West European Studies

The reign of Otto I (912-973) saw the consolidation of the German state, and reconstitution of the Holy Roman Empire and the development of a highly literate, state church awash in income and state favors. The literature on medieval Europe is constantly concerned with Otto, the church and the resultant Ottonian renaissance he created. The writers on this topic are usually divided on the moral justification for his removal of Pope John VIII, the election of his own candidate and his military methods in Italy. Even more, this literature also is divided on the nature of the state church. Few however, disagree that Otto was one of the most powerful and influential figures of the middle ages.

Bernhardt, John (1993) Itinerant Kingship and Royal Monasteries in Early Medieval Germany     936-1075. Cambridge University Press

    This book is one of the few works specializing in the topic of Otto and the church. Most of this literature is a part of a larger thesis of which Otto is an important aspect. This book, however, specializes in the relation of Ottos government to the German church. In fact, it is difficult to speak of Otto I at all without mentioning the church, since the bishops and abbots were his creatures and served, for a time, to control, the higher nobility and the Frankish (anti-Saxon) nation as a whole. Ottos role in the monasteries was to sponsor reform movements and councils that eliminated laxity and illiteracy from them. Abbots became the stewards of Ottos lands, and they became the literary centers of the Ottonian Renaissance. In this way did Otto break the back of powerful families to the south and west of Germany.
    Even more than this, Otto was at the center of clerical education, producing monastically trained scholars who could not only rule, but defend the idea of theocratic kingship. From all of this came a stable of loyal bishops and abbots who were educated and on the whole, pious people. In terms of the state itself, Otto had no functioning bureaucracy, and hence, the church became the real backbone of political rule. Otto was itinerant, like many medieval kings, traveling from place to place, holding court and punishing the disloyal. The main stopping points on the Ottonian journeys were the powerful cathedrals and abbeys of the real, continually shoring up his support.

Leyser, Karl (1982) Medieval Germany and its Neighbors, 900-1250. Hambeldon Press

    This work spends quite a bit of time on Otto and the renaissance he created. The main means of typifying Ottonian rule is the formula  patrimony over bureaucracy.  This means that the state was based around Ottos theoretical ownership of the land and, from this, is ability to reward his loyal friends with large grants. For Otto I, this meant that the major abbeys and cathedrals were granted not only large grants of land, but freedom from taxes, tolls and corporal punishment that made them the masters of the countryside and dominant in the cities. Leyser is the only major author on this topic to mention the  aronga,  a semi-sacred diploma that served to  grant lands and privileges to the clerical and lay defenders of the new state. The aronga was invested with all the prestige and power of the empire, and was treated as official writ. While the upper level nobles wavered in their loyalty (especially the westerners), the church, armed with these grants of immunities, generally stayed close to Otto, though there are some exceptions to this.
    The state itself was staffed by clerics almost completely, as they were both the most loyal and the most literate parts of the population. Monasteries loyal to Otto were improved to turn them into fortresses, serving as royal bulwarks in a very literal sense. For Otto, he was little less than the  head of all Christendom  and this meant he was in charge of not only protecting the church, but staffing it, educating it and providing for its welfare in exchange for loyalty against the nobility and perseverance against the pagans to the east.

Bryce, James (1914) The Holy Roman Empire. Macmillan (cf esp  From Empire to German     Kingdom  pps 121-133)

    This substantial work was the standard in this field for years. Bryce, while speaking of the Ottonian state quite a bit, also focuses on Ottos adventures in Italy, closely connected to his domestic policy and the role of the church within it. Controlling the papacy was central for several reasons Otto did not want Rome to become a rallying point for disaffected nobles and clergy, he truly wanted  to reform the elite driven Roman political system which was deeply divided against itself. Lastly, Otto wanted a compliant papacy so as not for it to interfere with his centralizing program in Germany. Therefore, Italy was a central part of Ottonian domestic policy and the role of the church.
    Pope John XII, by all accounts a corrupt prelate, had attracted the anti-German party in Rome, and the anti-Otto faction in Germany. The corruption of Rome in general, and of John in particular, gave Otto both the duty and right to interfere in Italian politics. His army, financed by the domestic church, invaded Rome and eliminated the anti-German party, placing Leo VIII on the throne to the anger of the Roman mob. The foreign troops on Roman streets created riot conditions, and Otto was driven out of the city, only to re-invade twice before his death, using starvation tactics to force the city to surrender.
    The clear implication of the Bryce book is that one cannot understand domestic policy without foreign policy. In Ottos mind of course, Italy was domestic to the empire, but many Romans thought differently. Otto came face to face not just with the anti-German faction, but also the anti-imperial (i.e. republican) faction of Rome, leading to an ideological conflict on many levels. One can romanticize this faction as freedom loving urbanites fighting an overbearing king, or one can see them as self-interested oligarchs defending the corruption of John VIII. Brice refuses to take a side.

