^* 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 Fleckenstein, J., Die Hofkapelle der ottonisch-salischen Reichskirche. (Schriften der M.G.H. xvi. 2, 1966Google Scholar); Auer, L., ‘Der Kriegsdienst der Klerus unter den sächsischen Kaisern’, 1, Mitteilungen des Institute für österreichische Geschichlsforschung (hereafter cited as M.I.Ö.G.), lxxix (1971), 316–407Google Scholar, and 11, M.I.O.G., lxxx (1972), 48–70; C. Brühl, Fordrum, Gistum, Servitium Regis, 2 vols., Cologne 1968; H.-P. Wehlt, Reichsabtei und König, dargestellt am Beispiel der Abtei Lorsch mit Ausblicken auf Hersfeld, Stablo und Fulda (Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts fur Geschichte, xxviii, 1970). For further bibliography see Santifaller, L., ‘Zur Geschichte des ottonisch-salischen Reichskirchensystems’, Sitzungsberichte. der osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, ccxxix, 1 (Vienna, 1964Google Scholar) and Kohler, O., ‘Das ottonische Reichskirchensystem. Ein Forschungsbericht’, in Adel und Kirche. Festschrift fur Gerd Tellenbach, Freiburg im Breisgau 1968, 141–204Google Scholar.

² See for example below, pp. 349 n. 5, 352 n. 26, 356 n. 51, 365 n. 106. In general the specialist literature has been more cautious than general works.

³ Hauck, A., Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, 5th edn, Leipzig 1925, iii. 566–7Google Scholar, gives a few examples of incelibate bishops.

⁴ See typically O. Köhler, Das Bild des geistlichen Fürsten in den Viten des 10. 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts (Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte, lxxvii, 1935), 9: ‘The bishops were to become the basis of royal power … tools of the royal will … supporters of the idea of a Reich against ducal tendencies.’

⁵ Auer, ‘Kriegsdienst, I’, 322, 335; Fleckenstein, J., ‘Das Reich der Ottonen im 10. Jahrhundert’, in Gebhardt, B., Handbuch der Deutschen Geschichte, 9th edn by Grundmann, H., Stuttgart 1970, i. 245–6Google Scholar. For dissent from this communis opinio see Leyser, K. J., Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society. Ottoman Saxony, London 1979, 27Google Scholar; Otto, E., Die Entwicklung der deutschen Kirchemioglei im 10. Jahrhundert (Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte, lxxii, 1933), 151–2Google Scholar: ‘One cannot say that [Otto 1] 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.’

⁶ Schieffer, T., ‘Heinrich n. und Konrad 11. Die Umprägung des Geschichtsbildes durch die Kirchenreform des 11. Jahrhunderts’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, viii (1951), 394–5Google Scholar; Fleckenstein, Hojkapelle, 220.

⁷ K. Bosl, ‘Deutschlands staatlich-politisches Gewicht im Zeitalter der Ottonen und ersten Salier’, in Gebhardt, Handbuch, i. 764; Santifaller, ‘Reichskirschensystem’, 40.

⁸ See below, p. 372 and nn. 143–4.

⁹ 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 Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, i. 26, ed. R. Holtzmann (M.G.H. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum (hereafter cited as SRG), nova series, ix, 1935), 33.

¹¹ H. Mitteis, The State in the Middle Ages, trans. H. F. Orton, Amsterdam 1975, 109, 192.

¹² Leyser, K. J., review of Fleckenstein, Hqfkapelle, E.H.R., lxxxv (1970), 115Google Scholar.

¹³ Anselm of Liege, Gesta episcoporum Tungrensium, Traiectmsium et Leodiensium, c. 50, M.G.H. Scriptorum tomus (hereafter cited as SS), vii. 219–20.

¹⁴ Weise, G., Königtum und Bischofswahl im fränkischen und deutschen Reich vor dem Investiturstreit, Berlin 1912, 57–63Google Scholar, 95–7.

¹⁵ Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, iii. 28–33, 397–407; Fleckenstein, Hojkapelle, 208–11.

¹⁶ The clauses are found in all renewals of episcopal privileges of election after 1002 except that for Halberstadt, D H 11 13 (royal diplomata here and henceforth are referred to in the conventional way: D[D] for Diploma[ta]; initial of ruler's name; regnal number; number of the diploma in the MGH 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 n, see Bannasch, H., Das Bistum Paderbom unter den Bischbfen Rether und Meinwerk (1) 83–1036), Paderborn 1972, 46–7Google Scholar. On developments under Henry 11 see Weise, Kdnigtum, 117ff. Schieffer,' Heinrich n. und Konrad 11.’, 394–7.

¹⁷ Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, iii. 29, 400–3; Fleckenstein, Hofkapele, 208.

