of cities that will not be elaborated here. From the very beginning of the rise of cities, the burghers living in cities, due to their economic activities different from those in the countryside, formed urban communes through sworn associations. Max Weber, from a sociological perspective, pointed out that “the urban commune is a result of the political socialization of the burghers,” “a self-governing and autonomous compulsory institutional socialization, an active ‘territorial corporate group’.” Representatives elected by the various guilds and corporations formed the city council, thereby obtaining the right to govern the city. Urban burghers, in their struggle for freedom and urban autonomy, obtained the protection of privileges granted by royal power. With the support of the king, they broke out of the feudal system, entered the parliament as the Third Estate, and became a new political force upon which the centralization of royal power could rely.

中世纪城市的兴起和发展，无疑是改变社会整体结构的重要因素。12世纪大拓荒运动推进了西欧整体农业大发展，促进了商业活跃，是城市兴起和发展不能忽略的重要基础，在此不再赘述。从城市兴起之初，居住在城市里的市民因不同于农村的经济活动，形成通过盟誓结成市民团体，马克斯·韦伯从社会学视角指出，“市民团体是市民的一种政治社会化的结果”，“一种自治的和自主的强制机构性的社会化，一种主动的‘区域团体’”。由各个行会和同业公会推举出的代表组成城市议会，由此获得治理城市的权利。城市市民在争取自由和城市自治中得到王权给予特许权的保护，在国王支持下从封建制度中破土而出，以第三等级身份进入议会，成为王权集权化可依靠的新政治势力。

As early as the 12th century in France, representatives of the burgher estate were frequently invited by the king to participate in assemblies he convened. By granting privileges that gave burghers a legal status different from rural inhabitants, and by combining the granting of urban autonomy with the expansion of the royal domain, royal power received strong support from the burghers in its struggle to strengthen centralization. In England, after the development of the urban economy and changes in the socio-economic structure, the interests of the burgher estate often clashed with those of the nobility. They hoped to obtain some protection through royal privileges. The king also hoped to use the emerging political force of the burghers to counterbalance the power of the nobility, and therefore actively supported the burghers’ entry into parliament as the Third Estate. After the mid-13th century, the king increasingly summoned non-noble local representatives, such as sheriffs and city representatives, to parliament. By the 14th century, the participation of local representatives in parliament had become the norm.

早在12世纪法国，市民阶层代表就经常受国王邀请参与其召集的会议，通过特许权给予市民不同于农村居民的法律地位，把给予城市自治的权利与扩大王室的领地结合起来，王权在加强集权的斗争中得到市民极大支持。在英国，城市经济的发展及社会经济结构发生变化之后，市民阶层的利益常与贵族利益冲突，他们希望借助国王特许权获得某种保护。国王也希望借助正在形成的市民政治力量制衡贵族势力，因此积极支持市民以第三等级身份进入议会。13世纪中叶以后，国王越来越多地召集非贵族的郡长、城市等地方的代表参加议会。进入14世纪，地方代表参加议会已成常态。

Compared with England and France, medieval German cities exhibited greater diversity: there were imperial cities (Reichsstadt) directly subordinate to the emperor, fully autonomous free cities (Freistadt), territorial cities (Landstadt) serving as princely residences, and other types. All these cities had a very prominent commercial function. The American economic historian James Westfall Thompson held that commercial ties between cities were a salient feature of medieval German cities. Consequently, every king from Otto I onward granted protection to cities through charters. However, after the establishment of the territorial principality system (邦国制), the demarcation of territorial boundaries and the erection of toll stations and collection of transit duties by territorial princes at borders and on navigable rivers not only hindered trade circulation but also raised transport costs. For example, in the mid-14th century, on the roughly 50-kilometer stretch from Bingen to Koblenz, transport costs rose by 53% to 67% from tolls alone, severely damaging urban interests. In response, some affected cities voluntarily formed "sworn confederations" (誓约共同体) in accordance with Germanic customary law. After the mid-13th century, several interest-based urban leagues of varying sizes emerged within Germany, some consisting of only two cities. These urban leagues even achieved mutual benefit with external forces through trade, forming multiple regional economic centers in Germany. Thus, territorial principalities with sovereign attributes not only delayed the formation of a unified domestic market but also prevented the unification of the currency system, hindering the formation of a nation-state.

