CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

!1'
THE
JOURNAL
OF
ECCLESIASTICAL
HISTORY
VOLUME
THIRTY-THREE
1982
CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY
PRESS
CAMBRIDGE
LONDON
NEW
YORK
MELBOURNE
NEW
SYDNEY
2z13s-
ROCHELLE
Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge
The Pitt Building, Trumpington
Street, Cambridge Cß2 IRP
32 East 57th Street, New York, NY 10022, USA
Q Cambridge
PRINTED
IN GREAT
BRITAIN
University
AT THE
Press 1982
UNIVERSITY
MOIVUMENTA GERMANIAE
NiSTO: iGA
Bibliothek
PRESS, CAMBRIDGE
Journal of Euluiastical History, Pol.33,
July 1982
3,
-A'0- ,
The `Imperial Church System' of
the Ottonian and Salian Rulers: a
Reconsideration
by TIA-iOTHY
REUTER
is a general consensus among historians that there was
something quite special about the church policy of the O.ttonian
and Salian rulers of Germany from Henry z to Henry in. The
There
normal reliance of the medieval king on his prelates was here turned into
a deliberate and systematic exploitation of the potential of the Church as
an instrument of government. These rulers used bishops and abbots, whom
they appointed, as a counterweight to a turbulent and unreliable lay
nobility. Many historians have, so to speak, followed them in this, have
turned from the Ottonians' and Salians' complex and seemingly unsatisfactory relations with their aristocracy to their church policy. Here they
have seen plan, system and harmony, so much so that the Church has come
to be regarded as the principal instrument of government available to these
rulers. Our picture of the Ottonian and Salian `imperial church system',
the Reichskirchen}'steht of German historians, has been much refined by
recent scholarship, ' but the essential outlines have not greatly altered since
the time of Waitz and Giesebrecht. The purpose of what follows is to
re-examine these outlines. The qualifications, doubts and re-interpretations
* Much
of the initial work for this paper was done while I was working in Germany
on a scholarship from the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst. My thanks are due to
them and also to Christopher Holdsworth, Karl Leyser and Janet Nelson, who were kind
enough to comment on an earlier draft.
1 Notably by J. Fleckenstein, Die Hofkapelle der ottonisch-salischenReichskirche. (Schriften
der M. G. H. xvi. 2,1966); L. Auer, 'Der Kriegsdienst der Klerus unter den sächsischen
Kaisern', i, hfitteilungen des Instituts fur österreichischeGeschichtsforschung(hereafter cited as
df. LO. G. ), lxxix (1971), 316-407, and it, tf. 1. O. G., lxxx (1972), 48-70; C. Brühl, Fordrum,
,
Gistum, Serritium Regis, 2 vols., Cologne 1968; H: P. Wchlt, Reichsabtei and König, dargestellt
am Beispiel der Abtei Lorsch mit Ausblicken auf Hersfeld, Stablo and Fulda (Veröffentlichungen
des Max-Planck-Instituts
lür Geschichte, xxviii, 1970). For further bibliography
see
L. Santifaller, 'Zur Geschichte des ottonisch-salischen
Reichskirchensystems',
Sitzungsberichteder österreichischeAkademie der Il'issenschaflen, phil.
Klasse,
(Vienna,
i
ccxxix,
1964)
-hist.
Ein Forschungsbericht',
in Adel and
and 0. Köhler, 'Das ottonische Rcichskirchcnsystem.
Kirche. Festschrift fir Gad Tdlazbach, Freiburg im Breisgau 1968,141-204.
'3
ECU
347
33
TIMOTHY
REUTER
least
hinted
been
have
at
at
expressed
or
many
new;
all
not
offered are
been
fully
have
2
But
literature.
they
articulated, and
never
in the existing
Reichskirchensystem
looking
the
as a whole to ask
at
it seems worth
again
functions
have
it
did
fact
the
in
usually
far
performed
could
how
or
focus
The
it
far
how
it,
system.
was
a
of
to
also
ask
to
and
attributed
(and
lesser
bishoprics
German
be
inevitably
to
the
a
,
on
attention will
Contest,
but
it
be
Investiture
before
will
also
the
extent the royal abbeys)
in
Europe
look
this
at
period,
the
elsewhere
position
to
at
necessary
because an appearance of uniqueness and system has been fostered by
Reich
in
isolation.
in
the
considering conditions
is
it
The broad outlines of the Reichskirchensystem
as
usually presented are
kept
hold
Salians
Ottonians
The
known.
tight
a
on
and
well enough
local
bishoprics
rejecting
candiabbeys,
often
to
royal
and
appointments
dates and putting in their own men, and endowed these institutions with
land and rights, which were expected to be used on the king's behalf And
in his service. This control enabled the kings both to exploit the wealth
fund
in
Church
Church
the
trust
to
which wealth and
and
use
as a
of the
Provided
be
deposited.
that there was control over
safely
rights could
farmed
being
be
fisc
in
the
out
without
effect
could
appointments,
into
laymen
disappear
land
Grants
to
the
might
and rights
of
alienated.
hereditary
property; this was not the case with grants to
of
general mass
bishops
did
Salian
Ottonian
and
abbots
not usually
and
ecclesiastics.
breed, and when they did their children did not benefit from their father's
increasingly
became
duke
3
Thus,
the
of
or
count
offices
while
positions.
difficult to control or to rely on, the Ottonians' and Salians' control of the
Church meant that the whole of their Reich was still covered by a network
fell
fairly
royal
control
and
which
under
vacant
of posts which remained
frequently: the average length of an episcopate in this period was about
fifteen years, and in about two-thirds of all years two or more bishoprics
fell vacant; the figures for royal monasteries are more difficult to calculate,
but a fair estimate would be that in a normal year about six to ten
lost
their prelates.
nunneries
monasteries and
It is an essential feature of the Reiclukirchensystem as it is generally
it
indeed
it
deliberate
that
the
that
a
system;
was
result
a
was
or
conceived
'
It
is
of
purposes.
not supposed that this
a
number
served
policy which
developed
form
its
fully
Henry
in
began
under
i; two periods in
policy
have
increase
in
to
a
seen
substantial
supposed
royal reliance
are
particular
The
first
is
last
decades
Otto
Church.
the
two
the
i's reign, when
of
on
2 Seefor example below, pp. 349 n. 5,352 n. 26,356 n. 51,365 n. 1o6. In general the
has
been
literature
more cautious than general works.
specialist
a A. Hauck, KirchengeschichteDeutschlands, 5th cdn, Leipzig 1925, iii. 566-7, gives a few
incelibate bishops.
of
examples
° See typically 0. Köhler, Das Bild des geistlichen Fürsten in den Viten des 1o-rt. und t:.
Jahrhunderts (Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte, lxxvii, 1935), g: `The
bishops were to become the basis of royal power... tools of the royal will... supporters of
'
ducal
Reich
tendencies.
idea
against
a
of
the
348
ý
THE
GERMAN
`IMPERIAL
CHURCH
SYSTEM'
he is held ta have turned to the
episcopate as an alternative to the failed
strategy of rule through dukes drawn from his own family. ' The second
is the reign of Henry u, when royal control
over church appointments was
greatly increased and was accompanied by a more intensive exploitation
of the Church than earlier rulers had practised. " The policy had important
corollaries. First, it is supposed to have given the Ottonians and Salians
an additional
reason for wishing to control the papacy and Italy.
Although few tenth- and eleventh-century popes enjoyed high personal
prestige, the papacy remained an authority generally acknowledged by
the German episcopate. It was vital to control the papacy in order to be
able to short-circuit this potentially dangerous outside influence.? Second,
it was as a part and a consequence of the Reichskirchensystemthat the
Ottonians and Salians came to take on the attributes of a rex et sacerdos,
of priestly kingship. " At the great Church feasts of Christmas, Easter and
Whitsun and on other important
occasions, the ruler appeared in
splendour as the vicarius Christi. His special and direct relationship with
God was depicted in an occasionally bizarre iconography and was stressed
liturgically?
All this is supposed to have quietened uneasy consciences
among churchmen. In a famous passage in his Chronicon,Bishop Thietmar
of Merseburg said:
Our kings and emperors, set in the stead of the highest ruler in this earthly pilgrimage,
dispose of this matter [the appointment of bishops] alone, and are deservedly set over
their other prelates. For it is quite unfitting that those whom Christ made princes of
the earth in his image should be under the rule of any except those who, like the Lord,
exceed all mortals in the glory of unction and coronation. '°
e Auer, `Kriegsdienst, t', 322,335; J. Fleckenstein, `Das Reich der Ottonen im
to.
Jahrhundert',
in B. Gebhardt, Handbuch derDeutschenGeschichte,9th edn by H. Grundmann,
Stuttgart 1970, i. 245-6. For dissent from this
communis opinio sec K. J. Leyser, Rule and
Conflict in an Early Medieval Society. 0ttonian Saxony, London
E. Otto, Die
1979,27;
Entwicklung der deutschenKirchenvoglei im ro. Jahrhundert (Abhandlungen
zur mittleren und
neueren Geschichte, lxxii, 1933), 151-2: `One cannot say that [Otto t] wanted to
subordinate the lay princes with the help of the Church. Nothing could be done with the
help of the Church as a power; the basis of its
strength was small and dwindling. '
8 T. Schieffer, `Heinrich it. und Konrad it. Die Umprägung des Geschichtsbildes durch
die Kirchenreform
des 11. Jahrhunderts',
DeutschesArchiv für Erforschung desMittelalters, viii
(1951), 394-5; Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, 220.
7 K. Bosl, `Deutschlands staatlich-politisches Gewicht im Zeitalter der Ottonen
und
ersten Salier', in Gebhardt, Handbuch,i. 764; Santifaller, `Reichskirschensystem', 408 See below, p. 372 and nn. 143-4-
' Both the liturgical/ceremonial
and the iconographical aspects of kingship have been
the subject of intensive study, following the pioneering work of P. E. Schramm' and
E. H. Kantorowicz.
The premises and results of much of this work, which began as a
reaction against an excessive positivism in medieval political history, have now become
somewhat rarified; for acute observations on how these aspects of kingship related to other
more earthy ones see Leyser, Rule and Conflict, 75-108.
10 ThietmarofMMerseburg, Chronicon,i. 26, ed. R. Holtzmann (M. G. H. Scriptores
rerum
Germanicarum (hereafter cited as SRG), nova series, ix, 1935), 33"
349
13-2
TIMOTHY
REUTER
Third, the concentration of resources on the Reichskirchensysieniis said to
have had fatal consequences for Salian rulership when the quasi-divine
king
the
and royal appointments to ecclesiastical office came
status of
The
in
fire
the
the
movement.
course of
eleventh-century reform
under
Ottonians and Salians, it is held, had put too many eggs in one basket;
Gregory vii and Urban II cut through the handle and the eggs were
smashed. "
This, then, is what Karl Leyser has called `the schematic Ottonian
it,
historical
1.12
In
we may
examining
parlance
church system of common
begin by looking more closely at the way in which men became bishops
in
Liege
died
kind
When
Nithard
1042 the
the
they
of
men
were.
of
and
Wazo
him
to Henry iii with the episcopal staff
and
wanted
sent
chapter
The
king
letters,
election.
considered the matter with
of
presumably
and
his court. Many said that the election had been made without royal
approval; that bishops should be promoted from the ranks of the
chaplains; and that Wazo had not sweated at the royal court to earn his
promotion. Henry was at first inclined to agree with this, but was
persuaded otherwise by Bruno of Würzburg and Herimann of Cologne,
and agreed to Wazo's election. 13This story illustrates the `constitutional'
for
the
elements in the Reichskirchensystem
:
royal
need
as generally conceived
approval of elections and the importance of membership of the capella. It
also hints at other things which are less frequently mentioned by historians,
though they are referred to often enough in the Vitae and Gestaof Ottonian
and Salian bishops: the fierce scramble for bishoprics when they fell
vacant, and the need in the scramble to have powerful and influential
backers.
