1 of 6

Test Bank for Roachs Introductory Clinical Pharmacology, 9th Edition: Ford

Test Bank for Roachs Introductory Clinical Pharmacology, 9th Edition: Ford
Download full chapter at: https://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-roachs-introductory-clinical-pharmacology-9th-edition-ford/

TEST BANK > CONTROL PANEL > POOL MANAGER > POOL CANVAS

Pool Canvas

Add, modify, and remove questions. Select a question type from the Add Question drop-down list and click Go to add questions. Use Creation Settings to establish
which default options, such as feedback and images, are available for question creation.

Add Creation
Settings Name Chapter 1, General Principles of
Pharmacology Description Diploma exported pool
Instructions Modify

Add Question Here

Multiple Answer 1 points Modify Remove

Question The basis of the study of pharmacology for health care providers, including nurses, encompasses which of the following? Select all that
apply.
Answer A. Utilization
B. Ingestion
C. Processing
D. Response
E. Elimination
Correct Feedback Drugs undergo a series of steps to be processed, utilized, and eliminated by the body and this is the basis for the study of
pharmacology.
Incorrect Drugs undergo a series of steps to be processed, utilized, and eliminated by the body and this is the basis for the study of
Feedback pharmacology.

Add Question Here

Multiple Answer 1 points Modify Remove

Question It is crucial for the client to understand which of the following about the prescribed medication? Select all that apply.
Answer A. Medication classification
B. Medication administration
C. Dosage
D. Expected effect
E. Adverse reactions
Correct It is crucial for the patient to understand important information regarding the medication prescribed, including the dosage, how to
Feedback take the medication, expected effects, and adverse reactions.
Incorrect It is crucial for the patient to understand important information regarding the medication prescribed, including the dosage, how to
Feedback take the medication, expected effects, and adverse reactions.

Add Question Here

Multiple Answer 1 points Modify Remove

Question Medications are derived from which of the following sources? Select all that apply.
Answer A. Plants
B. Laboratories
C. Mold
D. Minerals
E. Animals
Correct Medications are derived from natural sources (plants – digitalis; mold – penicillin; minerals – calcium and animals - Premarin) or
Feedback synthetically in a laboratory.
Incorrect Medications are derived from natural sources (plants – digitalis; mold – penicillin; minerals – calcium and animals - Premarin) or
Feedback synthetically in a laboratory.

Add Question Here

Multiple Answer 1 points Modify Remove

Question Which of the following names may be assigned to a drug during the process of development? Select all that apply.
Answer A. Chemical name
B. Official name
C. Pharmacological name
D. Trade name
E. Nonproprietary name
Correct Throughout the process of development, drugs may have several names assigned to them including a chemical name, a generic
Feedback (nonproprietary) name, the official name, and a trade or brand name.
Incorrect Throughout the process of development, drugs may have several names assigned to them including a chemical name, a generic
Feedback (nonproprietary) name, the official name, and a trade or brand name.

Add Question Here

Multiple Answer 1 points Modify Remove

Question A drug may be classified by which of the following? Select all that apply.
Answer A. The chemical type of the drug's active ingredient.
B. The way the drug is used to treat a specific condition.
C. The generic name of the drug.
D. The trade name of the drug.
Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters
 2 of 6

E. The nonproprietary name of the drug.

Correct Feedback A drug may be classified by the chemical type of the active ingredient or by the way it is used to treat a particular condition.
Incorrect Feedback A drug may be classified by the chemical type of the active ingredient or by the way it is used to treat a particular condition.
Add Question Here
 3 of 6

Multiple Answer 1 points Modify Remove

Question The Food and Drug Administration assigns newly approved drugs to which of the following categories? Select all that apply.
Answer A. Nutraceuticals
B. Noncontrolled substance
C. Prescription
D. Nonprescription
E. Controlled substance
Correct Feedback Once drugs are approved for use, the FDA assigns the drug to one of the following categories: prescription, nonprescription, or
controlled substance.
Incorrect Once drugs are approved for use, the FDA assigns the drug to one of the following categories: prescription, nonprescription, or
Feedback controlled substance.