与英国和法国比较而言，德意志中世纪城市形态更具多样性，有直接隶属皇帝的帝国城市（Reichsstadt），有完全自治的自由城市（Freistadt），有作为邦君驻跸地的邦国城市（Landstadt），以及其他类型的城市。所有这些城市都具有非常突出的贸易功能，美国经济史学家汤普逊认为，城市间的商业联系是中世纪德意志城市的突出特点。因此，自奥托一世以来历任国王都通过特许权给予城市保护。然而，邦国制确立之后其疆域边界的划定，邦君在边界、流经河流的航道上设立关卡、收取通关税，不仅阻碍了贸易流通，还提高了运输成本。例如，14世纪中叶，从宾根到科布伦茨直线约50公里的运输成本，仅关税一项就上升53%—67%，严重损害了城市利益，为此一些利益相关城市按日耳曼人习惯法自愿结成“誓约共同体”。13世纪中叶以后，德意志境内相继出现多个利益相关城市同盟，规模大小不等，有的甚至只是两个城市联合。这些城市同盟甚至因贸易往来自行与外部势力实现互利，在德意志形成多个地区经济中心，可见具有主权性质的邦国不仅延缓了国内统一市场的形成，也导致币制迟迟无法统一，阻碍了民族国家形成。

Conclusion

结 语

From its very inception, the territorial principality system embedded factors that obstructed the centralization of royal power. To eliminate these factors, the elective kingship (选王制) was introduced, but this system had neither corresponding procedures nor fixed rules, making it a political tool that ecclesiastical and secular nobles could exploit at will. In the history of medieval Western Europe, no kingdom or region experienced as many instances of dual or even triple kingship as Germany, and it even provided opportunities for English and French magnates to contend for the German throne. Although the Golden Bull of 1356 [29]29 The Golden Bull of 1356 was an imperial decree issued by Emperor Charles IV that codified the procedure for the election of the King of the Romans (the future Holy Roman Emperor) by seven prince-electors, and defined the prerogatives of the electors. regulated the elective kingship by legislation, it did not eliminate the chaos of royal elections. It was very difficult to achieve royal centralization in Germany, and the political conditions for absolutist autocracy were lacking.

邦国制从确立之初就埋下阻碍王权集权的因素，为消除这些因素而有了选王制，但这个制度既没有相应程序，也没有一定规则，因而成为教俗贵族可随意利用的政治工具。西欧中世纪的历史上，没有哪个王国和地区如同德意志那样，多次出现两王对立乃至三王并存的格局，甚至还给英国和法国大贵族争夺德意志王权提供了可能。尽管14世纪《金玺诏书》以立法形式规范了选王制，但并未消除选王乱象，在德意志很难实现王权集权，缺乏实现绝对主义专制的政治条件。

The relationship between church and state was pivotal in the medieval Western European feudal system, and especially so in Germany. Ever since Otto was crowned emperor in Rome, an indissoluble bond of church-state relations was established between the German emperor and the Roman pope. The pope became an ally of the German princes in their struggle against imperial power, forcing the imperial power to make constant compromises with ecclesiastical and secular nobles in the conflict. Consequently, the factors of local separatism could not be eliminated, and the independence, self-determination, and autonomy of the territorial principalities persisted into the modern era, providing the political soil for the emergence of Christian denominations during the 16th-century Reformation. England and France, which achieved monarchical-parliamentary systems, established dominant Christian denominations within their countries according to their respective political needs, which aided absolutist royal rule. In Germany, however, the principle of "cuius regio, eius religio" (whose realm, his religion) [30]30 "Cuius regio, eius religio" (Latin for "whose realm, his religion") was a principle established by the Peace of Augsburg (1555) that granted territorial princes in the Holy Roman Empire the right to determine the official Christian denomination (Catholic or Lutheran) of their territory. made the empire's looseness even harder to overcome. This political configuration persisted into the 19th century, delaying the modernization of the political system.

政教关系在西欧中世纪封建制度中举足轻重，在德意志尤为如此。自从奥托在罗马戴上皇帝桂冠之后，德意志皇帝与罗马教皇之间就建立了剪不断的政教关系。教皇成为德意志诸侯抗衡德意志皇权的盟友，迫使皇权在争斗中不断向教俗贵族妥协，地方分裂因素因而无法消除，邦国的独立性、自决性和自治性一直延续到近代，为16世纪宗教改革期间基督教教派产生提供了政治土壤。实现君主议会制的英国和法国，根据各自政体需要，在国内确立了占统治地位的基督教教派，有助于绝对主义王权统治。而德意志“教随国定”原则使帝国的松散性更难克服，此种政治格局一直延续到19世纪，延缓了政制现代化进程。