The need for royal approval of elections was clearly something felt
throughout the tenth and early eleventh centuries, but it is quite hard to
pin down what it meant and what the legal basis for it was. The `older'
bishoprics - those not founded by the Ottonians themselves
had
the
right of free election, which meant in particular not having an outsider
thrust upon them against their will. This right might be guaranteed by
a royal privilege, but this was not necessary. 14 Increasingly, however, the
Ottonians and Salians came to regard such a right as implying merely the
right to propose a candidate. Particularly under Henry ii, the king often
refused to accept such a proposal and instead insisted on a candidate of
his own. 15 The forms of electio canonica were preserved by the chapter's
11 H. Mitteis,
The Slate in the Middle
Ages, trans.
H. F. Orton,
Amsterdam
1975,109,
192.
12 K. J. Leyser, review of Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, E. H. R., lxxxv (1970), 115.
13 Anselm of Liege, Gesta episcoporum Tungrensium, Traiectensium et Leodiensium, c. 50,
M. G. H. Scriptorum tomus (hereafter cited as SS), vii. 219-20.
14 G. Weise, Königtum und Bischofswahl im fränkischen und deutschenReich vor dem Investiturstreit, Berlin 1912,57-63,95-715 Hauck,
Kirchengeschichte
Deutschlands,
iii.
28-33,397-407;
208-11.
350
Fleckenstein,
Hofkapelle,
THE
GERMAN
'IMPERIAL
CHURCH
SYSTEM'
giving its `free election' subsequently, a procedure now also extended to
the newer Ottonian foundations, and there was some attempt to tidy up
episcopal privileges, either by leaving out any reference to the right of
election or by inserting a reservation: aequoconsensuregis, though this was
not followed through with any great consistency. 1e It might seem, then,
as if rulers acquired an ever tighter control over episcopal appointments,
but this would be an over-simplification. There was considerable resistance
to royal designation of outsiders; perhaps in consequence, Henry it's
successorsshowed themselves less willing than he had been to override the
chapter. Most chapters at least tried to elect, even if they could not carry
it through, and often the unsuccessful candidate
would be promised a later
bishopric. '' Moreover, there is a danger of over-systematisation. Where
we know anything about the circumstances of an election, it is generally
true that the court was involved. 18 But it does not follow that where we
know nothing about the election the king
probably had a hand in it.
Schlesinger's statement that `just
as the lord of the church appointed the
priest of his Eigenkirche, so the king appointed the bishops of Merseburg,
Meissen and Zeitz', 19is at leastforMeissen and Zeitz
largely
hypothesis.
Quite apart from the question of whether the royal power to
nominate
really was a proprietary one, 20 we do not even know the precise dates of
office of some of these bishops, and it does not follow from the fact that
some had been capellani that they were the king's nominees. 21 Royal
influence over episcopal elections seems to have been more intense in
Ostfalia and in the Rhine and Main valleys than elsewhere. These were
the areas where kings were frequently present and had more concentrated
is
22
in
fiscal
lands
there
that
through
respect
their
and rights,
and
power
16 The clauses are found in all renewals of episcopal privileges of election after 1002
henceforth
here
DHu
(royal
diplomata
for
Halberstadt,
are referred
that
and
13
except
initial of ruler's name; regnal number;
to in the conventional way: D[D] for Diploma[ta];
number of the diploma in the NIGH edition). But there were very few of these renewals,
and they did not coincide with episcopal elections, where such privileges seem normally
to have played little part. For an example of simple omission of the right of free election
from a confirmation of a privilege by Henry it, see H. Bannasch, Das Bistum Paderborn unter
On developments
den Bischöfen Re her and dleinwerk (983-1o36), Paderborn 1972,46-7.
under Henry u see Weise, Königtum, 117f . Schieffer, `Heinrich it. and Konrad u. ', 394-7"
Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, 208.
17 Hauck, KirchengeschichteDeutschlands, iii. 29,400-3;
18 C. Brühl, `Die Sozialstruktur des deutschen Episkopats im I I. and 12.Jahrhundert',
in Le Istituzioni ecclesiastiche
della `societaschristiana' dei secoliXI--XII: diocesi,pievi eparrochie
(Atti della Sesta Settimana Internazionale di Studio [Mendola], Milano, 1-7 settembre
1974, Milan 1977), 5119 W. Schlesinger, Kirchengeschichte
im Mittelalter, Cologne 1962, i. 269.
Sachsens
20 Probably it was not. See P. Classen, 'Das Wormser Konkordat
in der deutschen
Verfassungsgeschichte' inJ. Fleckenstein (ed. ), Investiturstreit and Reichsverfassung(Vorträge
Gcand Forschungen herausgegeben vom Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für mittelalterliche
schichte, xvii, 1973), 453-4, commenting on the controversy on this subject between
21 See below, p. 355 and n. 43.
Julius Ficker and George Waitz.
22 For the royal filer,see below, pp. 364-6; there is a good map of the Salian demesne
Verlag,
SchulbuchinJ. Engel (ed.), GrosserHistorischerWeltatlasherausgegeben
von:Bayerischen
II: Mittelalter, Munich 1970,78-9.
351
TIMOTHY
REUTER
Otto
between
be
difference
west
i
and
a
an
supposed
as
might
not so much
Frankish count controlling his local bishopric. Not until the eleventh
become
Swabia24
in
Bavaria23
did
and
royal control over elections
century
is
The
it
more
abbeys
case of royal
was never complete.
general, and
being
`freedom'
libera
The
of
the
signified
grant of electio
straightforward.
founder
from
freedom
the
into
the
or
of
claims
taken
royal protection,
founders, and privileges granting it could simultaneously describe the
do
Not
king.
by
been
having
1073
we
the
until
chosen
as
abbot
current
find a privilege specifically excluding royal nomination. 25 Even so, royal
in
have
been
by
the
even
to
universal,
no means
choice of abbots seems
2s
eleventh century.
As far as the men who were chosen are concerned, historians have drawn
attention to two overlapping groups: members of the royal chapel and men
importance
The
house.
by
blood
of the
the
to
royal
or
marriage
related
in
became,
By
becoming
is
effect, a clerical
a
capellanus
one
chapel obvious.
27
A
in
king.
take
the
of
capellanus
could
part
such central government
vassal
Ottonians
letters
Salians
indulged
in:
in
the
the
and
and
of
writing
as
charters (though this was menial work, less well rewarded with promotion
than that done by other capellani); in embassies; in acting as the king's
by
Josef
The
in
fine
book
been
has
a
representative.
capella
studied
Fleckenstein, a sequel to an earlier study of the Carolingian origins of the
institution. 28 And yet Fleckenstein's own work shows very well that the
capella was not a homogeneous body of men. An Ottonian capellanusmight
be anything from an insignificant notary to a well-heeled aristocrat
holding several benefices and perhaps with patrimony of his own. Those
bottom
the
probably had little contact with those at the top, and it is
at
Not
interests.
that
they
all capellani had kept in
unlikely
shared common
become
had
Wazo
Liege,
the
contact
with
ruler
who
close
a capellanus
of
under Conrad ii, had not done so.29 The evidence that men were or had
been capellani is so tenuous or speculative in many cases that it hardly
suggests that their links with the court were close ones.30 There is some
23 S. Hirsch and H. Pabst, Jahrbücherdesdeutschen
ReichesunterHeinrich II, Leipzig 1878,
i. 84-7; Auer, 'Kriegsdienst, I', 406-7.
Sigmaringen 1978,153-So: even when the dukes
24 H. Maurer, Der HerzogvonSchwaben,
did not appoint to the bishoprics of Chur, Constance, Augsburg and Strassburg, the
bishoprics were part of the duke's sphere of ecclesiasticalinfluence (p. 159); so were many
(pp. 161-81).
of the Reichsklöster
25 T. Mayer, Fürstenand Staat, Weimar 1950,25. For early privileges see for example
DD 01 34 and 192 for Lorsch. DH Iv 26o for Einsiedeln runs: `Cumque abbatem
constituendum tempus poposcerit, non quilibet regis potestate cis praeponatur, sed quern
fratrum electio idoneum iudicaverit, regis tam petitione quam constitutione huius nominis
onus subire cogatur. '
26 Wehlt, Reichsableiand König, 317,323-4,374-6.
27 Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, 177-
28 Ibid.; the earlier work is Die Hofkapelle der deutschen Klinige, 1: Grundlegung. Die
karolingische Hofkapelle (Schriften der M. G. H., xvi, 1,959).
28 Anselm of Liege, C. 43, pp. 2 15-16.
30 Of the eight bishops of Würzburg from Poppo 1(941-61) to Adalbero (1045-9o), only
Bruno
before
See
Poppo
their
the
were
certainly
members
elections.
1
and
of
capella
two,
352
THE
GERMAN
`IMPERIAL
CHURCH
SYSTEM'
evidence from the reign of Conrad It and Henry III for the capellani acting
and feeling as a group; but it was a group more like a trade union than
an officers' mess, resenting the outsiders who were still getting the jobs to
which it felt its members were entitled: a Bardo of Mainz or a Wazo of
Liege. " Even in the period from Otto HI's majority to Henry u's final
illness (994-1021), over a third of all bishoprics went to men outside the
capella, and the normal proportion, even under Henry in, was much higher,
usually more than half. Moreover, chapel-appointments were not spread
evenly over the forty-odd sees: Speyer, Verden and Metz had no
ex-capellanusas bishop between 919 and 1056; Worms, Würzburg and, in
the eleventh century, Cologne, Augsburg and Bamberg were occupied
almost continuously by capellani 32
Those men who did pass through the capella to the
episcopate were not
of a different type from those who did not, either in their relations with
the king or socially. Capellani were not all equally close to the king, as we
have seen, and some men
who undoubtedly
to
were close were appointed
bishoprics without going through the
capella - Gundechar
of Eiehstätt and
Warmann
of Constance, for example 33 One or two - Anno of Cologne and
.
Durand
of Liege - were of modest or even unfree origin 31 but the
They might well have
overwhelming
majority
were high aristocrats.
in any case. The bishopric of Worms illustrates
expected promotion
this
but the five bishops from
nicely. It was certainly
a chapel-bishopric;
Franco to Arnold (ggg to 1o65) seem to have belonged to the
Hessian
same
kin-group,
(979-88),
as perhaps did their predecessor Hildebald
also a
35
capellanus. Other bishoprics were also held for long periods by members
Metz by the Luxemburger,
Verden by the Billungs. 3B No
of a kindred:
bis
the review of the evidence in A. Wcndehorst, Das Bistum Würzburg,I: Die Bischofsreihe
124 (Germania Sacra, neue Folge i, 1962), 61,63-4,67-8.70-1,75-6,89,101-3.
Fleckenstein, Hofkapeilt, makes all eight bishops cx-capellani,expressing doubts only about
Meinhard (pp. 212,226) and Bcrnward (pp. 79,81 n. 131). Here and elsewhere
Fleckenstein has deduced membership of the capellafrom other known contacts with the
court or by making plausible identifications. No doubt many of these deductions are
correct, but the cumulative effect of a presumption in favour of capella-membershipmust
be to exaggerate its importance.
Si For Wazo's case,seeabove, p. 350 and n. 13; for Bardo, see Vita Bardonismaior,c. 15,
M. G. H. SS, xi. 329-3032 These figures are taken from the lists in Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, 52-3,75,114-15,
(but for Würzburg, see above, 11.32).
211-12,224-6,289-90
33 Anonymus Hascrensis, c. 25, M. G. H. SS, vii. 260; Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle,225.
34 D. Lück, 'Erzbischof Anno it. von Köln, Standesverhältnisse, verwandsehaftliche
Beziehungen and Werdegang bis zur Bischofsw"cihe',AnnalendeshistorischenVereins
für den
(1970), 9-31, hasshown that Anno's origins, though modest, were lesslowly
Wiederrhein,
cxii
.
than had been supposed; for Durand, see Ansclm of Liege, C. 36, p. 2og. Brühl,
'Sozialstruktur', 48, points to a number of other caseswhere a former presumption of low
or servile birth has had to be abandoned.
35 W. Metz, 'Zur Herkunft and Vcrwandschaft Bischof Burchards 1. von Worms',
Jahrbuchfür Landesgeschichit,
Hessisches
xxvi (1976), 31-42.