¹⁸ C. Brühl, ‘Die Sozialstruktur des deutschen Episkopats im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert’, in Le Istituzioni ecclesiastiche delta ‘societas Christiana' dei secoli XI-XII: diocesi, pievi e parrochie (Atti della Sesta Settimana Internazionale di Studio [Mendola], Milano, 1–7 settembre 1974, Milan 1977), 51.

¹⁹ Schlesinger, W., Kirchengeschichte Sachsens im Mittelalter, Cologne 1962, i. 269Google Scholar.

²⁰ Probably it was not. See P. Classen, ‘Das Wormser Konkordat in der deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte’ in J. Fleckenstein (ed.), Investilurstreil undReichsver/assung (Vorträge und Forschungen herausgegeben vom Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für mittelalterliche Geschichte, xvii, 1973), 453–4, commenting on the controversy on this subject between Julius Ficker and George Waitz.

²¹ See below, p. 355 and n. 43.

²² For the royal iter, see below, pp. 364–6; there is a good map of the Salian demesne in J. Engel (ed.), Grosser Historischer Weltatlas herausgegeben vom Bayerischen Schulbuch-Verlag, II: Mittelalter, Munich 1970, 78–9.

²³ Hirsch, S. and Pabst, H., Jahrbücher des deutschen Rciches unter Hcinrich II, Leipzig 1878, i. 84–7Google Scholar; Aucr, ‘Kriegsdienst, 1’, 406–7.

²⁴ H. Maurer, Der Herzog von Schwaben, Sigmaringen 1978, 153–60: even when the dukes did not appoint to the bishoprics of Chur, Constance, Augsburg and Strassburg, the bishoprics were part of the duke's sphere of ecclesiastical influence (p. 159); so were many of the Reichsklöster (pp. 161–81).

²⁵ T. Mayer, Försten und Stoat, Weimar 1950, 25. For early privileges-see for example DD O 1 34 and 192 for Lorsch. D H iv 260 for Einsiedeln runs: ‘Cumque abbatem constituendum tempus poposcerit, non quilibet regis potestate eis praeponatur, sed quern fratrum electio idoneum iudicaverit, regis tarn petitione quam constitutione huius nominis onus subire cogatur.’

²⁸ Wehlt, Reichsabtei und König, 317, 323–4, 374–6.

²⁷ Fleckenstein, Hqfkapdle, 177.

²⁸ Ibid.; the earlier work is Die Hofkapelle der deutschen Könige, I : Grundlegung. Die karolingische Hojkapelle (Schriften der M. G. H., xvi, 1, 1959).

²⁹ Anselm of Liège, c. 43, pp. 215–16.

³⁰ Of the eight bishops of Wurzburg from Poppo 1 (941–61) to Adalbero (1045–90), only two, Poppo 1 and Bruno – were certainly members of the capella before their elections. See the review of the evidence in A. Wendehorst, Das Bistum Wurzburg, I : Die Bischofsreihe bis 1254 (Germania Sacra, neue Folge i, 1962), 61, 63–4, 67–8, 70–1, 75–6, 89, 101–3. Fleckenstein, Hqfkapelle, makes all eight bishops ex-capellani, expressing doubts only about Meinhard (pp. 212, 226) and Bernward (pp. 79, 81 n. 131). Here and elsewhere Fleckenstein has deduced membership of the capella from 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-membership must be to exaggerate its importance.

³¹ For Wazo's case, see above, p. 350 and n. 13; for Bardo, see Vita Bardonis maior, c. 15, M.G.H. SS, xi. 329–30.

³² These figures are taken from the lists in Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, 52–3, 75, 114–15, 211–12, 224–6, 289–90 (but for Wurzburg, see above, n. 32).

³³ Anonymus Haserensis, c. 25, M.G.H. SS, vii. 260; Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, 225.

³⁴ Lück, D., ‘Erzbischof Anno 11. von Koln, Standesverhaltnisse, verwandschaftliche Beziehungen und Werdegang bis zur Bischofsweihe’, Annalen des historischcn Vereins für den Nicdcrrhein, cxii (1970), 9–31Google Scholar, has shown that Anno's origins, though modest, were less lowly than had been supposed; for Durand, see Anselm of Liege, c. 36, p. 209. Brühl, ‘Sozialstruktur’, 48, points to a number of other cases where a former presumption of low or servile birth has had to be abandoned.

³⁵ Metz, W., ‘Zur Herkunft und Verwandschaft Bischof Burchards 1. von Worms’, Hessisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte, xxvi (1976), 31–42Google Scholar.

³⁶ H. Renn, Das erst Luxemburger Grafenhaus (963–1136), Bonn 1941, 9, 44ff, 124; Freytag, H.-J., Die Herrschqft der Billunger in Sachsen (Studien und Vorarbeiten zum historischen Atlas Niedersachsens, xxiv, 1951), 46Google Scholar and genealogical table.