Strictly speaking, the Mark (马尔克) [31]31 The Mark (German: Markgenossenschaft) was a Germanic system of common land ownership and self-governance by a community of free peasants, which persisted in various forms into the medieval period. was not a political mechanism but a social mechanism of organization and management. The Mark system was not immutable throughout the Middle Ages, but its principles of protection and freedom were preserved over the long term. It was precisely these two principles that enabled the existence of free peasants in the countryside. Especially during the centuries-long eastward expansion (Ostsiedlung) [32]32 The Ostsiedlung (German for "east settlement") refers to the large-scale migration and settlement of German-speaking peasants, townspeople, and nobles into territories east of the Elbe and Saale rivers, roughly from the 11th to the 14th century., the number of free peasants increased substantially. The presence of a large number of free peasants provided the foundation for the tenancy system, promoted the commercialization of agricultural products, and the commercialization of agricultural products in turn invigorated the urban economy. Free peasants also provided a pool of personnel for the rise of medieval cities; the freedom of individuals laid the social foundation for urban freedom, which manifested as urban autonomy. Autonomous cities formed leagues to protect their own interests. After the mid-13th century, several interest-based urban leagues emerged within Germany, thereby forming multiple regional economic centers. In the latter half of the 14th century, although some territorial principalities attempted to achieve a degree of unification through customs unions and monetary unions, by the 16th century they had not achieved a unified currency and customs system as in England and France, nor had they formed a unified domestic market. This became one of the factors delaying the modernization of the German political system.

严格说来，马尔克不是政治机制，而是一种组织和管理方面的社会机制。马尔克制在整个中世纪也不是一成不变，但其保护和自由原则却长期保存了下来。正是这两个原则，才使农村有了自由农民，尤其是在持续了几个世纪的东进运动中，自由农民大为增加。大量自由农民的存在，为实现租佃制提供了基础，促进了农产品商业化，农产品商业化则活跃了城市经济。自由农民也为中世纪城市兴起提供了人员储备，人的自由为城市的自由奠定了社会基础，城市自由表现为城市的自治，自治城市为保护自身利益结成了同盟。13世纪中叶以后，德意志境内相继出现多个利益相关的城市同盟，由此形成多个地域性经济中心。14世纪下半叶，尽管一些邦国试图通过关税同盟以及货币同盟形式谋取某种程度的统一，但直到16世纪都没有像在英法一样实现统一货币和关税制度，也未形成统一国内市场，成为延缓德意志政制现代化的要素之一。

Although traditional elements of the political system slowed Germany's pace toward modernization, capitalist factors had already emerged in the economy. First, as early as the 13th century, commercial houses controlled by large families such as the Fuggers, Welsers, and Höchstetters had emerged in cities, operating in textiles, mining, and finance across the whole of Europe. Large joint-stock companies also appeared, the most famous being the "Great Ravensburg Company" (Magna Societas), founded in 1380. [33]33 The Great Ravensburg Company (German: Große Ravensburger Handelsgesellschaft) was a major South German trading company founded in 1380 by merchants from the city of Ravensburg, operating across much of Europe. Second, the leading handicraft industry in medieval Germany was mining and metallurgy, which meant that the joint-stock mode of production with capitalist elements was adopted very early. German mining and metallurgical technology also remained at the forefront in Europe. Third, the large estate system (大地产制) in the Prussian region changed the mode of dispersed land management. Large estate holders not only occupied vast tracts of land but also controlled the grain trade. Prussia integrated into the European industrialization process through grain exports. Finally, it is worth noting that from the 14th century onward, the monarchs of various German territorial principalities successively founded universities, cultivating numerous intellectual elites. These elites embraced neo-humanism and Enlightenment thought, playing a positive role in promoting the modernization of social consciousness and culture. In other words, the collision between traditional elements in the German political system and modernity guided Germany onto a "special path" (Sonderweg). [34]34 The "special path" (German: Sonderweg) is a historiographical thesis that Germany followed a unique, non-Western path to modernity, characterized by the persistence of authoritarian and pre-modern political structures alongside capitalist economic development.

虽然政制传统因素延缓了德意志走向现代化的步伐，但在经济中已萌生资本主义因素。首先，早在13世纪城市中就已产生富格尔、韦尔瑟、赫希斯泰特尔等大家族控制的商行，经营内容包括纺织业、矿业及金融业，范围涉及整个欧洲，也出现了大股份公司，其中最著名的是1380年成立的“拉文斯堡大联盟”（Magna Societasa）。其次，中世纪德意志的第一大手工业是采矿业和冶金业，决定了其很早就采用具有资本主义要素的股份制生产方式，采矿业和冶金业的技术在欧洲也一直处于领先地位。再次，普鲁士地区的大地产制改变了分散经营土地的方式，大地产主不仅占据了大片土地，还控制了粮食贸易，普鲁士以粮食出口融入欧洲工业化进程中。最后，值得一提的是，自14世纪以来，德意志各邦国君主相继创建大学，培养了众多知识精英，他们接受新人文主义以及启蒙运动思想，为推动社会意识和社会文化现代化起到了积极作用。抑或说，德意志政制中的传统要素与现代性的碰撞，引导德意志走上了“特殊道路”。

(Author Wang Yaping is a professor at the Institute of European Civilization, Tianjin Normal University)

（作者王亚平，系天津师范大学欧洲文明研究院教授）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心