3' H. Renn, Das erst LuxemburgerGraf nhaus r
124;
13-1136), Bonn 1941,9,44ff,
H. J. Freytag, Die Herrschaft der Billunger in Sachsen(Studien and Vorarbeiten
zum
historischen Atlas Niedersachsen, xxiv, 1931), 46 and genealogical table.
353
TIMOTHY
REUTER
doubt the king usually confirmed these appointments; he may even have
did
he
but
kin-group;
from
the
not
among
eligible members of a
chosen
The
do
highly aristocratic nature of the
that.
than
more
necessarily
has
feature
Reicltskirchettsystetn
the
which
another
of
episcopate explains
been misinterpreted:
the large number of bishops related to the royal
house. 37 As the Ottonian ruling elite consisted of a small number of
interrelated kindreds, this was inevitable.: " Relationship to the royal house
is simply a special case of interrelatedness among Ottonian and Salian
prelates. Pairs of brothers were not uncommon; 39references to cognatio are
so common that it is exceptional to find a bishop about whom anything
40
beyond
has
is
known
the
name who
no episcopal relatives . The
at all
same is probably true of abbots. It does not follow automatically from the
fact that a bishop or abbot was the king's cognatus that he owed his
appointment to cognatio,or even that he stood especially close to the king:
a good example is Gebhard of Regensburg, who was Conrad it's halfbrother, but is known not to have had a particularly close relationship with
Conrad. 41The `royal' bishops cannot be treated as a group any more than
the `chapel' bishops. Chapters might often themselves seek to elect men
in either category, because of the influence they had at court or just
because they thought them suitable: the initial choice ofBruno in 953 came
from Cologne, and Ohtric, Magdeburg's rejected candidate in 981, was
a capellanus,though not of long standing. 42
What has been said so far may have cast some doubt on the conventional
view of the Ottonians and Salians filling vacancies with men whom they
had carefully chosen as suitable members of a system. Even where the king
did definitely appoint or confirm the appointment, others had a say. When
31 H. Schnitger, Die deutschenBischöfe aus den Königssippen von Otto I. bis Heinrich l.,
Munich 1938, provides a convenient guide to these: some 5o bishops elected between 936
and 1106 were related to the ruling house, and a further 20 probably were (p. 94). See
also Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, 55.
38 See R. Schölkopf, Die sächsischenGrafen, gig-1024 (Studien und Vorarbeiten
zum
historischen Atlas Niedersachsens, xxii, 1957) and the comments by K. Schmid, 'Bemerkungen zu einer Prosopographie des frühen Mittelalters',
Zeitschrift für württembergische
,
Landesgeschichte,xxiii (1964), 215-27; Leyser, Rule and Conflict, part i: `Otto 1 and his Saxon
enemies', passim.
38 Heribert of Cologne and Henry of Würzburg: Vita Heriberti archiepiscopiColoniensis
auctoreLantberto,c. 4, M. G.H. SS, V. 742; Heribert and Gozmann of Eichstätt: Anonymus
Haserensis,cc. 32-3, M. G. H. SS, vii. 263 (they were also related to Heribert of Cologne,
c. 27, p. 261); Franco and Burchard t of Worms: Vita Burchardiepiscopii1'ormatiensis,c. 3,
M. G. H. SS, iv. 833; Wlrarmann and Eppo of Constance: Annales Hildcshcimenses, s.a.
G.
G.
H. SRG, 1878), p. 38.
Waitz
(M.
ed.
1034,
introduction
to Thietmar, pp. vii-xv, shows how numerous Thietmar's relatives were; the number is larger than in most other cases only because we are
informed
Thietmar's
family. See the observations by K. J. Leyser,
about
well
exceptionally
`Debate: Maternal kin in early medieval Germany', Past and Present, xlix (1970), 13441 Schnitger, Bischöfe aus den Königssippen, 67.
40 R. Holtzmann's
42 Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, 31 (Bruno), 42 (Ohtric). Bruno's election was naturally
welcome to Otto i, but Fleckenstein seemsto press the sources too far when he says that
the election was `directly arranged by the king'.
354
THE
GERMAN
`IMPERIAL
CHURCH
SYSTEM'
Rothard of Cambrai died in 995, Notker of Liege urged his archdeacon,
Erluin, to hurry to Mathilda of Quedlinburg,
Otto iii's aunt, whose
familiaris Erluin was, so that he might be appointed through her influence.
Otto ill's sister, Sophia, also had a candidate, Azelin, the son of Baldwin
persuaded
Flanders;
it
Otto
that
to
and
of
was only after a struggle
was
appoint Erluin. 43Here we can see promotion-hungry
ecclesiastics grouping
themselves around members of the royal house, just as the lay aristocracy
did. 44 We can also see the importance of bishops who tried to get their
proteges appointed, as indeed we have already seen it in the account of
the election of Wazo of Liege. Some, like Gerald of Cambrai, merely
designated their own successors.45 Others spread their nets more widely.
Otto i's brother, Bruno of Cologne; Notker of Liege; Willigis of Mainz;
Anno of Cologne; Bruno of Würzburg: 411these and others took pains to
`place' their relatives and clerical followers in good posts, and these
connections and the ties of cognalio were as important in giving the
Ottonian and Salian episcopate a sense of corporate identity as the ties
with the court through the chapel which Fleckenstein has stressed. The
king played a vital part in many elections, but he did not have a free hand
or the opportunity to impose a `policy'. Rather, he selected from among
candidates for the bestowal of patronage; he was, in effect, the means by
which not only he but others - queens, bishops and nobles - could
advance their kinsmen and proteges. Though the king was thus not the only
patron, the system hinged on him, and his ability to give high church office
47
for
his
Reich;
families
leading
the
was crucial
relations with the
of
noble
he could please not only the recipient of office, but also the petitioner.
Bishoprics could be given to win back a disaffected kindred, as when Otto i
gave Halberstadt to Hildiward,
saying `here is the wergeld for your
father'. 48They could be held back ifa family's loyalty was suspect, as Otto i
tried to do to Gero when he was elected to Cologne in 969.40 Bishoprics went
surprisingly often to members of local kindreds. The appointment of
Camtracrnsium,
43 Gestaepiscoporum
c. t to, S.G. H. SS, vii. 4.18.Azelin again tried to buy
the bishopric on Erluin's death (c. 122, p. 454)41 Leyser, Rule and Conflict, 14-22,27,43-
45 GestaLietbcrtiepiscopi,
c. 12, M. G. H. SS,vii. 469. Secin general Leyser, RuleandConflict,
3341 Bruno: RuotgeriVita Brunonis,c. 37, cd. I. Ott (M. G. H. SRG, nova series, x, 1951),
38-9. Notker: Anselm of Liege, C. 29, p. 205. \Villigis: Vita Burchardiepiscopi11'ormaticnsis,
Hildcsheinunsis
c. 2, M. G. H. SS,iv. 833; VitaBernuardi episcopi
auctoreThangumro,e. 2, M. G. H.
SS, iv. 759 (see c. I p. 758 for Bcrnward's other episcopal relatives and connections);
Thietmar, vi. 35, p. 316 (for the promotion of Mcingaud of Trier). Willigis was himself
a protege of Folcold, capellan and tutor to Otto a and bishop of llcissen 969-92 (Thicunar,
iv. 6, pp. 136-8). Bruno: Wcndchorst, Bistum It'ürzburg, 95. Anno: Lück, 'Anno', 31-5941 Cf. E. N. Johnson, The SecularActirities of the GermanEpiscopate,
gig-1024 (University
Studies of the University ofNcbraska, xxx-xxxi, 1932), 98; ' They [the bishops] represented
the same family interests [as the lay aristocracy] and often enough were awarded their
bishoprics as a specific means of placating family interests'.
48 Thietmar, ii. 21, p. 62; sec Lcyscr, Rule and Conflict,33-4, on the background to this.
41 Thietmar, ü. 24, p. 68; on the background, sec Lcyscr, Rule and Coriflid, 24, and
Fleckenstein, Hoßapelle, 42 n. 165, who points to chronological difficulties in the story.
355
TIMOTHY
REUTER
it
but
from
-10
was
other stems - was certainly practised,
men
foreign
into
king
loyal
the
to
not necessarily a means of putting a man
it
did
in
far
been
has
mean that
so
as
suggested,
and
sometimes
parts, as
it also meant that the king had to defend and protect the bishop, rather
from
51
kindred
It
benefit
the
which
could
also
than the other way round.
kindred
by
for
both
the
within
reducing
competition
the candidate came,
its hereditary resources and by opening up new areas to its influence: when
Liemar went north to the archbishopric of Bremen in 1072, he took some
is
52
he
him,
family
his
there
though
no reason
and
was a ministerialis
with
of
to suppose that aristocrats did not behave in the same way.
If the king's control over elections and candidates was something less
than total, his- control over bishops once elected was much the same as
that over the lay nobility, and it was exercised in the same way - the
bestowing or withdrawing of the royal gratia. If there was a difference it
king's
bishops
the
that
needed
goodwill and protection more
perhaps
was
than the lay nobility did; they were certainly more naked and exposed
when they lost it. Bishops lobbied the king for favours and collected large
sums of money to buy back the king's goodwill. 53 Bishops who had been
too closely associated with rebellions might be briefly sent into exile; even
cruder methods were possible in the early period, though the blinding of
a Herold of Salzburg remained a rather shocking exception. 54They could
not be deposed, and this alone should make us doubtful about thinking
of them as a kind of civil service. Hauck was already aware of this problem;
and the way in which he tried to dispose of it is characteristic of the way
in which a `system' has been built up by generalisation from a few
examples. He argued that since it was certainly possible for the Ottonians
and Salians to depose Italian bishops it must have been equally possible
for them to depose German ones,55 and he cited a threat of deposition
alleged to have been made by Henry II against Gundechar I of Eichstätt
for refusing to consent to the handing over of a part of his diocese to the
newly erected bishopric of Bamberg. Gundechar did indeed give in, which
`foreigners'
50 The frequent installation of Saxons in Lotharingian bishoprics is noted by Auer,
'Kriegsdienst, t'. 32451 Auer, 'Kriegsdienst, u'. 67; T. Schiefier, `Gerald I. von Cambrai (1012-1051). Ein
deutscher Bischof des II. Jahrhunderts',
DeutschesArchiv, i (1937) 359.
,
52 A. Heinrichsen, 'Süddeutsche Adelsgeschlechter in Niedersachsen im I t. and 12.
NiedersächsischesJahrbuch für Landesgeschichte, xxvi (1954), 24-I I2, at
Jahrhundert',
Lück,
'Anno',
also
31-59see
46-7;
pp.
53 Wolbodo of Liege collected money to buy back Henry ii's favour, but then gave
it away to the poor, an action which Henry approved (Anselm of Liege, c. 34, M. G. H.
SS, vii. 208). See also the case of Wazo of Liege (c. 66, p. 229). For purchase of gratia
by the lay aristocracy see Leyser, Rule and Conflict,38-42.
14 For the case of Rothad of Strassburg and Frederick of Mainz in 939, see R. Köpke
deutschenReichesunter Kaiser Otto den: Grossen, Leipzig 1876,
des
Jahrbücher
Dümmler,
E.
and
in 974 and Henry of Augsburg in 978, see K. Uhlirz,
Freising
for
Abraham
of
93-4;
For the blinding and
Jahrbücher des deutschenReiches unter Otto 11., Leipzig 1902,54,92.
deposition of Herold of Salzburg by Henry of Bavaria, see Köpke and Dümmler, 248.