³⁷ Schnitger, H., Die deutschen Bischofe aus den Königssippen von Otto I. bis Heinrich V., Munich 1938Google Scholar, provides a convenient guide to these: some 50 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 Scholkopf, R., Die sächsischen Grafen, 19ff-1024 (Studien und Vorarbeiten zum historischen Atlas Niedersachsens, xxii, 1957Google Scholar) and the comments by Schmid, K., ‘Bemerkungen zu einer Prosopographie des frühen Mittelalters’, Zeitschrift für württembergische Landesgeschichte, xxiii (1964), 215–27Google Scholar; Leyser, Rule and Conflict, parti: ‘Otto 1 and his Saxon enemies’, passim.

³⁹ Heribert of Cologne and Henry of Würzburg: Vita Heriberti archiepiscopi Coloniensis auctore Lantberto, c. 4, M.G.H. SS, iv. 742; Heribert and Gozmann of Eichstatt: 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 1 of Worms: Vita Burchardi episcopi Wormatiensis, c. 3, M.G.H. SS, iv. 833; Warmann and Eppo of Constance: Annales Hildesheimenses, s.a. 1034, ed. G. Waitz (M.G.H. SRG, 1878), p. 38.

⁴⁰ R. Holtzmann's 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 exceptionally well informed about Thietmar's family. See the observations by Leyser, K. J., ‘Debate: Maternal kin in early medieval Germany’, Past and Present, xlix (1970), 134Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Schnitger, Bischöfe aus den Königssippen, 67.

⁴² Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, 31 (Bruno), 42 (Ohtric). Bruno's election was naturally welcome to Otto 1, but Fleckenstein seems to press the sources too far when he says that the election was ‘directly arranged by the king'.

⁴³ Gesta episcoporum Camcracensium, c. 110, M. G. H. SS, vii. 448. Azelin again tried to buy the bishopric on Erluin's death (c. 122, p. 454).

⁴⁴ Leyser, Rule and Conflict, 14–22, 27, 43.

⁴⁶ Gesta Lietberti episcopi, c. 12, M. G. H. SS, vii. 489. See in general Leyser, Rule and Conflict, 33.

⁴⁶ Bruno: Ruotgeri Vita Brunonis, c. 37, ed. I. Ott ( M. G. H. SRG, nova series, x, 1951), 38–9. Notker: Anselm of Liege, c. 29, p. 205. Willigis: Vita Burchardi episcopi Wormatiensis, c. 2, M. G. H. SS, iv. 833; Vita Bemwardi episcopi Hildesheimensis auctore Thangmaro, c. 2, M.G.H. SS, iv. 759 (see c. 1 p. 758 for Bernward's other episcopal relatives and connections); Thietmar, vi. 35, p. 316 (for the promotion of Meingaud of Trier). Willigis was himself a protégé of Folcold, capellan and tutor to Otto 11 and bishop of Meissen 969–92 (Thietmar, iv. 6, pp. 136–8). Bruno: Wendehorst, Bistum Wiirzburg, 95. Anno: Luck, ‘Anno’, 31–59.

⁴⁷ Cf. Johnson, E. N., The Secular Activities of the German Episcopate, 919–1024 (University Studies of the University of Nebraska, xxx-xxxi, 1932), 98Google Scholar; ‘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; see Leyser, Rule and Conflict, 33–4, on the background to this.

⁴⁹ Thietmar, ii. 24, p. 68; on the background, see Leyser, Rule and Conflict, 24, and Fleckenstein, Hqfkapelle, 42 n. 165, who points to chronological difficulties in the story.

⁵⁰ The frequent installation of Saxons in Lotharingian bishoprics is noted by Auer, ’Kriegsdienst, 1'. 324.

⁵¹ Auer, ‘Kriegsdienst, n ‘. 67; Schieffer, T., ‘Gerald 1. von Cambrai (1012–1051). Ein deutscher Bischof des 11. Jahrhunderts‘, Deulsches Archiv, i (1937), 359Google Scholar.

⁵² A. Heinrichsen, ‘Süddeutsche Adelsgeschlechter in Niedersachsen im II. und 12. Jahrhundert’, Nicdersächsisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte, xxvi (1954), 24–112Google Scholar, at pp. 46–7; see also Lück, ‘Anno’, 31–59.

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 Liège, c. 34, M.G.H. SS, vii. 208). See also the case of Wazo of Liège (c. 66, p. 229). For purchase of gratia by the lay aristocracy see Leyser, Rule and Conflict, 38–42.

⁵⁴ For the case of Rothad of Strassburg and Frederick of Mainz in 939, see R. Köpke and E. Dümmler, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches unter Kaiser Otto dem Grossen, Leipzig 1876, 93–4; for Abraham of Freising in 974 and Henry of Augsburg in 978, see K. Uhlirz, Jahrbiicher des deutschen Reiches unter Otto II., Leipzig 1902, 54, 92. For the blinding and deposition of Herold of Salzburg by Henry of Bavaria, see Köpke and Dümmler, 248.