Add Question Here

Multiple Answer 1 points Modify Remove

Question When discussing the safe use of drugs in the institutional setting which of the following is a duty preformed by the nurse? Select all that
apply.
Answer A. Administering drugs
B. Monitoring clients for drug effects
C. Prescribing drugs
D. Evaluating clients for toxic effects
E. Educating clients/caregivers about drugs
Correct In the institutional setting the nurse's role when discussing drugs includes administering drugs, monitoring drug effects, evaluating
Feedback for toxic effects, and educating clients and caregivers about drugs.
Incorrect In the institutional setting the nurse's role when discussing drugs includes administering drugs, monitoring drug effects, evaluating
Feedback for toxic effects, and educating clients and caregivers about drugs.

Add Question Here

Multiple Answer 1 points Modify Remove

Question Which of the following must be documented on a prescription? Select all that apply.
Answer A. Name of the drug
B. Dosage of the drug
C. Route of drug administration
D. Times of drug administration
E. Licensed prescriber's signature
Correct The prescription must contain the client's name, the name of the drug, the dosage, the method and times of administration, and the
Feedback signature of the licensed health care provider prescribing the drug.
Incorrect The prescription must contain the client's name, the name of the drug, the dosage, the method and times of administration, and the
Feedback signature of the licensed health care provider prescribing the drug.

Add Question Here

Multiple Answer 1 points Modify Remove

Question Which of the following are true of nonprescription drugs? Select all that apply.
Answer A. They require a prescription to obtain.
B. They are referred to as over-the-counter drugs.
C. They can be taken without risk to the client.
D. They have certain labeling requirements.
E. They should be taken only as directed on the label.
Correct Nonprescription drugs are often referred to as over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. They do not require a prescription but do not come
Feedback without risk to the client. The federal government has imposed labeling requirements of OTC drugs and should only be taken as
directed on the label unless under the supervision of a health care provider.
Incorrect Nonprescription drugs are often referred to as over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. They do not require a prescription but do not come
Feedback without risk to the client. The federal government has imposed labeling requirements of OTC drugs and should only be taken as
directed on the label unless under the supervision of a health care provider.
Add Question Here

Multiple Answer 1 points Modify Remove

Question The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 regulates which of the following in regards to drugs classified as controlled substances? Select all
that apply.
Answer A. Manufacturing
B. Elimination
C. Distribution
D. Formulation
E. Dispensing
Correct Feedback The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 regulates the manufacture, distribution, and dispensing of drugs classified as controlled
substances.
Incorrect The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 regulates the manufacture, distribution, and dispensing of drugs classified as controlled
Feedback substances.

Add Question Here

Multiple Answer 1 points Modify Remove

Question Which of the following are true in regards to the Orphan Drug Program? Select all that apply.
Answer A. The program encourages the development and marketing of products to treat rare diseases.
B. The program grants provisional approval with a written commitment from the drug company to formally demonstrate client
benefit.
C. The program provides for incentives, such as research grants, protocol assistance, and special tax credits to develop products
to treat rare diseases.
D. The program grants seven years of exclusive marketing rights to the manufacturer if approved.
 Another random document
un-related content on Scribd:
FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1792.
Effects of the Revolution in Germany.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1789-1792.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1794.
Myths of the Revolution.

"The rapid growth and the considerable number of these myths

are one of the most curious features of the Revolution, while
their persistent vitality is a standing warning for historical
students. I claim to show that Cazotte's vision was invented
by Laharpe, that Sombreuil's daughter did not purchase his
liberty by quaffing blood, that the locksmith Gamain was not
poisoned, that Labussière did not save hundreds of prisoners
by destroying the documents incriminating them, that the
Girondins had no last supper, that some famous ejaculations
have been fabricated or distorted, that no attempt was made to
save the last batch of victims, that the boys Barra and Viala
were not heroes, that no leather was made of human skins, that
no Englishmen plied the September assassins with drink, that
the 'Vengeur' crew did not perish rather than surrender, that
the ice-bound Dutch fleet was not captured, that Robespierre's
wound was not the work of Merda, but was self-inflicted, and
that Thomas Paine had no miraculous escape."

J. G. Alger,
Glimpses of the French Revolution,
preface.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1796.
The Assignats of the Revolution.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1789-1796 (page 2212).

FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1807.
 Napoleon and Germany.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1796-1807.

FRANCE: A. D. 1855-1895.
Acquisitions in Africa.

(See in this Supplement)

AFRICA: 1855, 1864, 1876-1880, and after.

FRANCE: A. D. 1858-1886.
Conquest of Tonkin and Cochin China.

See TONKIN (page 3114).

FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1892.
Advance in the policy of Protection.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1871-1892 (page 3082).

FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895.
Assassination of President Carnot.
Election and resignation of M. Casimir-Périer.
Election of M. Faure to the Presidency.

"The most startling of all the deeds in the recent revival of

anarchistic activity was the assassination of M. Carnot,
President of the French Republic, on the 24th of June. While
driving through the streets of Lyons, where he was taking part
in the opening ceremonies of an exposition, he was mortally
stabbed by an Italian Anarchist named Santo Caserio. The
assassin was immediately captured, and was executed August 16.
His trial did not reveal any accomplices, though there was
evidence tending to show that the deed was resolved upon by a
band of Anarchists. Caserio boasted of his identification with
the sect. … According to the constitutional prescription, a
joint convention of the two chambers of the legislature was
 immediately summoned for a presidential election. The
convention met at Versailles, June 27, M. Challemel-Lacour,
president of the Senate, in the chair, and on the first ballot
chose M. Casimir-Périer by 451 out of a total of 851 votes, M.
Brisson, the Radical candidate, stood second, with 195, and M.
Dupuy third, with 97."

Political Science Quarterly,

December, 1894.

On the 15th of January, 1895, M. Casimir-Périer astonished the

world and threw France into consternation, almost, by suddenly
and peremptorily resigning the Presidency. The reason given
was the intolerable powerlessness and practical inutility of
the President under the existing constitution. The exciting
crisis which this resignation produced was passed through
without disorder, and on the 17th the National Assembly
elected M. François Felix Faure to the office of President.

FRANCE: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES (page 2010).

FRANCE, Bank of.

See MONEY (page 2212).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin,
and the first subscription library.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2017).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin:
Electrical discovery.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:

A. D. 1745-1747 (page 770).
FRANKLIN, Benjamin:
Examination before Parliament.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766 (pages 3192-3201).

FRANKLIN, Sir john.

Northern explorations and voyages of.
Loss and search for.

See (in this Supplement)

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1822, and after.

{3758}

FREDERICK BARBAROSSA, in Italy.

See (in this Supplement)

GERMANY: A. D. 1154-1190, and 1162-1177;
also, pages 1811-1813.

FREE CITIES OF GERMANY, The.

See (in this Supplement)

GERMANY: 13-15th CENTURIES; also, page 473.

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.

See below: TOLERATION, RELIGIOUS.

FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW,

The first.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793 (page 3305).

The Second.
 See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850 (pages 3388-3391).

GALEN, and the development of anatomy and physiology.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 2d CENTURY (page 2128).

GALVANI'S ELECTRICAL DISCOVERIES.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:

A. D. 1786-1800 (page 771).

GAUL: Ancient commerce.

See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

GENOA: The Bank of St. George.

See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2207).

GENOA: Mediæval Commerce.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

GEORGE III.:
Conversation with Governor Hutchinson
on affairs in the colonies.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (pages 3210-3213).

His absolute notions of Kingship.

See England: A. D. 1760-1763 (page 927).

GEORGE, Henry, and the Single Tax movement.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880 (page 2955).

GERM THEORY OF DISEASE, Origin and development of the.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES,

and 19TH CENTURY (pages 2138, 2144, and after).

----------GERMANY:Start--------

GERMANY:
Outline sketch of general history.

See EUROPE (page 1015, and after).

GERMANY: A. D. 962.
Otto I. and the Restoration of the Empire.