55 Hauck, KirchengeschichteDeutschlands, iii. 408-9.
356
THE
GERMAN
`IMPERIAL
CHURCH
SYSTEM'
explains the hostility of his local chronicler, who regarded the exchange
eventually accepted by Gundechar as iniquitous. But the chronicler also
makes Henry ii say that he expected compliance because Gundechar was
of humble origins; his predecessor had not been, and could not therefore
be bullied in this way. 56 Irremovability
is confirmed by the survival in
office of those bishops, who were quite numerous, who flirted with or joined
rebellions .51
The Eichstätt affair illustrates
another important point about Ottonian
and -Salian bishops. Whatever they may have been before they became
bishops, they succeeded to
an office which they had to uphold, and they
had a chapter to remind them of it
58
This
forget.
they
applied
should
equally to the new bishoprics: read Thietmar of Merseburg on his efforts
to restore the lands of Merseburg, a see only forty years old when he
succeeded to it, and amalgamated with Magdeburg for half that period. 5s
When the needs of their see clashed
it
king
demands
the
the
was
of
with
often the latter who had to give way. It took Otto i many years and a
good deal of effort to establish an archbishopric at Magdeburg, and he
had to wait for the archbishop
of Mainz and the bishop of Halberstadt
to die before he could do so.60 Henry II's foundation of Bamberg went
through more quickly, but it aroused just as much opposition, and Henry
of Würzburg, at least, could not be easily reconciled to it. 61 The claims
of the bishopric also explain some, if not all, of the involvements of bishops
in rebellions. They could
not afford to sacrifice the economic and political
base of their sees. This helps to explain the
Henry
episcopal support which
the Quarrelsome had, 62 and the way in which the episcopate divided
between the various candidates for the succession in 1002,63 as well as
ss Anonymus Haserensis, c. 25, M. G. H. SS,
vii. 26o-t; for the details see E. Freiherr
Regeslen der Bischöfe con Bamberg (go2-ro23) (Veröffentlichungen
der
v. Guttenberg,
Gesellschaft fur fränkische Geschichte,
vi. Reihe, 1932), no. 131. According to Rupert of
Deutz, when Heribert of Cologne
refused to assist Henry t1 in the siege of Hammerstein
in 1020 Henry came to Cologne, `hoc proposito habens,
ut cum pontificatu amoveret, aut
fieri non posset, quolibet modo iniuriose ilium et indigne
certe, si hoc rationabiliter
tractaret' (quoted by H. Muller, Heribal, Kanzler 0tlos III. and Erzbischof von Köln, Cologne
1977,188). The wording suggests that deposition could be threatened but hardly carried
out; withdrawal ofgratia was the real means of disciplining bishops.
57 See above, p. 356, and below, p. 358"
58 On the development
of cathedral
-
chapters, see now R. Schieffer, Die Entstehung von
Domkapitelnin Deutschland(Bonner Historische Forschungen, xliii, 1976).
51 H. Lippelt, Thietmar con Morseburg.Reichsbischofund Chronist (Mitteldeutsche Forschungen, lxxii, 1973), 89-115" D. Claude, Geschichte
desErzbistumsMagdeburgbis in das12.Jahrhundert(Mitteldeutsche
Forschungen, lxvii, 1972), i. 66-85.
61 Wendehorst,
Bistum 11'ürzburg, 79-80; E. von Guttenberg,
Das "'Bistum ' Bamberg
(Germania Sacra, ii, 1,1937), 2911: For another objector sec 'above, pp. 356-7. '
62 K. Uhlirz, Jahrbücher Ottos II., 54,92; M. Uhlirz, Jahrbücher des deutschenReiches unter
Otto III., Leipzig 1954,12-16.
63 Arnulf of Halberstadt and Bernward of Hildesheim were for Ekkehard of Meissen
(Thietmar, V. 4, p. 224). Hermann it Swabia had considerable support outside Swabia,
of
but inside it the bishops of Constance and Chur supported him `non tantum ex animo
357
TIMOTHY
REUTER
Mainz
in
Frederick
by
like
to
tacit
of
the
things
support given
rebellion
in
Halberstadt
Hezilo
Hildesheim
Burchard
the
of
and
of
952-3 and
10705.64
Monasteries were more amenable to royal pressure; abbots could. be
deposed or transferred, and this distinguished even the largest and richest
intervention
Yet
here
from
bishoprics.
was very
too
royal
royal monasteries
deposed
Stavelot,
like
had
houses,
large
Some
their
abbots
rarely
varied.
lay
house
by
though
the
the
on the edge of the
ruler,
even
or nominated
large fiscal complex around Aachen and was thus immediately accessible
to royal influence. 61Other houses, like Corvey or Fulda, experienced more
frequent royal interference. The fact that they sometimes tried to resist this
in
king
having
the
that
rights
such
was
not
regarded
as
unlimited
shows
invariably
Henry
in
like
though
ii
a
almost
practice
ruler
matters, even
had his way. 66Here, too, evesee bodies with traditions and interests of their
king
be
by
the
or his
overridden either
own, which could not simply
nominee. In particular, any attempt to transfer a monastery to the potestas
bishop
of a
was likely to be resisted. 67
So far we have, examined
bishops and abbots
the view that German
resembled officials of the state in the manner in which they were appointed
to be removed from office. We may now turn to the
and in their liability
that the prelates in the
view that they were expected to act as officials;
Reichskirchensystem were instruments
At first sight it
of royal government.
if not
has drawn up impressive
may seem absurd to do this. Santifaller
immunity,
ban, fiscal
wholly accurate lists68 of royal privileges granting
quantum in civitatis contiguo' (Thietmar, v. 13, p. 236), having noted the fate of the bishop
of Strassburg, who had not supported Hermann and had had his city burnt and plundered
in consequence(Thietmar, v. 12, p. 234). See Maurer, HerzogvonSchwaben,156,159. On
the episcopate as a whole in 1002 see Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, 158; `initially mostly
undecided'.
61 Frederick of Mainz: H. Beumann, `Die Mainzer Erzbischöfe Friedrich und Wilhelm
in Festschrift für Johannes Bärmann, Wiesbaden
und das Papsttum des to. Jahrhunderts',
1966, i. 12-13. Burchard and Hezilo: C. Erdmann, Studien zur Briefliteratur Deutschlands im
rr. Jahrhundert (Schriften der M. G. H., i. 1938), 123,130; W. Heinemann, Das Bistum
Hildesheim im Kräftespiel der Reichs- und Territorialpolitik (Quellen und Darstellungen
zur
Geschichte Niedersachsens, lxxii, 1968), 43-6. Sec also Johnson, Secular Activities, 29-39,
97, too, on bishops and rebellions.
65 Wehlt, Reichsabtei und König, 375,377; D. Flach, Untersuchungen zur Verfassung und
Verwaltung des Aachener Reichsgutes von der Karolingerzeit bis zur Mille des 14. Jahrhunderts
des Max-Planck-Instituts
für Geschichte, xlvi, 176), especially pp.
(Veröffentlichungen
87-90 on the servilia sent by Stavelot to the palace at Aachen.
66 H. H. Kaminsky, Studien zur Reichsabtei Convey in der Salierzeit (Abhandlungen
zur
Corveyer Geschichtsschreibung, iv, 1971), 47-58; M. Sandmann, `Die Folge der Abte',
in K. Schmid (ed. ), Die Klostergemeinschaft von Fulda (Münsterer Mittelalterschriften,
viii,
1978), i. 19467 For the case of Lorsch in Otto it's reign see Wehlt, Reichsabtei und König, 45-6; for
Malmedy's. struggle with Cologne under Henry iv, see the Triumphus S. Remacli de
Malmundariensi Coenobio, c. 9, M. G. H. SS, Xi-. 453; Lampert of Hersfeld, s.a. to63,1071,
In ' Reichskirchensystem',
89,125-6.1,11
78-115.
pp.
358
THE
GERMAN
`IMPERIAL
CHURCH
SYSTEM'
rights and even counties to abbeys and especially to bishoprics, and these
may suggest a policy of delegating rights to reliable men. Yet, once again,
the reality was rather different. Bishops and abbots performed considerable
services for their rulers - we shall see later what these services were - and
in return for this they expected rewards. One of Henry n's diplomats said
that more could be asked of those to whom more was given; 69 but for
ecclesiastics the causal connection was reversed. Now there is a definite
shift discernible in the way in which the Ottonians and Salians rewarded
their churchmen. From the late tenth century gifts of land and men, which
had predominated
under Henry I and Otto i, gave way to gifts of
governmental rights. Gifts of land and men continued, but they became
much smaller in size and negligible as a proportion of what bishops and
abbots already held, leaving aside obvious exceptions like the new
bishopric of Bamberg which was endowed on a very lavish scale. 70 One
of the reasons why gifts of rights came to predominate was simply that these
were cheaper to make. If a ruler handed over a mansusor a curtis, he was
a mansus or a curtis the poorer; true, it remained in a sense the property
of the Reich, and services were due for it, but the king, whatever his rights
in theory, would not normally take it back from a bishopric except to grant
it to another church, though monasteries might be rather more roughly
treated. 71Only the king could give permission to hold a market or to mint
coins, but by giving such permission he did not necessarily impoverish
himself in the slightest. He was not always himself in a position to exercise
such rights, but by allowing others to do so he could reap a return: such
privileges were often paid for, 742and the church they enriched could be
expected to render larger servitia. Of course, not all governmental rights
like
this. In so far as the Ottonian count still actually handed over
were
to the fisc the king's portion of the fredus or bannus (fines imposed for
breaches of the peace or of royal commands), the grant of a county or
immunity with ban did actually reduce royal wealth. But such grants did
not greatly affect royal power, as we shall see; their main importance was
often a financial one, and once again servitia, which were not normally
exactable from the lay nobility, will have compensated for the loss.73
69 DH 11433, quoted by Brühl, Fodrum, 127; the reference is to Luke xii. 48.
70 Guttenberg, Bistum Bamberg, 33-6,52-3;
Mayer, Fürsten and Staat, 248-75. '
71 St Maximin's, Trier, claimed to have lost over 6, ooo mansi through forced enfeoffments
under Henry u. See E. \Visplinghoff, Untersuchungenzurfrühen Geschichteder Abtei S. Maximin
bei Trier von den Anfängen bis etwa 1150 (Quellen and Abhandlungen
zur mittelrheinischen
Kirchengeschichte,
xii, 1970), 36,82ff; the figure is absurd, but the story is not, especially
as Henry u is also known to have carried out `secularisation'
at Corvey and Hersfeld.
For grants of whole monasteries in beneßcio,see Maurer, Herzog von Schwaben, 178, and
H. Schwarzmaier, Königtum, Adel and Klöster im Gebiet zwischen oberer Iller and Lech (Studien
zur Geschichte des bayerischen Schwabens, vii, 1961), 136f .
72 H. Bresslau, Handbuch der Urkundenlehre, 2nd edn, Berlin 1931, i. 382-3, referring to
chancery changes, a portion of which must have come to the ruler. For an example of
large-scale payment to the ruler see below, p. 361 and n. 81.
73 The importance of ban and immunity for the development of territories is so obvious
that their financial side, probably more important in this early period when jurisdiction
359
TIMOTHY
REUTER
Grants of rights, then, were not normally delegations by the ruler of
This
does
directly.
have
he
not exclude
exercised
would otherwise
powers
fact
but
is
in
this
not very probable.
the possibility of conscious policy,
Rulers acted consciously, but the initiative did not usually come from
being
diplomata
too
the
Collections
are
often
read
as
of royal
them.
surviving records of governmental action and policy; they are also, and
much more, the surviving records of occasions when rulers - pestered,
Just
followers.
bribed
to
their
as
clerical
cajoled and
- made concessions
lay nobles sought to increase and consolidate the wealth and prestige of
their families, so bishops and abbots sought to increase the wealth and
lay
Recent
the
to
their
the
work
on
care.
committed
churches
prestige of
importance
Salian
Reich
has
Ottonian
the
the
emphasised
and
nobility of
lay
fortunes.
It
king,
in
Königsnähe,
the
to
establishing
was no
closeness
of
for prelates; few Ottonian and Salian Vitae omit a
less important
74
king.
Prelates
the
to
the
needed
prelate's
relations
with
reference
governmental rights especially. The late tenth and eleventh centuries in
Germany saw the beginnings of the territorialisation
by
lordship
the
of
secular nobility: the amalgamation of scattered rights, property and
(i. e. ingovernmental powers - delegated, usurped or `autochthonous'
herent in the birth or status of their holder) - into territorial units of
75
If
bishops and abbots were to hold on to what they had,
government.
they too needed such rights, and exemptions from the rights of others.