⁵⁵ Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, iii. 408–9

⁵⁶ Anonymus Haserensis, c. 25, M.G.H. SS, vii. 260–1; for the details see E. Freiherr v. Guttenberg, Regesten der Bischofe von Bamberg (902–1013) (Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft fur frankische Geschichte, vi. Reihe, 1932), no. 131. According to Rupert of Deutz, when Heribert of Cologne refused to assist Henry 11 in the siege of Hammerstein in 1020 Henry came to Cologne, ‘hoc proposito habens, ut eum pontificatu amoveret, aut certe, si hoc rationabiliter fieri non posset, quolibet modo iniuriose illum et indigne tractaret’ (quoted by H. Müller, Heribert, Kanzlcr Ottos HI. and Erzbischoj von Köln, Cologne 1977, 188). T h e wording suggests that deposition could be threatened but hardly carried out; withdrawal of gratia 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 Schieffer, R., Die Entstehung von Domkapiteln in Deutschland (Bonner Historische Forschungen, xliii, 1976Google Scholar).

⁵⁹ Lippelt, H., Thietmar von Merseburg. Reichsbischqf und Chronist (Mitteldeutsche Forschungen, lxxii, 1973), 89–115Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Claude, D., Geschichte des Erzbistums Magdeburg bis in das 12. Jahrhundert (Mitteldeutsche Forschungen, lxvii, 1972), i. 66–85Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Wendehorst, Bistum Würzburg, 79–80; E. von Guttenberg, Das Bistum Bamberg (Germania Sacra, ii, 1, 1937), 29ff. For another objector see above, pp. 356–7.

⁶² K. Uhlirz, Jahrbücher Ottos II., 54, 92; M. Uhlirz, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches 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 11 of Swabia had considerable support outside Swabia, but inside it the bishops of Constance and Chur supported him ‘non tantum ex animo quantum in civitatiscontiguo’ (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, Herzog von Schwaben, 156, 159. On the episcopate as a whole in 1002 see Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, 158; ‘initially mostly undecided'.

⁶⁴ Frederick of Mainz: H. Beumann, ‘Die Mainzer Erzbischöfe Friedrich und Wilhelm und das Papsttum des 10. Jahrhunderts’, in Festschrift für Johannes Bdrmann, Wiesbaden 1966, i. 12–13. Burchard and Hezilo: C. Erdmann, Studicn zur Brieftiteralur Deutschlands im 11. Jahrhundert (Schriften der M.G.H., i. 1938), 123, 130; Heinemann, W., Das Bistum Hildesheim im Kmftespiel der Reichs- und Territorialpolitik (Quellen und Darstellungen zur Geschichte Niedersachsens, lxxii, 1968), 43–6Google Scholar. See also Johnson, Secular Activities, 29–39, 97, 100, on bishops and rebellions.

⁶⁵ Wehlt, Reichsabtei und Kömig, 375, 377; D. Flach, Untersuchungen zur Verfassung und Verwaltung des Aachener Reichsgutes von der Karolingerzeit bis zur Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts (Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts fur Geschichte, xlvi, 176), especially pp. 87–90 on the servitia sent by Stavelot to the palace at Aachen.

⁶⁶ Kaminsky, H. H., Studien zur Reichsabtei Corvey in der Salierzeit (Abhandlungen zur Corveyer Geschichtsschreibung, iv, 1971), 47–58Google Scholar; Sandmann, M., ‘Die Folge der Äbte’, in Schmid, K. (ed.), Die Klostergemeinschaft von Fulda (Münsterer Mittelalterschriften, viii, 1978), i. 194Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ For the case of Lorsch in Otto ra'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. 1063, 1071, pp. 89, 125–6.

⁶⁸ In ‘Reichskirchensystem’, 78–115.

⁶⁹ D H ii 433, quoted by Brühl, Fodrum, 127; the reference is to Luke xii. 48.

⁷⁰ Guttenberg, Bistum Bamberg, 33–6, 5 2 – 3 ; Mayer, Fürsten und Staat, 248–75.

⁷¹ St Maximin's, Trier, claimed to have lost over 6,000 mansi through forced enfeoffments under Henry 11. See E. Wisplinghoff, Untersuchungen zurfriihen Geschichte der Abtei S. Maximin bei Trier von den Anfangen bis etwa 1150 (Quellen und Abhandlungen zur mittelrheinischen Kirchengeschichte, xii, 1970), 36, 82ff; the figure is absurd, but the story is not, especially as Henry n is also known to have carried out ‘secularisations’ at Corvey and Hersfeld. For grants of whole monasteries in beneficio, see Maurer, Herzfig von Schwaben, 178, and H. Schwarzmaier, Königtum, Adel und Klöster im Gebiet zwischen oberer liter und Lech (Studien zur Geschichte des bayerischen Schwabens, vii, 1961), 136ff.

