8) The ‘Imperial Church System’

The period of Otto I and Otto II saw the extension of the Saxo-Franconian aristocratic community to include the leading Suabian and Bavarian families. The community was united through a shared sense that there were certain rules of conduct that favoured respect for the lives, bodies and rights of its members. The path towards its formation was lubricated by the continuing expansion of the Liudolfing sphere of influence. The community led to an easing in the high rate of attrition among the leading families which reduced the number of disgruntled princes who could act as foci for rebellion and discontent.

There were 6 core propositions of the theory of an imperial church system:

• The Ottonians had a strict policy of appointing their own people as heads of the episcopal sees and to the leading abbeys and nunneries. The policy in the case of episocpal sees evolved towards a strict preference for men who had first proven their loyalty and competence through service in the royal chapel.
• They had a deliberate policy of endowing these institutions with royal rights, lands and military resources to be used on the king's behalf and in his service. Prelates were usually celibate and so the king could choose heirs who could be relied on to do this. By placing them under ecclesiastical control, the king was protecting these rights from the predatory aristocracy. He had more control over them in the church.
• The dukes and counts proved increasingly unreliable, so the control over the great churches meant the kingdom was connected by a network of offices which remained under royal control. The offices could be filled with men of proven worth and loyalty, and regularly as the average bishopric lasted just 15 years.

• Otto I is said to have adopted these policies after the setbacks of the 940s and early 950s when he found he couldn't rely on the loyalty of dukes. So, he chose instead to rely on the church. For example, he appointed his brother Bruno as Archbishop of Cologne. A charter was drawn up in the 950s making it so that only the king could appoint bishops and archbishops, except over the areas under the church's authority and not the king's. An advocate was also appointed who helped in the legal jurisdiction of the church in which he was appointed.
• The great symbol of this system of lordship over the church was the way the king reserved to himself the right to invest or grant the staff of office to the abbot/abbess/bishop. The Ottonians reserved the right to invest staff to the abbey.
• But, there was a fatal flaw: its vulnerability to papal authority. The bishops owed their allegiance to the pope and the bishop of Rome, not to the king. The bishop of Rome could subvert the king's control of the resources which had been vested in the church. This is what led to the investiture crisis of the 11th century and all of its consequences.

The imperial church system theory began to be questioned in the 1970s. Timothy Reuter summarises the doubts many scholars had held about this over-simplistic theory.

• The king didn't exercise control over episcopal and abbatial appointments, he could intrude his man, but negotiation with local parties was the norm.
• There wasn't a consistent preference for clerics who had served as royal chaplains, and the clergy attached to the royal chapel were an extremely diverse group, including of social rank.
• Ecclesiastical appointments were typically a contest between competing interests. Religious communities and their patrons were often divided over whom to choose, and the king's role was often that of arbitrator in these disputes. He didn't always have the decisive say. The king's role was to negotiate solutions that would be acceptable to many, if not all parties.
• Bishops couldn't be easily deposed, and their loyalties tended to lie with their own churches rather than with the king.
• Grants of secular jurisdiction to bishoprics only became common in the early 11th century, and then only at the level of counties, not duchies. Examples of this beforehand were a one-off, not a precedent.
• Bishops and abbots did make an important contribution to the royal army by supplying many armoured knights, but it's impossible to say if these were greater than those supplied by the secular aristocracy. It's possible that the majority of soldiers still came from the great magnates and other lay sources.

The picture is far more complex than the theory of the imperial church system maintains. There wasn't a system in the ecclesiastical sphere that compensated for the absence of formal state apparatus. The heads of the most important churches were figures the king had to negotiate with, just like leading members of his own family and the aristocracy. They wrote to the king for his support in eradicating opposition. The king did kind of rely on bishops to be agents of government, but they were difficult to control once in their position, and they weren't easily deposed. This could be problematic for the king. The episcopate could resist royal commands if they wanted which meant the king would have to wait until they died before he could do anything. There was no coherent imperial church system as such, it was a matter of the leading churchmen and the great ecclesiastical centres working with the king on an ad hoc basis.

Reuter's criticisms was published in 1982, and since then the way in which the period is understood has evolved to incorporate a stronger appreciation of the importance of cultural factors and of ritual. It is now suggested that there was a system, but a softer and less formal one than has previously been believed. It was a set of routines and practices that helped to consolidate royal authority.

Ottonian kingship is marked by an intensification of royal itineration. Earlier kings had travelled often, but not constantly, usually residing in the core-areas of their kingdoms. The Ottonians did tend to favour one area, East Saxony, but they seemed to be more active in trying to reach the more distant regions of their kingdom. This intensity of moving around was unique to the Ottonians.

Royal apartments were set up all over Germany to accommodate the king when he came, and churches were built with special seating areas for the king designed from Charlemagne's chapel. The emperor would be seated on a throne on the second floor which was elevated so that he could observe events on the ground floor. The designs of the churches were also constantly improving.

This hospitality of the churches allowed the kings to travel to many regions that couldn't otherwise have been reached which allowed them to greatly extend their influence over the kingdom. This was crucial in a vast kingdom where the ruling family didn't have access to palaces and residences beyond their home region. The initative often came from the churches themselves as the bishops and abbots wanted the king to come to their region because his presence as their guest would confirm their status in local society.

The great churches also provided venues for the display of royal art. The kings gave books and artworks to be displayed in the churches which was a declaration of kingly status, and it built a relationship between the king and these communities. The Holy Lance of Saint Maurice is perhaps one of the most interesting pieces given.

These objects of sacred art can be seen as providing visual propaganda for the Ottonians and their families that helps to build and legitimise their authority. It helps to proclaim their special status as God's chosen representative on Earth. But, few of them could have been produced without the help of the great monasteries and their craftsmen, and it was by being displayed in churches that they reached a wider audience.