There is still room for argument about whether the lay nobility in fact had
autochthonous rights, 76but clearly ecclesiastical institutions did not. Nor
could they easily usurp such rights. Ecclesiastics were not always the
innocent parties in the disputes of the period, but they
were too dependent
on local dynasts for the exercise of their powers to be able to make much
independent headway against them. Consequently, ecclesiastics turned to
the king for grants of immunity and other rights.
Just what was involved in practice can be seen by looking
at one of the
most spectacular features of the Reichskirchensystem,the granting of whole
bishoprics
to
counties
and bishops 77 There are three main points to be
first
is
The
that when we can uncover something of the circumstances
made.
is often overlooked. See e.g. DO in 66 for
meant fining rather than punishment,
Gandersheim with the comments of R. Scheyhing, Eide, Amtsgewalt und Bannleihe (ForOn
deutschen
Rechtsgeschichte,
ii,
lay
defacto
V6.
1g6o),
nobles'
zur
exemption
schungen
from servitia, see Brühl, Fodrum, 178-9.
14 Köhler, Bild desgeistlichenFürsten,22.
05 The classic discussion of this is still W. Schlesinger, Die Entstehung der Landesherrschaft,
i
(all
Quellen,
published), Dresden 1941vorwiegend nach mitteldeutschen
76 The theory was first developed by O. v. Dungern and widely adopted (see Schles`Formen adeliger
inger, Landesherrschaft, 144ff); but see the criticisms by M. Mitterauer,
Österreich. Zur Frag der "autogenen
im hochmittelalterlichen
HoHerrschaftsbildung
M. LÖ. G., lxxx (1972), 265-318, especially pp. 266-9.
heitsrechte"',
77 See Santifaller, `Reichskirchensystem', 105-15, for a list of such grants; Mayer,
FürstenundStaat, 257-70. Unless otherwise noted, the following discussion excludes grants
of comital or quasi-comital rights over episcopal cities alone.
360
THE
GERMAN
`IMPERIAL
CHURCH
SYSTEM'
of such grants, it seems to have been the bishops who demanded them
rather than the rulers who simply handed them over or delegated them.
Paderborn, for example, was
well endowed with counties by the end of
Henry II's reign. The first of these grants
was made in the reign of Otto I
or ii. It was an act of compensation for the loss Paderborn had sustained
through the acquisition of tithes by the abbey of Corvey. 78The others were
all given in the time of Bishop Meinwerk (1009-36). Meinwerk was a
former capellanusand a distant relative
in
Henry
thus
a good
ii, and was
of
position to ask for favours. In spite of this, he had to wait until the lay
holders of the counties died, and often experienced delay and trouble in
making the grants good against their surviving relatives. Moreover, it is
clear that Meinwerk pestered Henry until the gifts were made, even on
one occasion going so far as to get Benedict viii to intervene. 79At Worms,
Hildibald and Burchard I used their contacts at court in order to secure
control of counties and of their city, and Hildibald
also resorted to
forgery
further
indication
that prelates could not automatically count
-a
on such grants from the king. 80We know from other sources that bishops
sought after counties: Adam of Bremen describes the lengths to which
Archbishop Adalbert was prepared to go to get hold of them. 81 Clearly
the Ottonians and Salians had no objection in principle to such grants,
but it does not follow from the mere fact of the grants that a positive policy
lay behind them.
This is confirmed when we look at the distribution of such grants. Many
bishoprics, including some of the richest and most important, received few
or none. Those which did get them did not all get them for the same
reasons. There might, for instance, seem to be an obvious reason why the
Alpine bishoprics of Chur, Brixen and Trent should have received
counties: the need to keep the Alpine passes to Italy open and in friendly
hands. Yet none of these bishoprics was under close royal control, and in
the case of Chur, at least, it is likely that the bishop was able to secure
comital rights so easily and so early because Hungarian and Saracen raids
had left no important lay powers in the area, 82just as the bishops of Aosta,
Grenoble and Tarentaise were able to take over their counties in the
'8 Bannasch, Bistum Paderborn, 31-
79 Ibid., 308-13; Benedict vin's intervention is recorded in DH 11440-
Burchard i's struggle to gain control over the episcopal city is graphically described
in the Vita Burchardi episcopi il'ormatiensis, cc. 7, g, M. G. H. SS, iv. 835-7" See A. Seiler, Das
Hochstift Worms im Alitklalter, Giessen 1936,3t-8; J. Lechner, `Die älteren Königsurkunden für Worms und die Begründung der bischöflichen Fürstenmacht',
ALI. D. G.; xxii
(1901), 361-419,529-748' fiesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiaePont jcum, iii. 46,3rd edn by B. Schmeidler (M. G. H.
SRG, 1917), 188-go; he offered large sums to Henry in and Henry iv and pensions to
some of the holders of the counties.
82 No local power at least: Chur was in the tenth century very much under the influence
The grants for Chur
of the dukes of Swabia (Maurer, Herzog von Schwaben, 156-7,191,207).
are DD 01 139 (fiscal rights of county; intervention by the duke-of Swabia), -148 (toll),
191 (royal half of city and rights of toll and mint), 209 (comital rights, in Graubünden).
"
361
TIMOTHY
REUTER
83
kingdom
Burgundy
the
tenth
the
century.
of
at
end of
neighbouring
Elsewhere there is little sign before 1056 that bishops were given counties
be
that
they
a more effective counterweight to a powerful secular
could
so
German
be
Such
in
to
the
two
a policy ought
south
visible
nobility.
duchies, if at all; yet no Bavarian bishop got one except Brixen and,
Chur.
85
84
Swabian
bishop
In
Freising,
and
no
got one except
probably,
Saxony the bishop of Paderborn was able to acquire a large number of
the counties in his diocese because they were mainly held by families who
were, in the words of the most recent study of the subject, `insignificant
in national politics'. 86 Only in Franconia, where the bishops of Mainz,
Worms and Würzburg were well endowed, 87 and in Lower Lotharingia,
does the granting of counties seem to have conformed to the traditional
conception, and even here it was uneven: the important see of Cologne,
for example, had only one. 88
In practice, almost all the counties given to bishops continued to be
by
laymen, who simply held from the bishop instead
run
of the king. The
exceptional provision in one of Henry ti's grants to Paderborn89 that
Meinwerk should administer the
county through a ministerialis of the
bishopric confirms the normal practice. The
effect of the extensive grants
made to Hildesheim in lost was not that Azelin of Hildesheim became
a powerful magnate overnight, but simply that the Brunonids, who had
held the county from the king, now held it from Azelin
and his successors. so
It has been claimed that `a loyal bishop
could exercise far stricter control
over his vassals through his continuous presence than the king, who was
often absent for long periods', "' but this is optimistic; bishops were also
absent from their diocese for long periods, often on royal service. Nor is
it clear what `control' would have
ban and comital
meant. Immunity,
rights might keep ecclesiastical dependants from being sucked into the
orbit of local magnates; they did not confer jurisdiction over the magnates
themselves. Control certainly did not mean supervision of comital administration. The Carolingians had made some attempt to do this through
capitularies and missi dominici, but even then it was almost unknown for
a count to be deposed for maladministration,
and this is a fortiori true of
the Ottonian Reich, which had neither capitularies nor missi dominici. It
is, in any case, not clear how far the Carolingians succeeded east of the
83 R. Poupardin,
Le Rojaume de Bourgogne (888-1038), Paris
1907,254
n. 3,321-2.
84 Brixen: DKu 103; Freising: D 0118o, which is interpolated but in this
respect
credible (cf. Santifaller, 'Reichskirchensystem', io6).
85 Strassburg received a grant from Henry iv in 1077. For Chur seeabove,
p. 361 n. 82.
86 Bannasch, Bistum Paderborn,311.
87 Mainz: M. Stimming, Die Entstehung des weltlichen Territoriums des Erzbistums Afainz
(Quellen and Forschungen zur Hessischen Geschichte, iii, 1915), 22-3; Worms;
(and see also above, P. 361 n. 8o); Würzburg;
DHn
D0 to 366 (but see
226,227
Wendehorst, Bistum Würzburg, 82, for doubts about how far this grant was carried out),
DHu268.
86 Santifaller, 'Reichskirchensystem',
DH 11440.
107 no. 7.89
90 Heinemann, Bistum Hildesheim, 41-2.91
Ibid., 68.
362
THE
GERMAN
`IMPERIAL
CHURCH
SYSTEM'
Rhine in establishing
a comital system as it is usually conceived, with the
count acting as the king's representative in a defined area. 92Control, then,
will have meant at most preventing political disloyalty, and Ottonian and
Salian bishops could normally only do this when they had local family
connections or the king behind them; they could not usually act on their
own. Thus, Meinwerk of Paderborn was able to make something of his
grants by using his relatives, well established in the region; but the
bishopric-of Worms, occupied continuously from 979 by outsiders whose
family lay further afield, could
not. 93
Grants of immunity, with or without ban,
were commoner and more
evenly distributed than counties, but here too we must beware of thinking
that the grant put large areas under the control of a reliable official.
Immunity developed in the course of the tenth century to mean not simply
exemption from the acts of supposedly public officials like counts but
positive rights ofjurisdiction and command as well. The immunist became,
more or less, his own count. At the same time he had to have an advocate,
Carolingian
increasingly
a layman, to run his immunity,
the
and
arrangement, whereby such men were appointed, often ad hoc, by the
immunist,
was being replaced by one where the immunist had one
advocate who controlled his immunity
permanently. The simultaneous
transformation ofimmunity from an essentially financial into an essentially
institution
politico judicial
tended to benefit advocates rather than
immunists. 94Bishoprics suffered less and later from this development than
did monasteries, but it had already gained considerable ground by the
early eleventh century. In theory the advocate's exercise of the right of
ban was subject to royal approval and he had to be invested with it by
the king. But the choice was limited, and to deprive a man of his advocacy,
if this could be done at all, was a significant political act. It is also worth
noting that ecclesiastics depended on the king to control their advocate,
not the other way round. The difficulties have been neatly summed up
by Hans Joachim Freytag in his study of the Billungs: `Many privileges
[of immunity] should be considered more as expressions of wishes than as
descriptions of fact, and it should also not be forgotten that the advocacies
92 The thesis of a network of counties covering the Reich has been
undermined by work
on Saxony. See Freytag, Billunger, 23-7; Schälkopf, SächsischeGrafen, 16-17; K. -H. Lange,
Der Herrschaftsbereich der Grafen von Xorlheim, ggo bis tr¢¢ (Studien und Vorarbeiten zum
historischen Atlas Niedersachsens, xxiv, 1969), 5-6. Recently the traditional view has been
powerfully
restated by H. K. Schulze, Die Grafschaftsverfassung der Karolingerzeil in den
Gebieten östlich des Rheines (Schriften
zur Verfassungsgeschichte,
xix, 1973). The issue
remains undecided, but it is clear in any case that some areas remained outside the comical
system, notably forests: see H. Kaspers, Comilatus nemoris, Duren- 1957,39f, 229-30, and,
on the importance of forest and forest ban for territorial development, Mayer, Fürstenund
Staat, 266-70.
93 Bannasch, Bistum Paderborn, 313-14; Seiler, Hochstift Worms, 38114On the following developments see E. E. Stengel, Die Immunität in Deutschland bis zum
Ende des n. Jahrhunderts, Innsbruck igio, i (all published), 588-98; Otto, Kirchenvogtei,
8o-129,141-2;
Mayer, Fürsten und Staat, 1-49; Scheyhing, Bannleihe, s02-3,313-17-
363
I
TIMOTHY
REUTER
held
Church
blood,
immunities,
the
were
to
since
of
shed
was not allowed
by the dynasts, who were also the counts. The creation of immunities often
and
as count
scarcely affected their power, since they functioned
broken
'95
[only]
judicial
district
itself,
the
up.
the
comitatuswas
advocate...
The last statement can be questioned, 96 but it is certainly true that more
in
immunity
than
on
existed
parchment
practice.
rights of
To say that Ottonian and Salian ecclesiastics did not act as agents of local
for
for
is
did
them
their
to
rulers
government
not
nothing
say that they
at all. On the contrary, they did a great deal. The field armies of the period
would have been smaller without the episcopal and abbatial contingents.