⁷⁸ H. Bresslau, Handbuch der Urkundenlehre, and 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 meant fining rather than punishment, is often overlooked. See e.g. D O in 66 for Gandersheim with the comments of Scheyhing, R., Eide, Amtsgewalt und Bannleihe (Forschungen zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, ii, 1960), 316Google Scholar. On lay nobles’ defacto exemption from servitia, see Brühl, Fodrum, 178–9.

⁷⁴ Köhler, Bild des geistlichen Fürsten, 22.

⁷⁵ The classic discussion of this is still W. Schlesinger, Die Entstehung der Landesherrschqft, vorwitgend nach mitteldeutschcn Quellen, i (all published), Dresden 1941.

⁷⁶ The theory was first developed by O. v. Dungern and widely adopted (see Schlesinger, Landesherrschqft, 144ff); but see the criticisms by M. Mitterauer, ‘Formen adeliger Herrschaftsbildung im hochmittelalterlichen Osterreich. Zur Frag der “autogenen Hoheitsrechte”’, M.I.O.G., lxxx (1972), 265–318, especially pp. 266–9.

⁷⁷ See Santifaller, ‘Reichskirchensystem’, 105–15, for a list of such grants; Mayer, Fiirsten und Stoat, 257–70. Unless otherwise noted, the following discussion excludes grants of comital or quasi-comital rights over episcopal cities alone.

⁷⁸ Bannasch, Bistum Paderborn, 31.

⁷⁹ Ibid., 308–13; Benedict viii's intervention is recorded in D H ii 440.

⁸⁰ Burchard I'S struggle to gain control over the episcopal city is graphically described in the Vita Burchardi episcopi Wormatiensis, cc. 7, 9, M.G.H. SS, iv. 835–7. See Seiler, A., Das Hochstift Worms im Mittelalter, Giessen 1936, 31–8Google Scholar; Lechner, J., ‘Die älteren Königsurkunden für Worms und die Begründung der bischöflichen Fürstenmacht’, M.I.O.G., xxii (1901), 361–419Google Scholar, 529–74.

⁸¹ Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae Pontificum, iii. 46, 3rd edn by B. Schmeidler (M.G.H. SRG, 1917), 188–90; he offered large sums to Henry m and Henry rv 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 of the dukes of Swabia (Maurer, Herzog von Schwaben, 156–7, 191, 207). The grants for Chur are DD O 1 139 (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 Graubiinden).

⁸³ Poupardin, R., Le Royaume de Bourgogne (888–1038), Paris 1907, 254Google Scholar n. 3, 321–2.

⁸⁴ Brixen: D K ii 103; Freising: D O ii 80, which is interpolated but in this respect credible (cf. Santifaller, ‘Reichskirchensystem’, 106).

⁸⁶ Strassburg received a grant from Henry iv in 1077. For Chur see above, p. 361 n. 82.

⁸⁹ Bannasch, Bistum Paderborn, 311.

⁸⁷ Mainz: M. Stimming, Die Entstehung des weltlichen Territoriums des Erzbistums Mainz (Quellen und Forschungen zur Hessischen Geschichte, iii, 1915), 22–3; Worms; D H n 226, 227 (and see also above, p. 361 n. 80); Wiirzburg; D O ii 366 (but see Wendehorst, Bistum WiirzbuTg, 82, for doubts about how far this grant was carried out ), DH 11 268.

⁸⁸ Santifaller, ‘Reichskirchensystem’, 107 no. 7.

⁸⁹ D H 11 440.

⁹⁰ Heinemann, Bistum Hildesheim, 41–2.

⁹¹ Ibid., 68.

⁹² The thesis of a network of counties covering the Reich has been undermined by work on Saxony. See Freytag, Billungcr, 23–7; Schölkopf, Sächsische Grafen, 16–17; K.-H. Lange, Der Herrschaftsbereich der Grafen von Norlheim, 950 bis 1144 (Studien und Vorarbeiten zum historischen Atlas Niedersachsens, xxiv, 1969), 5–6. Recently the traditional view has been powerfully restated by H. K. Schulze, Die Grafschqftsvcrfassung der Karolingcrzcit in den Gebieten ostlich des Rheines (Schriften zur Verfassungsgeschichte, xix, 1973). The issue remains undecided, but it is clear in any case that some areas remained outside the comital system, notably forests: see H. Kaspers, Comitatus nemoris, Düren 1957, 39ff, 229–30, and, on the importance of forest and forest ban for territorial development, Mayer, Fürsten und Stoat, 266–70.