"And now it came about that out of the midst of the Germanic
nations a new monarchy arose which wrested itself free from
the immediate influence of the papacy and its antiquated
pretensions and broke a new path for the idea of the empire,
an idea that seemed to have been fully crushed. This was the
empire of Otto the Great. It was not to be compared with the
old Roman empire, it did not at all come up to what the
Carolingian had been. But it did give strong and irrevocable
expression to the idea of a highest authority in Germany, an
authority bound up with religion, yet independent in itself. …
The foundation of the Germanic empire, that is of an
organization which, resting on the internal development of the
German nations had won a universal position through the
extension of the power of the Ottos over Italy, forms the
event of world-wide importance of the tenth century. … This
Germanic empire had no genealogical origin that was entirely
indisputable, but it did in so far have an advantage over the
Carolingian empire that the right of heredity in the German
monarchy decided of itself the question of succession to the
empire. Besides this it had a sort of overlordship over its
neighbors to maintain which was different from that earlier
one: the attempts at Christianizing and at the same time
reducing to submission took in other regions extending far
beyond the limits of the former ones. It was a resuscitation
of the idea of the old Roman empire but by no means of its
form. On the contrary, through constant struggles new
constitutional forms had developed themselves of which the old
world had as yet no conception. Not that it is the proper
place here to enter more deeply into the question of the
feudal system which gave to public life an altogether changed
aspect. But, in a word or two at least, we must characterize
this transformation. Its essence is that an attempt was made
to adjust the conception of obedience and military service to
the needs of the life of the individual. All the arrangements
of life changed their character so soon as it became the
custom to grant land to local overlords who, in turn, provided
with possessions according to their own several grades, could
only be sure of being able to hold these possessions in so far
as they kept faith and troth with the lord-in-chief of the
land. It was through and through a living organization, which
took in the entire monarchy and bound it together into a
many-membered whole; for the counts and dukes for their own
part entered into a similar relationship with their own
sub-tenants. Therewith the possession of land entered into an
indissoluble connection with the theory of the empire, a
connection which extended also to those border nations which
were in contact with and subordinate to the monarchy. That an
empire so constituted could not reckon on such unconditional
obedience as had been paid to the old Roman empire is clear as
day. Nevertheless the whole order of things in the world
depended on the system of adjusted relationships, the keystone
or rather commanding central point of which was formed by this
same empire. It could scarcely claim any longer to be
universal but it did nevertheless hold the chief place in the
general state-system of Europe, and it proved a powerful
upholder of the independence of the secular power. It was just
this idea of universal power, and altogether of ascendancy
over the Christian world, that was indelibly implanted in the
German empire. But could this idea be actually realized, was
 Germany strong enough to carry it through? Otto the Great
originated it, but by no means carried it to its completion.
He passed his life amid constant internal and external
struggles; no lasting form of constitution was he able to
leave behind. That is, one might almost say, what is most
characteristic of great natures: they can originate, indeed,
but they cannot complete."

L. von Ranke,
Weltgeschichte,
(translated from the German),
volume 7, pages. 5-7.

{3759}

"For what else did he (Otto I) wish to found but a

world-monarchy like that of the Caesars? Emperor of the Romans
and Augustus did he call himself and at Rome he had received
his imperial crown. And was not for him the most sacred spot
in the universe the grave of St. Peter at Rome? Was not this
Saxon in armor an equally eager apostle of the Roman church
with that Anglo-Saxon monk who as servant of the pope had
planted Christianity in North German lands? While Otto was
determined to extend the power of his empire as far as to the
most distant peoples of the still unexplored north and east,
he at the same time purposed to bear to the end of the world
Christianity in the form in which Rome had given it him. The
bones of the Roman martyrs he carried over the Alps and
through faith in them he worked wonders; woods were cleared,
marshes dried, cities built, victories won over the most
dangerous enemies. Not only did the language of Rome sound
forth from the altars of Saxony: it became at the same time
the language of affairs in the emperor's chancery, and in it
the commands of the all-powerful Augustus were issued to the
whole world. Thus did Otto, although through and through a
Saxon warrior of the old stamp, live wholly at the same time
in those Roman ideas against which, in times gone by, his
forefathers had struggled. The mightiest contradictions which
have affected the course of the world's history met together
in his personality in full force, and reconciled themselves
there just as they did in the great onward course of events. …
In all the movements of the time Otto took part with force and
with success; the imperial title was now no empty name as it
had been in the last years of the Carolingian period. But not
through laws, not through an artificial state system, not
through a great army of officials did Otto rule Western
Europe, but more than all through the wealth of military
resources which his victories had placed in his hands. Through
the great army of his German vassals who were well versed in
war he overthrew the Slavonians, kept the Danes in check,
compelled the Hungarians to relinquish their nomadic life of
plunder and to seek settled dwelling places in the plains of
the Danube; so that now the gates of the East through which up
till then masses of peoples threatening everything with
destruction had always anew broken in upon the West were
closed forever. The fame of his victories and his feudal
supremacy, extending itself further and further, made him also
protector of the Burgundian and French kingdoms, and finally
lord of Lombardy and of the City of Rome. With the military
resources of Germany he holds in subjection the surrounding
peoples; but through the power thus won, on the other hand, he
himself gains a proud ascendancy over the multitude of his own
vassals. Only for the reason that he wins for himself a truly
royal position in Germany is he enabled to gain the imperial
crown; but this again it is which first really secures and
confirms his own and his family's rule in the German lands. On
this rests chiefly his preeminent position, that he is the
first and mightiest lord of Western Christendom, that as such
he is able at any moment to bring together a numerous military
force with which no people, no prince can any longer cope. But
not on this alone. For the Catholic clergy also, spreading far
and wide over the whole west, serves him as it were like a new
crowd of vassals in stole and cassock. He nominates the
archbishops and bishops in his German and Italian kingdoms as
well as in the newly converted lands of the North and East; he
rules the successor of St. Peter and through him exercises a
decisive influence on church progress even in the western
lands where he does not himself install the dignitaries of the
church. Different as this German empire was from the Frankish,
faulty as was its organization, its resources seemed
nevertheless sufficient in the hand of a competent ruler to
maintain a far-reaching and effectual rule in the West; the
more so as it was upheld by public opinion and supported by
the authority of the church. But one must not be led into
error; these resources were only sufficient in the hands of a
so powerful and active prince as Otto. From the Elbe marshes
he hastened to the Abruzzian Mountains; from the banks of the
Rhine now to the shores of the Adriatic, now to the sand-dunes
of the Baltic. Ceaselessly is he in motion, continually under
arms—first against the Wends and Hungarians, then against the
Greeks and Lombards. No county in his wide realm, no bishopric
in Catholic Christendom but what he fixed his eye upon and
vigilantly watched. And wherever he may tarry and whatever he
may undertake his every act is full of fire, force and vigor
and always hits the mark. With such a representative the
empire is not only the highest power in the Western world but
one which on all its affairs has a deep and active influence—a
power as much venerated as it was dreaded."