Just how much smaller is hard to say. We do have a document - the
Indiculus Loricatorum -which lists the number of troops to be provided for
an Italian expedition by various lay and ecclesiastical magnates, but we
cannot be certain whether it refers to an initial army or to reinforcements .9
In any case it has obvious omissions Saxony, for example
it
is
likely
- and
that lay contingents played a larger role in Ottonian and Salian armies
than it and other sources might suggest. But clearly ecclesiastical. troops
were important, and not only in Italy: Saxon bishops had to take their turn
in garrisoning the fortified stronghold
at Meissen, and Lotharingian
bishops helped to defend the western frontier
of the Reich. 98 Ecclesiastics
also maintained the royal household in a number of ways. The Ottonians
and - Salians had no fixed centre of government, though a favoured
residence (Aachen under Otto in or Merseburg under Henry ii) might at
times seem like one. They moved about the country, and they and their
entourages needed to be fed and housed. Bishops could provide hospitality
(gistum) in their palaces, which
were often shared with the king or, had a
special quarter reserved for him. Bishops and abbots also sent servitia, large
renders of food and drink, to the royal court when it was not quartered
on them. 89Most of the evidence for these practices comes from royal abbeys
rather than bishoprics, but bishops were afflicted with them as well, at least
in the eleventh century, and
occasionally expressed their resentment at
both gistum and servitia.too Kings also held canonries in
some cathedral
95 Freytag,
Billunger, 25, and see ibid., 17ff for good observations on the episcopal
counties and immunities.
96 See the review of Otto, Kirchenvogtei by K. H. Ganahl in M. I. O. G., 1 (1935), 212-13;
E. Klebel, ' Eigenklösterrechte and Vogteien in Bayern and Deutschösterreich',
AI. I. O. G.,
Ergänzungsband, xiv (1939), 179-80. Klebel's conclusions
- that advocacies were neither
hereditary nor normally held by counts in Bavaria before about I050-have
been
undermined by W. Stürmer, Früher Adel (Monographien
zur Geschichte des Mittelalters,
vi, 1973) ii. 424-56, who produces numerous counter-examples.
91 M. G. H., Constitutiones et acta publica, ed. L. Weiland, Hanover 1893, i. 632 no. 436.
For the problems of dating - 980 or reinforcements in 981,982
or 983 - see Auer,
im deut' Kriegsdienst, I', 372-9; K. F. Werner, 'Heeresorganization
and Kriegsführung
des
in
Jahrhunderts',
in
Ordinamenli
Königreich
to.
and
11.
occidentenell'alto
militari
schen
Spoleto, xv, 1968), ii. 823-6.
(Settimane...
medioevo
911Auer, 'Kriegsdienst, I', 336,344,402-6.81
Brühl, Fodrum, 16o-i.
100Ibid., 197-213; Wehlt, Reichsabteiand König, 74-7. U. Schmitt, Villa regalis Ulni and
in Alemannien(9.-12.
Kloster Reichenau.Untersuchungen
zur Pfalzfunktion desReichsklostergutes
364
THE
GERMAN
`IMPERIAL
CHURCH
SYSTEM'
chapters, a custom which can be traced back to Henry ii and, in a sense,
to his predecessor Otto III. 101It seems to have had less to do with the king's
desire or need to be
seen as rex et sacerdos,for which it would have been
a highly inappropriate vehicle, than with his need to be able to exploit
the revenues of the chapter as well as those of the bishop; separate
provision for the chapter was becoming common practice just at this
time. 102 It also had a non-economic side: the king, and sometimes his
queen, became participants in the prayers and other spiritual benefits of
the religious communities they joined, just as they did when they had
themselves commemorated in the great royal monasteries. Canonries may
also have helped to support capellani while at court; 103the king could thus
reward his clerical followers without personal expense.
These things were important, but they
were by no means systematic.
The ways in which the king exploited the
resources of the church changed
over the period and, more importantly, the demands made on particular
churches varied greatly. Auer has shown that only the Franconian
bishoprics were heavily
used for military service throughout the period.
The province of Trier
was important only in the tenth century, while the
Bavarian bishoprics seem to have become
104
in
the
eleventh.
significant only
The bishops of Saxony and Lotharingia had to be
spared whenever there
was danger on the eastern or western border, and it is not certain that
the suffragans of Hamburg-Bremen
had a militia at all. 105The use of
bishoprics and abbeys to
support the royal iter was equally varied.
Bishoprics seem to have been
in
heavily
for
the eleventh
this
used more
than in the tenth century, and they were not used evenly. Paderborn and
Merseburg, for example, seem to have been
frequently
far
more
visited
during the reign of Henry ii than
at any other time before or after, though
this may reflect the fortuitous survival of evidence and the fact that
Merseburg seems to have been
Bavarian
the
the
of
part of
patrimony
Liudolfings. 106What Ave do know is that kings
stuck to a small number
Jahrhundert)(Veröffentlichungendes Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte,xlii, 1974),
32-56, givesa good accountof how sersitiafunctionedin the caseof an institution rarely
visited by the king. For opposition,seeBrühl, Fodrum,126-7 (interpreting Thietmar, vii.
3o as an indirect criticism of Henry II; for an alternative view seebelow, p. 372 n. 140,
where the passageis quoted), 157,207; Heinemann,BistumHildesheim,
39-40.
101 Fleckenstein,
Hofkapelle, 151-5; J. Fleckenstein, `Rex canonicus. Über Entstehung
Königskanonikates',
in P. Classen and P. Schubert
and Bedeutung des mittelalterlichen
(eds), Festschrift Percy Ernst Schramm, Wiesbaden
1964, i. 57-71, with references to earlier
literature. Otto In was certainly
a canon at Aachen; whether he was a canon at Hildesheim
depends on a passage in D0m
390 for Hildesheim: 'pari sententia episcopo et fratribus
nostris in Deo carissimis... ' Fleckenstein interprets this to mean that Otto iii must have
been a canon there; Heinemann, Bistum Hildesheim,
28 n. 122, challenges this, I think
,
102 Schieffer, Domkapitel, 255-63,280f1.
rightly.
103Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, 120-34; Leyser, in his
review, pp. 115-16, raises doubts as
to how common this practice was.
104Auer, 'Kriegsdienst, 1', 67.
105Ibid., 342,370,399-400..
"1
106Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle,134-45,218-19,227-8,278-80,
gives lists of the places most
frequently visited by different rulers;
seealso Brühl, Fodrum, 117-39 and maps 111and iv.
For Merseburg, see Leyser, Rule
and Conflict, 18-19.
365
TIMOTHY
REUTER
in
they
were
when
emergencies
or
on
occasions
except
of main roads
leading armies to or beyond the borders of the Reich. Not all bishoprics
lay within this network, and not all those which did were actually on the
by
if
bishoprics
The
visited
that
ever
rarely
were
some
result was
roads.
107
Servitia
Bremen
being
Trier
Hildesheim,
and
notable examples.
a ruler be
burden,
but
helped
have
this
conjecture.
the
to
can
only
out
even
may
Nor was the exploitation of the Church through canonries even or
Hildesheim
in
began
It
with a small number of churches,
systematic.
in
bishoprics,
but
it
took
all
never
particular, and was gradually extended;
by
being
Henry
load
by
the new
taken
the
the reign of
in some of
was
and
108
Goslar
Kaiserswerth.
foundations
at
and
royal
More intangible benefits were also provided. As the Ottonians consolidated successful war-leadership into European hegemony, they followed
the usual pattern for medieval nouveaux riches: they sought to surround
themselves with literati and intellectuals. Otto i's following could already
boast a Rather of Verona and a Liutprand of Cremona, and his younger
brother Bruno of Cologne deliberately built up a household of literati who
could be promoted to bishoprics. 109By the time of Otto III the court, if
not an intellectual centre, was at least a place where intellectuals could
be found. The artistic and literary productions associated with the
Ottonian and Salian court could not have been paralleled anywhere else
in western Europe. Wealth of this sort was valued as highly as land or relics,
but it had no narrower political function. One should not assume that the
Ottonians and Salians needed ecclesiastics, because of their literacy, to run
their government. 110The sort of rule which needs writing was even less
important in Ottonian Germany than it had been in Carolingian Francia;
it is significant that among the capellani the notaries seem generally to have
occupied the lowest rank. As Erdmann long ago pointed out, '1' it vas
intellectuals, not politicians and civil servants, who used most ink in the
eleventh century.
If we compare the position of bishops and abbots in the Reich with that
of their counterparts elsewhere in Europe, what seems striking is the
similarities, not the differences. Moreover, the differences had their origins
in
royal policy but in the ways in which the different kingdoms had
not
developed and were organised. A good example is the exercise of rights
of mint and market. In the Reich, these were normally acquired by royal
grant, though such grants may sometimes only have confirmed an already
existing mint or market. In France, royal privileges granting these rights
Charles
Bald's
but
bishops
frequently
the
after
reign,
rare
abbots
were
and
in
did
Anglo-Saxon England, here
them
they
nevertheless,
as
also
exercised
101 Brühl, Fodrum, 209.108
101 Vita Brunonis, c. 37, pp. 38-9.110
111 C. Erdmann, `Die Anfänge der staatlichen
(1936), 506.
Zeitschrift,
oliv
rische ,
366
Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, 277-8,282-7PaceJohnson, Secular Activities, 99.
Propaganda im Invcstiturstreit',
Histo-
THE
GERMAN
`IMPERIAL
CHURCH
SYSTEM'
as a rule with royal permission. I"2 The common factor was the desire of
prelates to develop their lands economically. Whether they went to the
king for a grant or set up in business
depended
their
on whether
on
own
a royal diploma was worth having. In France it was not. 13 The
development of the immunity in the Reich from a negative one (keeping
out public officials) to a positive one (exercise of jurisdiction by or on behalf
of the immunist) is paralleled in France. "" Bishops sought to acquire
comital powers or their equivalent over their towns in France, England,
Burgundy and Italy. "-' Again, there
but
differences,
these were the
were
result of differing political structures. In Italy, the bishops were not so
much territorial lords in themselves as the means through which lordship
was shared among and exercised by the clans from which they came. "'
In Anglo-Saxon England it was, for historical reasons, the monasteries not
the bishoprics which were rich and desirable, and it was these which were
most favoured with grants of governmental rights, though bishops often
owned their burghs wholly or in part. I17 It was unusual for these rights
to extend beyond the episcopal or abbatial town, but so it was in the Reich,
where only a small number of prelates controlled rural counties. "s
Nor was the king's relationship with the churches under his control
different. Other kings besides the Ottonians and Salians had a capella. The
word was hardly used in Anglo-Saxon England, but the thing was known,
and the fact that half the bishops in office in 1050 and i o66 had previously
been king's priests suggests that it functioned in the same way as did that
of the Reich, though it had fewer chancery functions to perform. The rulers
of Wessex appointed to bishoprics and royal monasteries - often in spite
of privileges of free election - with probably less opposition than their
112 R. Kaiser,
`Münzprivilegien
in
Frankreich,
Münzprägung
bischöfliche
und
Deutschland
Viertejahresschrift für Sozial- und Wirtund Burgund im 9. -12. Jarhundert',
schaftsgeschichte,lxiii (1976), 289-338; F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd edn, Oxford
F. Barlow, The English Church, rooo-ro66,2nd edn, London 1979,160,218.
1970,535-6;
113 K. F. Werner, `Kingdom and principality in twelfth-century
France', in T. Reuter
(ed. ), The Afedieral Nobility. Studies in the ruling classesof France and Germanyfrom the sixth to
the twelfth centuries (Europe in the Middle Ages: Selected Studies, xiv, Amsterdam 1979),
244=5"' J. -F. Lemarignier in F. Lot and R. Fawner (eds), Histoire des institutions franfaises au
mgyen age. III. Institutions ecclfs astiques, Paris 1962,36.
115 In France the bishops of Rheims, Langres, Beauvais and Chalons-sur-Marne,
among
others, had such rights: sec Lemarignier,
12; Poupardin, Bourgogne, 445-51. Burgundy:
Poupardin, Bourgogne, 43o-57; H: E. Mayer, `Die Alpen und das Königreich Burgund',
in T. Mayer (ed. ), Die Alpen in der europäischenGeschichte(Vorträge und Forschungen...