⁸³ Bannasch, Bistum Paderborn, 313–14; Seiler, Hochstift Worms, 38.

⁹⁴ On the following developments see E. E. Stengel, Die Immunität in Deutschland bis zum Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts, Innsbruck 1910, i (all published), 588–98; Otto, Kirchenvogtei, 80–129, 141–2; Mayer, Fürsten und Staat, 1–49; Scheyhing, Bannleihe, 202–3, 313–17.

⁹⁶ Freytag, Billunger, 25, and see ibid., 17ff for good observations on the episcopal counties and immunities.

⁸⁶ See the review of Otto, Kirchmvogtei by Ganahl, K. H. in M.I.Ö.G., 1 (1935), 212–13Google Scholar; Klebel, E., ‘Eigenklosterrechte und Vogteien in Bayern und Deutschosterreich’, M.I.O.G., Erganzungsband, xiv (1939), 179–80Google Scholar. Klebel's conclusions – that advocacies were neither hereditary nor normally held by counts in Bavaria before about 1050 – have been undermined by W. Stormer, Friiher Add (Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelal'ters, vi, 1973) ii. 424–56, who produces numerous counter-examples.

⁹⁷ M.G.H., Constitutions 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, ‘Kriegsdienst, 1’, 372–9; K. F. Werner, ‘Heeresorganization und Kriegsfuhrung im deutschen Königreich des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts’, in Ordinamenii militari in occidentc nel’ Falto medioevo (Settimane … Spoleto, xv, 1968), ii. 823–6.

⁹⁸ Auer, ‘Kriegsdienst, 1’, 336, 344, 402–6.

⁹⁹ Brühl, Fodrum, 160–1.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid., 197–213; Wehlt, Reichsabtei und Konig, 74–7. U. Schmitt, Villa regalis Ulm und Kloster Reichenau. Untersuchungen zur Pfalzfunktion des Reichsklostergutcs in Alemannien (9.–12. Jahrhundert) (Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte, xlii, 1974), 32–56, gives a good account of how servilia functioned in the case of an institution rarely visited by the king. For opposition, see Briihl, Fodrum, 126–7 (interpreting Thietmar, vii. 30 as an indirect criticism of Henry n; for an alternative view see below, p. 372 n. 140, where the passage is quoted), 157, 207; Heinemann, Bistum Hildesheim, 39–40.

¹⁰¹ Fleckenstein, Hqfkapelle, 151–5; J. Fleckenstein, ‘Rex canonicus. Uber Entstehung und Bedeutung des mittelalterlichen Königskanonikates’, in P. Classen and P. Schubert (eds), Festschrift Percy Ernst Schramm, Wiesbaden 1964, i. 57–71, with references to earlier literature. Otto 111 was certainly a canon at Aachen; whether he was a canon at Hildesheim depends on a passage in D O in 390 for Hildesheim: ‘pari sententia episcopo et fratribus nostris in Deo carissimis …’ Fleckenstein interprets this to mean that Otto 111 must have been a canon there; Heinemann, Bistum Hildesheim, 28 n. 122, challenges this, I think rightly. 102 Schieffer, Domkapitel, 255–63, 280ff.

¹⁰² Schieffer, Domkapitel, 255-63, 28 off.

¹⁰³ Fleckenstein, Hqfkapelle, 120–34; Leyser, in his review, pp. 115–16, raises doubts as to how common this practice was.

¹⁰⁴ Auer, ‘Kriegsdienst, 1’, 67.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid., 342, 370, 399–400.

¹⁰⁶ Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle, 134–45, 218–19, 227–8, 278–80, gives lists of the places most frequently visited by different rulers; see also Brühl, Fodrum, 117–39 and maps in and iv. For Merseburg, see Leyser, Rule and Conflict, 18–19.

¹⁰⁷ Brühl, Fodrum, 209.

¹⁰⁸ Fleckenstein, Hojkapelle, 277–8. 282–7.

¹⁰⁹ Vita Brunonis, c. 37, pp. 38–9.

¹¹⁰ Pace Johnson, Secular Activities, 99.

¹¹¹ Erdmann, C., ‘Die Anfange der staatlichen Propaganda im Investiturstreit’, Historische Zeitschrift, cliv (1936), 506Google Scholar.

¹¹² R. Kaiser, ‘Münzprivilegien und bischöfliche Miinzprägung in Frankreich, Deutschland und Burgund im 9.-12. Jarhundert’, Vieteljahresschrift für Sozial – und Wirtschaftsgcschichte, lxiii (1976), 289–338; F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd edn, Oxford 1970, 535–6; F. Barlow, The English Church, 1000–1066, 2nd edn, London 1979, 160, 218.