W. von Giesebrecht,
Deutsche Kaiserzeit
(translated from the German).
volume 1, pages 476-484.

"He (Otto) now permanently united the Roman empire to the

German nation and this powerful and intelligent people
undertook the illustrious but thankless task of being the
Atlas of universal history. And soon enough did the connection
of Germany with Italy result in the reform of the church and
the revival of the various sciences, while in Italy itself it
was essentially the Germanic element which brought into being
 the glorious civic republics. Through a historical necessity,
doubtless, Germany and Italy, the purest representatives of
the antique and the Teutonic types and the fairest provinces
in the kingdom of human thought, were brought into this
long-lasting connection. From this point of view posterity has
no right to complain that the Roman empire was laid like a
visitation of Fate on our Fatherland and compelled it for
centuries to pour out its life-blood in Italy in order to
construct those foundations of general European culture for
which modern humanity has essentially Germany to thank."

Gregorovius,
Geschichte der Stadt Rom
(translated from the German),
volume 3, page 334.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 936-973 (pages 1439-1441).

GERMANY: 11-12th Centuries.

The question of the Investitures.

See (in this Supplement) PAPACY: A. D. 11-12TH CENTURIES.

{3760}

GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1272(?).
The Rise of the College of Electors.

"At the election of Rudolph [1272 or 1273?] we meet for the

first time the fully developed college of electors as a single
electoral body; the secondary matter of a doubt regarding what
individuals composed it was definitely settled before
Rudolph's reign had come to an end. How did the college of
electors develop itself? … The problem is made more difficult
at the outset from the fact that, in the older form of
government in Germany there can be no question at all of a
simple electoral right in a modern sense. The electoral right
was amalgamated with a hereditary right of that family which
had happened to come to the throne: it was only a right of
selection from among the heirs available within this family.
Inasmuch now as such selection could,—as well from the whole
character of German kingship as in consequence of its
amalgamation with the empire—take place already during the
lifetime of the ruling member of the family, it is easy to
understand that in ages in which the ruling race did not die
out during many generations, the right came to be at last
almost a mere form. Usually the king, with the consent of
those who had the right of election, would, already during his
lifetime, designate as his successor one of his heirs,—if
possible his oldest son. Such was the rule in the time of the
Ottos and of the Salian emperors. It was a rule which could
not be adhered to in the first half of the 12th century after
the extinction of the Salian line, when free elections, not
determined beforehand by designation, took place in the years
1125, 1138 and 1152. Necessarily the clement of election now
predominated. But had any fixed order of procedure at
elections been handed down from the past? The very principle
of election having been disregarded in the natural course of
events for centuries, was it any wonder that the order of
procedure should also come to be half forgotten? And had not
in the meantime social readjustments in the electoral body so
disturbed this order of procedure, or such part of it as had
been important enough to be preserved, as necessarily to make
it seem entirely antiquated? With these questions the
electoral assemblies of the year 1125 as well as of the year
1138 were brought face to face and they found that practically
only those precedents could be taken from what seemed to have
been the former customary mode of elections which provided
that the archbishop of Mainz as chancellor of the empire
should first solemnly announce the name of the person elected
and the electors present should do homage to the new king.
This was at the end of the whole election, after the choice
had to all intents and purposes been already made. For the
material part of the election, on the other hand, the part
that preceded this announcement, they found an apparently new
expedient. A committee was to draw up an agreement as to the
person to be chosen; in the two cases in question the manner
of constituting this committee differed. Something essential
had now been done towards establishing a mode of procedure at
elections which should accord with the changed circumstances.
One case however had not been provided for in these still so
informal and uncertain regulations; the case, namely, that
those taking part in the election could come to no agreement
at all with regard to the person whose choice was to be
solemnly announced by the archbishop of Mainz. And how could
men have foreseen such a case in the first half of the 12th
century? Up till then double elections had absolutely never
taken place. Anti-kings there had been, indeed, but never two
opposing kings elected at the same time. In the year 1198,
however, this contingency arose; Philip of Suabia and Otto IV
were contemporaneously elected and the final unanimity of
choice that in 1152 had still been counted on as a matter of
course did not come about. As a consequence questions with
regard to the order of procedure now came up which had hardly