X,
1965), 74, with a not very plausible interpretation ofsome of these grants as a 'pass policy'
of the kings of Burgundy.
116 E. Duprd-Theseider,
`Vescovi e cittä nell'Italia
in Vescovie diocesi
precommunale',
in Italia nel medioevo(sec. IX-XII).
Aui del II Conuegnodi Storia della Chiesa in Italia, Roma 5-9
H. Keller, `Die Entstehung der italienischen
settembre 196r, Padua 1964,73-82,91-101;
Stadtkommunen
als sozialgeschichtliches Problem', Frühmittelalterliche Studien, x (1976),
Barlow, English Church; 165-71.
16g-78, especially p. 176.11
ua Santifaller, `Reichskirchensystem',
105-10.
367
TIMOTHY
REUTER
Ottonian and Salian counterparts. 119The later Carolingian and early
Capetian rulers ofFrance found that many bishoprics and royal monasteries
became mediatised and escaped their control. Those that were left to them
fluctuated.
influence
their
they
though
could,
they controlled as tightly as
They put in their owri candidates and were even prepared to depose
bishops, something the Ottonians and Salians did not attempt in Germany,
in
kings
120
Italy,
In
have
though
role
played
a
significant
seen.
as we
local
bishops
men, and their power
were usually
confirming appointments,
did not depend on the king; indeed, it was the bishops who could make
Reich,
kingdoms,
including
In
121
break
the extent
the
these
all
rulers.
and
kingship
depend
did
theoretical
the
of
on
nature
not
of the ruler's control
but on practical considerations: did he dispose of sufficient power and
influence in the area to make his wishes felt? Was it worthwhile for the
listen
Royal
bishoprics
local
to
to
them?
the
and
magnates
chapter and
kinds
for
did
those
the
their
same
services
rulers
as
of
performed
abbeys
in the Reich: they advised the king, rendered gistum and servitia and
furnished contingents of troops. Indeed, the rulers of England, France,
Burgundy and pre-Ottonian
Italy probably depended more heavily on
their prelates for armies than the Ottonians and Salians did. 122The use
of churches for hospitality was certainly less in Italy, perhaps also in
France, than in the Reich, but this was largely because the churches were
less well-ofd 123 Twelfth- and thirteenth-century
German bishops and
abbots struck their contemporaries in England and France as being a
different kind of prelate from those found in the West more militaristic,
far more like secular princes. These differences would not have been
discernible in the tenth and eleventh centuries, though many German
bishoprics and abbeys would have seemed fabulously wealthy and powerful
by French or English standards 123
Had the Reichskirchensystemreally been different in kind from other
national Churches, one would expect it to have had a different kind of
organisation. It did not. There was no Reichskirchein the sense of a special
or separate organisation; there were only those churches which belonged
11sBarlow, EnglishChurch,
99-I to, 119-37.
Ito W. M. Newman, LeDomaineroyýalsouslespremierscapftiens(987-. rt8o), Paris 1937,67-8,
210-24; P. Imbart de la Tour, Les Elections episcopalesdons l'lglise de France du Lie au XIIe
Etude sur la decadence
Paris
Lemarignier,
du
llectif,
principe
1891,438,443,447;
43-4"
silcles.
Lemarignier saw the French rulers as having something like a Reichskirchensystem,only with
less system and uniformity than in the Reich; as we have seen, this is an illusory comparison.
121 S. Pivano, Stato e chiesa da Berengario I ad Arduino (888-1o15), Turin 1908,35-III
`Vescovi e cittä', 67-70.
Dupre-Theseider,
122 The importance of ecclesiastical troops in England emerges quite clearly from the
Chronicle,
I
Anglo-Saxon
in
992(C),
s.
a.
1001(x),
the
ioi6(c);
owe this'last
references
reference to Karl Leyser. For France and Italy see E. Lesne, Histoire de la propriitl
ecclisiastique en France, 2: la propriitl ecclisiastique et les droits rlgaliens a l'epoque carolingienne,
fast. ii, Lille 1926,456ff, 472ff; fasc. iii, Lille 1928,62; G. Tabacco, 'Il regno italico nei
ii.
in
Ordinamenti
ix-xi',
779-80,784,786.
militari...,
seeoli
123Brühl, Fodrum,231-40 (France), 430-1 (Italy). For Burgundy seeThietmar, vii. 30,
Brühl,
below,
'Sozialstruktur', 44-5.
372
n.
140.121
p.
quoted
368
THE
GERMAN
`IMPERIAL
CHURCH
SYSTEM'
by right to the kingdom,
as the Concordat of Worms put it, and over and
above that the king's wider duty of protection towards all churches ex lure
suscefiti regni.125Churchmen in Germany met in synods and were bound
together by ties of confraternity, as well as by the links of cognatio and
patronage we have already examined. But in these respects their practice
was no different from that of any other national Church in tenth- and
eleventh-century Europe. Synods did discuss matters ofgeneral importance
as well as the internal organisation and discipline of the Church, but they
did so under the king's direction, and often under his presidency. 126Had
the Reichskirche been a quite distinct element in Ottonian and Salian
rulership it should have been capable of functioning collectively at
moments of danger for the crown, of making declarations of solidarity, as
some of the west Frankish episcopate had done for Charles the Bald in 858
and some of the east Frankish episcopate did for Conrad i at Hohenaltheim
in 916.127 But the German Church did not appear collectively in the great
crises of the Ottonian Reich, the rebellions of 939,951-4 and the g7os128
and the succession-crises of 983-5,1002
and 1024. At these moments
bishops and abbots looked to save themselves and their foundations, not
the crown, as they were again to do in the reign of Henry Iv.
The Reichskirchewas, like any other national Church, a part of the Catholic
Church. If it had a head, it was the pope, and it has been argued that
the Ottonians and Salians needed to control the papacy in order to
preserve their hold on their own churchmen. 129This, too, needs qualification. The often-quoted statistic130 that between 962 and 1056 twelve out
of the twenty-five popes were appointed by the Ottonians and Salians, and
five deposed, is deceptive. Deposition could only be done on the spot -a
lesson which was apparently lost on Henry Iv and only Henry III
,
125DH to 18, quoted by J. Fleckenstein, `Zum Begriff der ottonisch-salischen Reichskirche', in E. Hassinger and others (eds), Geschichte,
Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft,Festschriftfür
ClemensBauerzum75. Geburtstag,
Berlin 1974,69; the whole article is an important discussion
of the nature of the Reichskirche.
126 M. Boye, `Die Synoden Deutschlands und Reichsitaliens von 922-1059. Eine
kirchenverfassungsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung',
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, kanonistische Abteilung, xviii (1929), 131-284, especially pp. 241-55127 M. G. H. Capitularia
regum francorum, ed. A. Boretius and V. Krause, Hanover
1897, ii. 427ff, no. 297. See on this, E. Dümmler, Geschichtedes ostfränkischen Reiches, and
edn, Leipzig 1887, i. 435-40; j. Devisse, Hincmar, archevequede Reims, 845-882, Geneva 1975,
i. 306-27. Even though by no means all the west Frankish bishops took part, and indeed
it was aimed especially at those who did not, it was still a specifically ecclesiastical
demonstration in favour of Charles the Bald. On Hohenaltheim
see M. Hellmann, `Die
Synode von Hohenaltheim
(916). Bemerkungen über das Verhältnis von Königtum und
Kirche im ostfränkischen Reich zu Beginn des to. Jahrhunderts',
in H. Kämpf (ed. ) Die
Entstehung des deutschenReiches (Wege der Forschung, i, 3rd edn, 1971), 289-312.
-I''
.
121Henry the Quarrelsome was excommunicated by the episcopate in 976, but this was
a responsenot only to his rebellion but also to his attacks on'the bishopric of Regensburg.
See K. Uhlirz, JahrbücherOttosIL, 79 and n. 15Santifaller, ' Reichskirchensystem', 172.
129See above, p. 349 and n. 7.130
369
TIMOTHY
REUTER
Except
for
Otto
from
distance.
m's two appointments,
to
a
appoint
managed
Gregory v and Sylvester II, the other appointments before 1046 were
little
in
fact,
131
There
local
need
was,
choices.
of
confirmations
essentially
for control. To suppose that the inner logic of the Reichskirchensystem
back
is
the
post-Gregorian papacy
required a subservient papacy to project
did
before
At
time
1
056
any
into the tenth and early eleventh centuries.
no
imperial
directions
if
he
to
the
episcopate
look
to
give
about
were
as
pope
Nor
did
have
the
episcopate
of
members
resented.
might
ruler
which a
for help. William of Mainz wrote querulously
the
to
turn
papacy
naturally
having
Metz
Dietrich
in
written
Agapetus
of
of
was accused
955;
II
to
132
These
Sergius
Henry
letters
to
were minor
Iv.
ii
about
complaining
incidents which left no ripples and no tradition. It was otherwise in west
Francia. Here popes mediated between kings and their subjects and dealt
Ottonian
133
But
did
bishoprics.
disputes
this
strength
not
reflect
over
with
least;
for
Not
Carolingian
there were opportunities
alone
at
weakness.
and
in the crises of the Reich for the popes to intervene, had they wished to
do so. They did not, because it was not their style. In west Francia they
in
do
had
the ninth
this
tradition
to
already grown up
so, and
were asked
few
in
Francia
there
were
occasions when the pope concerned
century;
east
himself or was asked to concern himself with the internal politics of the
kingdom. 134Nor could the papacy easily be used to control the German
in
issued
by
John
The
xii
xiii
not
privileges
and
were
episcopate.
themselves enough to enable Otto i to set up an archbishopric
at
Magdeburg. 135At most a pope could legitimise expostfacto what had been
done, as with Herold of Salzburg. 136If one were to explain the Ottonians'
and Salians' relations with the papacy in terms of calculated policy one
'3' The popes Leo viii, John xrn, Benedict vii, John xiv
and Benedict viii. See J. F.
Böhmer, Regesta Imperii. n. SächsischesHaus, 919-1024,5. Papsiregesten911-1024,
ed. H.
Zimmermann, Vienna 1969 (hereafter cited asB. Z. and no. ), nos. 329,386,527,62
1,1075.
132 B. Z. nos. 249,1065.
'aa Papal warnings and excommunications
of the king's enemies: B. Z. nos. 26 (926 to
Herbert ii of Vermandois), 161,162 (942, ordering the recognition of Louis iv),
209 (947
to Hugh the Great). For election disputes at Rheims seeB.Z. nos. 208,213,218; 691-3,
696,7o6,708,710,718,727,756,795-6.
134 In 867 Nicholas i wrote to the sons of Louis the German reminding them
of their
duty to their father: Annales Fuldenses,ed. F. Kurze (M. G. H. SRG, 1881), 66 (the letter
has not survived). In 885 Charles in wanted Pope Marinus to legitimise his son Bernard
bishops,
depose
Annales Fuldenses, p. 103 (on the background to this see
certain
to
and
E. Hlawitschka, Lothringen and das Reich an der Schwelle der deutschenGeschichte,Schriften der
In goo Hatto of Mainz wrote to the pope about the
M. G. H., xxi, 1968,27-8).
recent
election of Louis the Child, but, as in 885, probably because an imperial coronation was
anticipated: see H. Beumann, `Die Einheit des ostfränkischen Reiches and der Kaisergedanke bei der Königserhebung Ludwigs des Kindes', Archie für Diplomatik, xxiii (1977),
142-63. The difference between east and west Frankish attitudes to the papacy has been
demonstrated for the lay nobility by J. Fried, 'Laienadel and Papst in der Frühzeit der
französischen and deutschen Geschichte', in H. Beumann and W. Schröder (eds), Aspekte
ii, 1978), 367-406.
der Nationenbildung im Mittelalter (Nationes
...
'as See above, p. 357 n. 6o. Papal approval for the creation of new dioceses was of course
136
B
Z.
it
but
not
sufficient.
was
nos. 302,420.
necessary,
.