¹¹³ Werner, K. F., ‘Kingdom and principality in twelfth-century. France’, in Reuter, T. (ed.), The Medieval Nobility. Studies in the ruling classes of France and Germany from the sixth to the twelfth centuries (Europe in the Middle Ages: Selected Studies, xiv, Amsterdam 1979), 244–5Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ J.-F. Lemarignier in F. Lot and R. Fawtier (eds), Histoire des institutions franfaiscs au moyen âge. III. Institutions ecclésiastiques, Paris 1962, 36.

¹¹⁵ In France the bishops of Rheims, Langres, Beauvais and Chalons-sur-Marne, among others, had such rights: see Lemarignier, 12; Poupardin, Bourgogne, 445–51. Burgundy: Poupardin, Bourgogne, 430–57; H.-E. Mayer, ‘Die Alpen und das Konigreich Burgund’, in T. Mayer (ed.), Die Alpen in der europdischen Geschichte (Vortrage und Forschungen … x, 1965), 74, with a not very plausible interpretation of some of these grants as a ‘pass policy’ of the kings of Burgundy.

¹¹⁶ E. Dupré-Theseider, ‘Vescovi e citta nell'Italia precommunale’, in Vescovi e diocesi in Italia nel medioevo (sec. IX-XII). Atti del II Convegno di Storia delta Chiesa in Italia, Roma 5–9 settembre 1961, Padua 1964, 73–82, 91–101; Keller, H., ‘Die Entstehung der italienischen Stadtkommunen als sozialgeschichtliches Problem’, Friihmittelalterliche Studien, x (1976), 169–78Google Scholar, especially p. 176.

¹¹⁷ Barlow, English Church, 165–71.

¹¹⁸ Santifaller, ‘Reichskirchensystem’, 105–10.

¹¹⁹ Barlow, English Church, 99–110, 119–37.

¹²⁰ Newman, W. M., Le Domainc royal sous Us premiers capitiens 1987–1180), Paris 1937, 67–8Google Scholar, 210–24; P- Imbart de la Tour, Les Élections ipiscopales dans Piglise de France du IXe au Xlle Hides. Ztude sur la decadence du principe ilectif, Paris 1891, 438, 443, 447; Lemarignier, 43–4. 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 Pivano, S., Stato e chiesa da Berengario I ad Arduino {888–1015), Turin 1908, 35–111Google Scholar; Dupré-Theseider, ‘Vescovi e città’, 67–70.

¹²² The importance of ecclesiastical troops in England emerges quite clearly from the references in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 992(c), 1001(A), 1016(C); I owe this last reference to Karl Leyser. For France and Italy see E. Lesne, Histoire de la propriété ecclésiastique en France, 2: la propriété ecclésiastique el les droits régaliens à l'époque carolingienne, fasc. ii, Lille 1926, 456ff, 472ff; fasc. iii, Lille 1928, 62; G. Tabacco, ‘I I regno italico nei secoli ix–xi’, in Ordinamenti militari …, ii. 779–80, 784, 786.

¹²³ Bruhl, Fodrum, 231–40 (France), 430–1 (Italy). For Burgundy see Thietmar, vii. 30, quoted below, p. 372 n. 140.

¹²⁴ Bruhl, ‘Sozialstruktur’, 44–5.

¹²⁵ D H iii 18, quoted by J. Fleckenstein, ‘Zum Begriff der ottonisch-salischen Reichskirche’, in E. Hassinger and others (eds), Geschichte, Wirlschafl, Gesellschaft, Festschrift fur Clemens Bauer zum 75. Geburtstag, Berlin 1974,69; the whole article is an important discussion of the nature of the Reichskirche.

¹²⁶ Boye, M., ‘Die Synoden Deutschlands und Reichsitaliens von 922–1059. Eine kirchenverfassungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rcchtsgeschichte, kanonistische Abteilung, xviii (1929), 131–284Google Scholar, especially pp. 241–55.

¹²⁷ M.G.H. Capitularia regum francorum, ed. A. Boretius and V. Krause, Hanover 1897, ii. 427ff, no. 297. See on this, Dümmler, E., Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches, 2nd edn, Leipzig 1887, i. 435–40Google Scholar;. Devisse, J., Hincmar, archevêque de Reims, 845–882, Geneva 1975, i. 306–27Google Scholar. 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 ostfrankischen Reich zu Beginn des 10. Jahrhunderts’, in H. Kämpf (ed.) Die Entstehung des deutschen Reiches (Wege der Forschung, i, 3rd edn, 1971), 289–312.

¹²⁸ Henry the Quarrelsome was excommunicated by the episcopate in 976, but this was a response not only to his rebellion but also to his attacks on the bishopric of Regensburg. See K. Uhlirz, Jahrbiicher Ottos II., 79 and n. 15.

¹²⁹ See above, p. 349 and n. 7.

¹³⁰ Santifaller, ‘Reichskirchensystem’, 172.