Cantor, Norman (1993) The Civilization of the Middle Ages. Harper Collins. (cf esp.  The     Ottonian Empire  pps 211-218

    This standard medieval history seeks to treat the Ottonians with as much neutrality as Bryce. Cantor seems a mild supporter of Ottos imperial policy relative to the church. Cantor holds that there were three pillars to Ottonian rule relative to the church at this time. The first, lay investiture, a well known concept that held a bishop or abbot could not take office without the imperial blessing. Secondly, the  lay advocacy,  or the idea that laymen can represent church properties and have tight control over finances. Lastly, the idea of homage being connected to investiture held that there was a politicallegal connection to the investiture of church dignitaries   the idea was that the bishopric was held as a fief, with the state as overlord. The church needed protection against avaricious nobles, and Otto needed a strong group of powerful and literate people to staff, control and justify central authority. These pillars represented the very structural function of Ottonian rule.
    Otto was crowned by the Archbishop of Mainz at Charlemagnes old capital of Aachen. This meant two things first, that Otto is holding that his empire is the continuation of that of Charles the Great, and second, that the German church will become a state church, something specifically German and part of the new empire. Otto, in other words, is declaring a new concept of kingship that holds Otto as head of all Christendom and protector of the church. This title of  protector  means that he also rules the church. This policy was so successful, that by the time of Ottos third invasion of Rome, over half the imperial troops were raised and financed by the church directly.

Clayton-Emmerson, Sandra (2006). Key Figures in Medieval Europe An Encyclopedia. CRC     Press

    This article stresses Ottos move to the east, seeking new lands and sources of revenue in converting the heathen Hungarians and Slavs. One this was done, Otto then planted powerful monastic institutions and cathedral churches that took advantage of the new lands opened up. This became yet another means whereby Otto took advantage of the church to increase the income to the state and create a loyal and dependent class of ecclesiastics. Specifically in the east, the protection and approbation of Otto was essential for the sake of protection against disaffected eastern pagans.
    Like other authors, Emmerson stresses the itinerant methods of Ottonian rule, using his constant travels to personally shore up support in the large monastic fortresses and cathedrals. This was an effective way of personally using the prestige of the Roman throne to control crime, brigandage and disloyalty. She also stresses that the silver mines in the east also served as another source of wealth for the Ottonian state which the church supplemented. These mines also served for new coinage that assisted the toll- and tax-free monasteries with their commercial expansion, a central part of the Ottonian Renaissance.
    This article also stresses Ottos campaigns in southern Italy (not mentioned in the other sources thus far) that sought to open new lands, take advantage of trade, and, importantly, add Byzantine approbation to Ottonian imperial claims. This latter was not forthcoming. It does show, however, that the Byzantines were still taken seriously as  real Romans  and their blessing was sought in order to shore up Ottonian claims to Roman-hood.

Fisher, H.A.L. (1898) The Medieval Empire, Vol II. Macmillan. (cf esp.  The Church in     Germany  pps 55-135)

    This substantial essay on the Ottonian church and its antecedents is important for this review. Fisher holds that Otto is really a part of a long, drawn out period of increasing imperial control over the church. Contrary to Cantor, there was an imperial ideology that Otto inherited, and hence, he was able to build upon it. In general, Fisher holds that this form of imperial control was not done out of any desire for conquest, but in order to reform the abuses, both aristocratic and ecclesiastic, within the church itself. Both the corruption of Rome and the corruption of many powerful abbeys forced monarchs from Louis the Pious to Otto to constantly intervene in church affairs.
    Like all other writers in this field, Fisher holds that the bishops and abbots were given ducal rights, and became an aristocratic class in their own right. The church needed to aid of the civil power against Roman exactions, eastern pagans and rapacious nobles, and hence, the state was seen as a savior against them. The state of course, also needed the churchs support, revenue and literary ability. In addition, the new aristocracy of the bishops was not hereditary, which meant that a every vacancy, the state was empowered to choose a successor. Hence, the lack of hereditary right became an important weapon against the older, secular aristocrats.
    What becomes more and more important as Ottos reign continues is the fact that the tax free status of bishoprics and monasteries means that commerce becomes a powerful factor in church life. All of this increases the revenues for both church and state, and Otto is able to outspend the aristocracy as well as the Roman factions. One important problem with this, and this is the only mention of it in this literature, is simony. Those whop pledge loyalty also gave great gifts, and hence, the Roman power had another excuse to fight the German state   bishops who  gifted  their way to power, according to canon law, are not bishops at all. This became an issue after Ottos death, when the Roman papacy got its act together and began to examine these issues. The result, of course, was the Gregorian reforms, done at the expense of the empire Otto built.

Emerton, Ephraim (1903) Medieval Europe, 814-1300. Ginn and Company (cf esp  Revival of     the Roman Empire on a German Basis, 888-950  pps 89-115)

    Despite its short length, this essay is of immense importance. This is because it lays out the coronation oath given to Otto I by the archbishop of Mainz. This is important given his later relation to the church. The elements in the oath were to drive out the enemies of the faith, to have power over all Franks, to preserve the peace and to meet out  fatherly discipline.  For all the powerful nobles at Aachen that day, there was no doubt what Otto was saying. His later victories against the Hungarians and Slavs gave teeth to this oath.
    He clearly linked his own power with that of old Francia and sought the discipline of the nobles. Resistance happened quickly, but the aristocracy was unable to get its own act together to combine against Otto. Ottos coffers expanded quickly, and his victories in the East gave him a great deal of prestige. Even more, this writer mentions that while Ottos father did not take a church oath, Otto did. This meant to all who heard it that the church was going to be a part of this rule, as the only organized power that could be mobilized against the great  dukes. It was also noted in this work that Henry, Ottos younger brother, viewed himself as the true heir. Hence, Henry stirred up trouble among the nobles, forcing Ottos hand early on in his reign. It may be this constant insecurity that forced Otto to constantly travel his realm seeking signs of disloyalty.