ever been touched upon before. First and foremost this one:
can a better right of one of the elected kings be founded on a
majority of the votes obtained? And in connection with it this
other: who on the whole has a right to cast an electoral vote?
Even though men were inclined now to answer the first question
in the affirmative, the second, the presupposition for the
practical application of the principle that had been laid down
in the first, offered all the greater difficulties. Should
one, after the elections of the years 1125 and 1152 and after
the development since 1180 of a more circumscribed class of
princes of the realm, accept the existence of a narrower
electoral committee? Did this have a right to elect
exclusively, or did it only have a simple right of priority in
the matter of casting votes, or perhaps only a certain
precedence when the election was being discussed? And how were
the limits to be fixed for the larger circle of electors below
this electoral committee? These are questions which the German
 electors put to themselves less soon and less clearly than did
the pope, Innocent III, whom they had called upon to
investigate the double election of the year 1198. … He speaks
repeatedly of a narrower electoral body with which rests
chiefly the election of the king, and he knows only princes as
the members of this body. And beyond a doubt the repeated
expressions of opinion of the pope, as well as this whole
matter of having two kings, at the beginning of the 13th
century, gave men in Germany cause for reflection with regard
to these weighty questions concerning the constitutional forms
of the empire. One of the most important results of this
reflection on the subject is to be found in the solution given
by the Sachsenspiegel which was compiled about 1230. Eike von
Repgow knows in his law-book only of a precedence at elections
of a smaller committee of princes, but mentions as belonging
to this committee certain particular princes: the three
Rhenish archbishops, the count Palatine of the Rhine, the duke
of Saxony, the margrave of Brandenburg and,—his right being
questionable indeed—the king of Bohemia. … So far, at all
events, did the question with regard to the limitation of the
electors seem to have advanced towards its solution by the
year 1230 that an especial electoral college of particular
persons was looked upon as the nucleus of those electing. But
side by side with this view the old theory still held its own,
that certainly all princes at least had an equal right in the
election. Under Emperor Frederick II, for instance, it was
still energetically upheld. A decision one way or the other
could only be reached according to the way in which the next
elections should actually be carried out. Henry Raspe was
elected in the year 1246 almost exclusively by ecclesiastical
princes, among them the three Rhenish archbishops. He was the
first 'priest-king' (Pfaffenkönig). The second 'priest-king'
was William of Holland. He was chosen by eleven princes, among
whom was only one layman, the duke of Brabant. The others were
bishops; among them, in full force, the archbishops of the
Rhine.
{3761}
Present were also many counts. But William caused himself
still to be subsequently elected by the duke of Saxony and the
margrave of Brandenburg, while the king of Bohemia was also
not behindhand in acknowledging him—that, too, with special
emphasis. What transpired at the double election of Alphonse
and Richard in the year 1257 has not been handed down with
perfect trustworthiness. Richard claimed later to have been
elected by Mainz, Cologne, the Palatinate and Bohemia;
Alphonse by Treves, Saxony, Brandenburg and Bohemia. But in
addition to the princes of these lands, other German princes
also took part,—according to the popular view by assenting,
according to their own view, in part at least, by actually
electing. All the same the lesson taught by all these
elections is clear enough. The general right of election of
the princes disappears almost altogether; a definite electoral
college, which was looked upon as possessing almost
exclusively the sole right of electing, comes into prominence,
and the component parts which made it up correspond in
substance to the theory of the Sachsenspiegel. And whatever in
the year 1257 is not established firmly and completely and in
all directions, stands there as incontrovertible at the
election of Rudolph. The electors, and they only, now elect;
all share of others in the election is done away with.
Although in place of Ottocar of Bohemia who was at war with
Rudolph Bavaria seems to have been given the electoral vote,
yet before Rudolph's reign is out, in the year 1290, Bohemia
at last attains to the dignity which the Sachsenspiegel, even
if with some hesitation, had assigned to it. One of the most
important revolutions in the German form of government was
herewith accomplished. From among the aristocratic class of
the princes an oligarchy had raised itself up, a
representation of the princely provincial powers as opposed to
the king. Unconsciously, as it were, had it come into being,
not exactly desired by anyone as a whole, nor yet the result
of a fixed purpose even as regarded its separate parts. It
must clearly have corresponded to a deep and elementary and
gradually developing need of the time. Undoubtedly from a
 national point of view it denotes progress; henceforward at
elections the danger of 'many heads many minds' was avoided;
the era of double elections was practically at an end."