370
THE
GERMAN
`IMPERIAL
CHURCH
SYSTEM'
but ofimperial coronations
would have to talk, not ofthe Reichskirchensystem,
and the growing commitment of these rulers to Church reform. But it is
probably better to say that they simply carried out the duty of protection
established by the Carolingians, if in a rather heavy-handed way.
If the Reichskirchensystem
by
control over the papacy,
was not guaranteed
it was also not underpinned by any coherent ideology. Ruotger's Vita
Brunonis comes nearest to a justification of the type of ecclesiastical prince
found in the Reich, and it is curiously defensive in tone. 137Later writers,
like Sigebert of Gembloux in his Life of Dietrich I of Metz, might look back
with nostalgia to the good old days when prelates served God and Caesar
in harmony, 138but most Ottonian and Salian ecclesiastics would probably
have felt uncomfortable when confronted with the implications of `nemo
militans Deo implicet se saecularibus negotiis'. Ruotger offered a defence
in the need to uphold, and to help the ruler uphold, that Augustinian pax
and tranquillitas without which the Church could not do its work. A less
theologically grounded justification could be found in the duty to defend
the status of the see or abbey and of the saint to whom it belonged. But
few offered- any justification. Nor did they like to look too closely at the
basis for royal control of appointments. The passage from Thietmar of
Merseburg near the beginning of this article has often been quoted as if
it were a coherent theoretical statement about the rightness of kings'
Thietmar
follow
bishoprics.
But
in
says
appointing to
the sentences which
that he has heard that elsewhere in Europe bishoprics are controlled by
dukes and even by counts; I39 and this is the main point. Thietmar knew
but
bishop
for
implied:
loss
the
what such control
the
not only of status
of. the wealth and power of the bishopric. Kings were there to protect
bishops from this, and it was a matter for complaint when they could not
do so, as often happened. '40 Gerald of Cambrai also thought that it was
131 On it see F. Lotter, Die Pita Brummis des Ruolger. Ihre historiographische und ideenge`Politik
Hoffmann,
ix,
H.
Stellung
Historische
Forschungen,
(Bonner
und
1958);
schichtliche
im ottonischen Rcichskirchensystem.
der Vita Brunonis des
Kultur
Zur Interpretation
Ruotger', Rheinische Viertejahrsblätter, xxii (1957), 31-55; F. Prinz, Klerus und Krieg im frühen
ii,
(Monographien
Mittelalter
Geschichte
des
Mittelalters,
1971), 175-200; and
zur
0. Köhler, Das Bild des geistlichen Fürsten in den Viten des , o., ti. und 12. Jahrhunderts
(Abhandlungen
zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte, lxxvii, 1935),. especially pp. 21ff.
All these writers assume that Bruno was either typical or ideal-typical of the Reichskirchensystem; in fact, as the only legitimate son of a king to hold a bishopric during this period,
he could scarcely have been less typical, and his viceregal position in Lotharingia
owed
far more to his royal blood than to a new kind of church policy.
138 Vita Deoderici I. episcopi dfettensis, c. 7, M. G. H. SS, iv. 467: 'lure felicia dixerim
Ottonis tempora, cum claris praesulibus et sapientibus viris res publica sit reformata, pax
aecclesiarum restaurata, honestas religionis redintegrata. '
131 Thietmar, i. 26, p. 331°3 See the long complaint of injuries done to him and his fellow-bishops, Thietmar viii.
19-27, pp. 514-24, especially the bitter comment in viii. 23, p. 520: `Episcopatus in hiis
partibus constituti ab eorum potentia [that is, of the local counts] sunt nimium depressi;
et nos eorum procuratores, si contra Deum et iusticiam eius voluntati eorum in cunctis
et sicut
satisfacimus, honorem et aliquam utilitatem habemus; sin autem, contempnimur,
371
TIMOTHY
REUTER
the king's duty to protect the bishop, not the other way round. 141Thietmar
Church
in
the
over
control
royal
order to exclude other and worse
wanted
forms of control. He did not suppose that it was right in itself: he was
unhappy about his own promotion and about the way in which Henry ii
treated several elections in his metropolitan see of Magdeburg; and he
feared for Otto is salvation after his many sins, including the deposition
l42
lawfully
elected pope.
of a
The `sacerdotal' or `theocratic' elements143 in Ottonian and Salian
rulership did not really underpin the system either. They may have had
their functions in helping to distance the rulers from their subjects and in
helping to end rebellions peacefully. 144But they could not and did not
for
kings'
a
strict
case
appointing to bishoprics and abbeys. If
supportHenry iv and Henry v seem to have fought for so long in defence of them,
this was because giving up `sacerdotalism' affected their view of themselves
and their status - and also because they were fighting internal enemies
who could not easily be pacified. The resistance to royal appointments
which began in the late zo6os, though it coincided with attacks in
polemical literature, stemmed from more practical considerations. Previously, chapters expected to benefit by having a man close to the king
who
could secure for his institution the benefits of royal favour. A court subject
to coupsd'etat no longer inspired confidence, and the advantages of having
a man in the king's favour no longer seemed to offset the disadvantages
of not being able to make a local appointment. 145Once confidence was
nobis nullus aut regnet aut imperet dominus depredamur. ' The same idea lies behind his
scathing comments on Rudolf m of Burgundy (vii. 30, p. 434), a man who in Thietmar's
view only took from his bishops without being able to protect them: `ad suam vero
utilitatem pauca tenens ex inpensis antistitum vivit et hos vel alios in aliquo extrinsecus
laborantes eriperi nequit. Unde hii
manibus complicatis cunctis primatibus velut regi suo
serviunt et sic pace fruuntur. '
141He objected to joining a treuga Dei,
saying that peace-keeping was the ruler's
responsibility: seeSchieffer, `Gerald 1.', 344-5,347-8; H. Hoffmann, Gottesfriede
and Treuga
Dei (Schriften der M. G. H., xx, 1964), 57-64142 Thietmar,
ii. 45, p. 94; ii. 28,
pp, 72-4; vi- 43, PP- 326-8; and, on his concern with
episcopal elections, Lippelt, Thietmar von Merseburg, 127-9143 The literature on this is now enormous. See F. Kern, Kingship
and Law in the Middle
Ages, trans. S. B. Chrimes, Oxford 1939 (for the full scholarly apparatus one
must consult
the German version: Gottesgnadentum and 11riderstandsrecht,2nd edn, by R. Buchner,
The King's Two Bodies. A study in medieval political
Darmstadt 1954); E. H. Kantorowicz,
theology, Princeton 1957. For recent sceptical comments sec K. F. Morrison, Tradition and
Authority in the Western Church,300-1140, Princeton 1969,373-89J.
T. Nelson, `Royal saints
and early medieval kingship', Studies in Church History, x, Cambridge 1973,43. In so far
as these elements did exist, they were not confined to the Reich: see J. T. Rosenthal,
`Edward the Confessor and Robert the Pious: eleventh-century kingship and biography',
Mediaeval Studies, xxxiii (1971), 7-20, with a somewhat exaggerated thesis of a
new
'hagiological'
type of ruler; R. Dehsmann, 'Christus rex and magi reges: kingship and
theology in Ottonian and Anglo-Saxon art', Frühmittelalterliche Studien, x (1976), 367-405141 Leyser, Rule and Conflict, 92-107145 Two articles by J. Fleckenstein, `Heinrich iv and der deutsche Episkopat in den
in Adel and Kirche. Festschrift fur Gerd Tellenbach, Freiburg
Anfängen des Investiturstreites',
372
THE
GERMAN
`IMPERIAL
CHURCH
SYSTEM'
restored, as it was to some extent under Henry v and Lothar III, and still
more under Frederick I, outsiders appointed by the king became acceptable
once more. Neither the constitutional changes brought about by the
Concordat of Worms nor the supposed `desacralisation' of kingship made
much difference to this. 146
We may now sum up and point some conclusions. Ottonian
and Salian
bishops
influence
and
the
of
choice
rulers exercised considerable
over
degree,
in
differed
however,
influence,
This
abbots of royal monasteries.
not in kind, from that exercised by their contemporaries and predecessors
important
fill
in
Europe.
Where
it
it
to
elsewhere
was used, was used not
offices with reliable officials, but in a spirit of patronage, to reward and
punish individuals and kin-groups. It was one of the means which the
Ottonians and Salians had at their disposal to keep their greedy and
feuding aristocratic followings loyal to them. Neither did the serviceswhich
German ecclesiasticsperformed for their rulers differ greatly from those
found elsewhere in Europe. Parallels can also be found for the exercise of
ban
immunity
If
by
seem
and
governmental rights
ecclesiastics. grants of
because
been
have
German
important
for
this
to
was
more
ecclesiastics,
jurisdiction
differences
in
local
in
were
the
and
of
government
ways
which
different
because
in
Germany
Europe,
in
of
a
the rest of
not
organised
and
kind of royal policy. This can be clearly seen in the Ottonians' and Salians'
own dealings with Italian bishops: here the emphasis was not on
had
lands
but
which
and rights
governmental rights
on powers to repossess
been alienated, especially through leasehold tenure. 147In each case the
recipients got the kind of grant they most needed and wanted, and these
transactions should be seen as favours to the recipients rather than
delegations of power. Bishops and abbots in the Ottonian and Salian
Reich, as elsewhere,got far more protection from the king than they gave
him. One should also stress- as recent specialist studies have increasingly
done148- the variety of royal influence over and interest in the Church.
im Breisgau 1968,221-36, and 'Hofkapelle and Reichsepiskopat unter Heinrich iv. ', in
J. Fleckenstein (ed. ), Investiturstreitand Reichsverfassung(Vorträge and Forschungen heraus117-40,
Geschichte,
Konstanzer
Arbeitskreis
fir
1972),
xvii,
vom
gegeben
mittelalterliche
in
how
Henry
lost
the early years of
gradually
episcopal
control
over
appointments
show
Recently R. Schieffer, Die Entstehung des päpstlichen Investiturverbots fur den
his majority.
has shown
deutschenKönig (Schriften der M. G. H., xxviii, 1981), especially 7-47,95-107,
that investiture, and hence royal involvement as such in elections, did not become an issue
found no contemporary
until the late 1070s; the attacks by Humbert in AdversusSimoniacos
resonance.
lac D. Schäfer, 'Zur Beurteilung des Wormser Konkordats',
Abhandlungen der königlichpreussischen Akademie der Wissenschaft, phil. -hist. Klasse, Berlin 1905, i. 8-37; G. Wolfram,
Friedrich I. and das lVormser Concordat, Marburg 1883; R. Jordan, Die Stellung des deutschen
Episkopats im Kampf um die Universalmacht unter Friedrich I. bis zum Frieden von Venedig (1197),
Würzburg 1939,120-8; R. L. Benson, The Bishop-Elect. A study in medieval ecclesiasticaloffice,
Princeton 1968,251ff.
der Ottonen', M. LÖ. G., xlviii (1984),
147 M. Uhlirz, `Die italienische Kirchenpolitik
See above, PP- 351-2,365-6.
229,240,288-9.188
373
TIMOTHY
REUTER
It was by no means consistent or systematic; there were considerable local
is,
This
conclusion
of course, entirely in keeping with the thrust
variations.
German
last
the
two
of
generations
of
medieval scholarship, which has
been in the direction of local and regional studies and has tended to
difficulties
to
the
overstress
of making valid genestress - perhaps even
in
institutions
Germany
149
The
as
a
about
whole.
concept of
ralisations
first
developed
by
Reichskirchensystem
was
an earlier generation
a
of
scholars, for whom such generalisations were not only possible but the
main purpose of their work: the powerful attractiveness of Verfassungsgeschichtelay precisely in the way in which it offered a means of ordering
the mass of the discrete and the particular. The concept has survived even
though the framework in which it was embedded has been discarded, and
it is time it too was discarded.
149 W. Schlesinger, `Verfassungsgeschichte und Landesgeschichte', in Beiträge zur deut1963,9-41,
schen Verfassungsgeschichtedes Mittelalters. it. Städte und Territorien, Göttingen
Stand und Aufgaben der
254-61; T. Mayer, `Der Wandel unseres Bild vom Mittelalter.
Geschichtsforschung',
Blätterfür
deutsche Landesgeschichte, xciv (1958),
mittelalterlichen
1-87.
374