Smith, Philip (1879) The History of the Christian Church During its First Ten Centuries. Harper     and Brothers. (cf esp.  The Church in the Tenth Century.  pps 571-584

    This short essay stresses the decline of the papacy as being the center of Ottos church policy. With both a deeply corrupt pope and the evils of Roman faction politics, Otto, with some reason, viewed himself as the only real powerful person to reform the church and its structure. The connection here is the domination of the anti-GermanImperial party that saw John XII as their weapon. This alone gives the reader some pause to sympathize with Otto. He, according to this thesis, merely filled the vacuum left by Rome herself. Further, as Otto unified Germany, Italy became more and more divided, making it even more imperative that Otto intervene in Roman politics. Smith holds that many people in north Italy begged Otto to invade the country and kick out the oligarchs and their debauched instrument. Smith is clearly laying out a pro-imperial thesis.
    Furthermore, Smith paints Otto as the victim of constant noble conspiracies precisely at a time when the wealth of the country was increasing markedly. But Smith also holds that the ecclesiastical structure was as rebellious as the noble one. This is the only work where this idea is put forth. In short, Smith argues that Otto was precisely within his rights to invade Rome and put his own nobles to shame. But he also holds that this structure, the only one possible at the time, could not last. It was too unstable as the higher bishops and abbots decided to stop taking orders. Only with a man as strong as Otto I or III could this system hold together.

Schaff, Philip (1890) The History of the Christian Church Volume IV Medieval Christianity     from Gregory I to Gregory VII. Charles Scribners Sons. (cf esp  The Interference of Otto     the Great  pps 288-293

    This short but important essay, despite its negative title, is based around the idea, like Smith, Otto saved the papacy from itself and from the Roman factions. One problem with Ottos Italian policy was that Leo VIII, Ottos candidate, was only a layman, and had to be rushed through the clerical grades so he could be eligible to take office. This only provided grist for the anti-imperial party, and was one of the factors, much later, that led to the Gregorian reforms. It showed that Otto, in this case, was more interested in loyalty than canonical regularity, and it hurt him with the church at home. Ultimately, Schaff concludes by holding that the papacy was saved and basically purified, but only at the price of its independence.

Kampers, Franz (1911)  Otto I the Great.  The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II. Robert     Appleton and Company. (newadvent.org)

    The catholic Encyclopedia has always been a standard work for medieval researchers. Despite the removal of papal independence, Otto is described in basically positive terms. The basic divide is couched in ideological terms as between Ottonian centralization versus the more German conception of aristocratic individualism. Therefore, they paint Otto as going against the German grain in centralizing power. This Catholic work does not try to defend John XII as the evidence against him is too great (however it may have been exaggerated by Ottos men).
    This article, unlike all the others, stresses not so much the disciplining of the nobility, but the control of a nation   that of the west Franks. The west Franks were relatively anti-Saxon, and this movement bore the brunt of Ottos ecclesiastical politics. In other words, this work stresses the national, not class, basis of the nobility that Otto is trying to control, which is unique in the literature. It is also the only work reviewed here that stresses the power of the lesser nobles as equal to that of the church in defending Otto and his policies. Even more, this article also suggests that one of the means of breaking up powerful landed families was to interfere in their private quarrels, take one side over another and hence, split the family. Otto is depicted as Machiavellian, but one out of necessity.
    Unlike all the other works reviewed here, this article stresses that Otto was personally very devout, and, s a result, admonishes the reader to recall this in evaluating Ottos policy. He was undoubtedly motivated by religious motives as political ones, and Ottos own well known piety should be seen as evidence of this. Otto saved the church from Roman factions, corrupt prelates, corrupt landed families and the example of John XII. Otto is seen as a hero.
    What can we conclude The works cited above represent a hugely diverse group of writers from a religious, ethnic, temporal and political backgrounds. Yet they all agree on the following points Otto was personally not corrupt Otto loved the church and reformed it thoroughly Rome was the seat of corruption Otto unified Germany Otto created the conditions for a thriving mercantile trade through the church John XII was damaging to church interests.
    These points of general agreement are impressive, and clearly shows that, relative to his time, Otto is seen as a positive figure for progress, unity and literary and artistic reform. The points of disagreement are the methods used to force the Romans to capitulate the stress on loyalty above all things the creation of a church saturated with money and property and the choosing of the layman, Leo VIII to replace John. These seem to be more minor points, but significant all the same. It is difficult to conclude anything other than Otto was a great man and a religious reformer that deserves the respect of history.