K. Lamprecht,
Deutsche Geschichte
(translated from the German),
volume 4, pages 23-28.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152 (page 1444).

GERMANY:A. D. 1154-1190.
Frederick Barbarossa in Italy.

See (in this Supplement) ITALY: A. D. 1154-1190.

GERMANY:A. D. 1162-1177.
The Emperor and the Pope.

See (in this Supplement) PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1177.

GERMANY:12th-17th Centuries.
Causes of the Disintegration of the Empire.

"The whole difference between French and German constitutional

history can be summed up in a word: to the ducal power, after
its fall, the crown fell heir in France; the lesser powers,
which had been its own allies, in Germany. The event was the
same, the results were different: in France centralization, in
Germany disintegration. The fall of the power of the
stem-duchies is usually traced to the subjugation of the
mightiest of the dukes, Henry the Lion, who refused military
service to the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa just when the
latter most needed him in the struggle against the Lombards.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183 (page 2813).

… The emperor not only banned the duke, he not only took away
his duchy to bestow it elsewhere, but he entirely did away
with this whole form of rule. The western part, Westphalia,
went to the archbishops of Cologne; in the East the different
margraves were completely freed from the last remnants of
dependence that might have continued to exist. In the
intervening space the little ecclesiastical and secular lords
came to be directly under the emperor without a trace of an
intermediate power and with the title of bishop or abbot,
imperial count, or prince. If one of these lords, Bernard of
Ascanium, received the title of Saxon duke, that title no
longer betokened the head of a stem or nation but simply an
honorary distinction above other counts and lords. What
happened here had already begun to take place in the other
duchy of the Guelphs, in Bavaria, through the detachment from
it of Austria; sooner or later the same process came about in
all parts of the empire. With the fall of the old stem-duchies
those lesser powers which had been under their shadow or
subject to them gained every where an increase of power:
partly by this acquiring the ducal title as an honorary
distinction by the ruler of a smaller district, partly by
joining rights of the intermediate powers that had just been
removed to their own jurisdictions and thus coming into direct
dependence on the empire. … Such was the origin of the idea of
territorial supremacy. The 'dominus terrae' comes to feel
himself no longer as a person commissioned by the emperor but
as lord in his own land. … As to the cities, behind their
walls remnants of old Germanic liberty had been preserved.
Especially in the residences of the bishops had artisans and
merchants thriven and these classes had gradually thrown off
their bondage, forming, both together, the new civic
community. … The burghers could find no better way to show
their independence of the princes than that the community
itself should exercise the rights of a territorial lord over
its members. Thus did the cities as well as the principalities
come to form separate territories, only that the latter had a
monarchical, the former a republican form of government. … It
 is a natural question to ask, on the whole, when this new
formation of territories was completed. … The question ought
really only to be put in a general way: at what period in
German history is it an established fact that there are in the
empire and under the empire separate territorial powers
(principalities and cities)? As such a period we can designate
approximately the end of the 12th and beginning of the 13th
centuries. From that time on the double nature of imperial
power and of territorial power is an established fact and the
mutual relations of these two make up the whole internal
history of later times. … The last ruler who had spread abroad
the glory of the imperial name had been Frederick II. For a
long time after him no one had worn the imperial crown at all,
and of those kings who reigned during a whole quarter of a
century not one succeeded in making himself generally
recognized. There came a time when the duties of the state, if
they were fulfilled at all, were fulfilled by the territorial
powers.
{3762}
Those are the years which pass by the name of the interregnum.
… Rudolph of Hapsburgh and his successors, chosen from the
most different houses and pursuing the most different
policies, have quite the same position in two regards: on the
one hand the crown, in the weak state in which it had emerged
from the interregnum, saw itself compelled to make permanent
concessions to the territorial powers in order to maintain
itself from one moment to another; on the other hand it finds
no refuge for itself but in the constant striving to found its
own power on just such privileged territories. When the kings
strive to make the princes and cities more powerful by giving
them numerous privileges, and at the same time by bringing
together a dynastic appanage to gain for themselves an
influential position: this is no policy that wavers between
conceding and maintaining. … The crown can only keep its place
above the territories by first recognizing the territorial
powers and then, through just such a recognized territorial
power by creating for itself the means of upholding its
rights. … The next great step in the onward progress of the
territorial power was the codification of the privileges which
the chief princes had obtained. Of the law called the 'Golden
Bull' only the one provision is generally known, that the
seven electors shall choose the emperor; yet so completely
does the document in question draw the affairs of the whole
empire into the range of its provisions that for centuries it
could pass for that empire's fundamental law. It is true that,
for the most part it did not create a new system of
legislation but only sanctioned what already existed. But for
the position of all the princes it was significant enough that
the seven most considerable among them were granted an
independence which comprised sovereign rights, and this not by
way of a privilege but as a part of the law of the land. A
sharply defined goal, and herein lies the deepest
significance, was thus set up at which the lesser territories
could aim and which, after three centuries, they were to
attain. … This movement was greatly furthered when on the
threshold of modern times the burning question of church
reform, after waiting in vain to be taken up by the emperor,
was taken up by the lower classes, but with revolutionary
excesses. … The mightiest intellectual movement of German
history found at last its only political mainstay in the
territories. … This whole development, finally, found its
political and legal completion through the Thirty Years War
and the treaty of peace which concluded it. The new law which
the Peace of Westphalia now gave to the empire proclaimed
expressly that all territories should retain their rights,
especially the right of making alliances among themselves and
with foreigners so long as it could be done without violating
the oath of allegiance to the emperor and the empire. Herewith
the territories were proclaimed to be what they had really
been for a long time—states under the empire."

I. Jastrow,
Geschichte der deutschen Einheitstraum und seiner Erfüllung
(translated from the German).
 pages 30-37.

GERMANY: 13th-15th Centuries.

The rise of the Free Cities and their Leagues.

"Under cities we are to understand fortified places in the

enjoyment of market-jurisdiction (marktrecht), immunity and
corporate self-government. The German as well as the French
cities are a creation of the Middle Ages. They were unknown to
the Frankish as well as to the old Germanic public law; there
was no organic connection with the Roman town-system. … All
cities were in the first place markets; only in
market-jurisdiction are we to seek the starting point for
civic jurisdiction. The market-cross, the same emblem which
already in the Frankish period signified the market-peace
imposed under penalty of the king's ban, became in the Middle
Ages the emblem of the cities. … After the 12th century we
find it to be the custom in most German and many French cities
to erect a monumental town-cross in the market-place or at
different points on the city boundary. Since the 14th century
the place of this was often taken in North-German cities by
the so-called Roland-images. … All those market-places
gradually became cities in which, in addition to yearly
markets, weekly markets and finally daily markets were held.
Here there was need of coins and of scales, of permanent
fortifications for the protection of the market-peace and the
objects of value which were collected together; here merchants
settled permanently in growing numbers, the Jews among them
especially forming an important element. Corporative
associations of the merchants resulted, and especially were
civic and market tribunals established. … From the beginning
such a thing as free cities, which were entirely their own
masters, had not existed. Each city had its lord; who he was
depended on to whom the land belonged on which they stood. If
it belonged to the empire or was under the administration
(vogtei) of the empire the city was a royal or imperial one.
The oldest of these were the Pfalz-cities (Pfalzstädte) which