¹³¹ The popes Leo viii, John xiii, Benedict vii, John xiv and Benedict vin. See J. F. Bohmer, Regesta Imperil, n. Sdchsisches Haus, 919–1024, 5. Papstregesten 911–1024, ed. H. Zimmermann, Vienna 1969 (hereafter cited as B.Z. and no.), nos. 329, 386, 527, 621, 1075.

¹³² B.Z. nos. 249, 1065.

¹³³ Papal warnings and excommunications of the king's enemies: B.Z. nos. 26 (926 to Herbert 11 of Vermandois), 161, 162 (942, ordering the recognition of Louis iv), 209 (947 to Hugh the Great). For election disputes at Rheims see B.Z. nos. 208, 213, 218; 691–3, 696, 706, 708, 710, 718, 727, 756, 795–6.

¹³⁴ In 867 Nicholas 1 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, 1891), 66 (the letter has not survived). In 885 Charles in wanted Pope Marinus to legitimise his son Bernard and to depose certain bishops, Annales Fuldenses, p. 103 (on the background to this see E. Hlawitschka, Lothringen und das Reich an der Schwelle der deutschen Geschichte, Schriften der M.G.H., xxi, 1968, 27–8). In 900 Hatto of Mainz wrote to the pope about the recent election of Louis the Child, but, as in 885, probably because an imperial coronation was anticipated: see H. Beumann, ‘Die Einheit des ostfrankischen Reiches und der Kaisergedanke bei der Konigserhebung Ludwigs des Kindes’, Archivfiir 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 und Papst in der Friihzeit der franzosischen und deutschen Geschichte’, in H. Beumann and W. Schroder (eds), Aspekte der Nationtnbildung im Mittelalter (Nationes … ii, 1978), 367–406.

¹³⁵ See above, p. 357 n. 60. Papal approval for the creation of new dioceses was of course necessary, but it was not sufficient.

¹³⁶ B.Z. nos. 302, 420.

¹³⁷ On it see Lotter, F., Die Vita Brunonis des Ruotger. Ihre historiographische und ideengeschichtliche Stellung (Bonner Historische Forschungen, ix, 1958Google Scholar); Hoffmann, H., ‘Politik und Kultur im ottonischen Reichskirchensystem. Zur Interpretation der Vita Brunonis des Ruotger’, Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter, xxii (1957), 31–55Google Scholar; Prinz, F., Klerus und Krieg im frühen Mittclaltcr (Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, ii, 1971), 175–200Google Scholar; and O. Kohler, Das Bild des geistlichen Fürsten in den Viten des 10., 11. und is. Jahrhunderts (Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte, Ixxvii, 1935), especially pp. 2iff. AH 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 Metlensis, c. 7, M. G. H. SS, iv. 467: ‘Iure felicia dixerim Ottonis tempora, cum clans praesulibus et sapientibus viris res publica sit reformata, pax aecclesiarum restaurata, honestas religionis redintegrata.’

¹³⁹ Thietmar, i. 26, p. 33.

¹⁴⁰ 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 procurators, si contra Deum et iusticiam eius voluntati eorum in cunctis satisfacimus, honorem et aliquam utilitatem habemus; sin autem, contempnimur, et sicut 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.’

¹⁴¹ He objected to joining a treuga Dei, saying that peace-keeping was the ruler's responsibility: see Schieffer,'Gerald I.’, 344–5, 347–8; H. Hoffmann, Gottesfriede und Treuga Dei (Schriften der M.G.H., xx, 1964), 57–64.

¹⁴² 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, 127–9.

¹⁴³ 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 und Widerstandsrecht, 2nd edn, by R. Buchner, Darmstadt 1954); E. H. Kantorowicz, The King's Two Bodies. A study in medieval political theology, Princeton 1957..For recent sceptical comments see Morrison, K. F., Tradition and Authority in the Western Church, 300–1140, Princeton 1969, 373–89Google Scholar; Nelson, J. T., ‘Royal saints and early medieval kingship’, Studies in Church History, x, Cambridge 1973, 43Google Scholar. In so far as these elements did exist, they were not confined to the Reich: see Rosenthal, J. T., ‘Edward the Confessor and Robert the Pious: eleventh-century kingship and biography’, Mediaeval Studies, xxxiii (1971), 7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with a somewhat exaggerated thesis of a new ‘hagiological’ type of ruler; Dehsmann, R., ‘Christus rex and magi reges: kingship and theology in Ottonian and Anglo-Saxon art’, Fruhmittelalterliche Studien, x (1976), 367–405Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁴ Leyser, Rule and Conflict, 92–107.

¹⁴⁵ Two articles by J. Fleckenstein, ‘Heinrich iv und der deutsche Episkopat in den Anfangen des Investiturstreites’, in Add und Kirche. Festschrift Jur Gerd Tellenbach, Freiburg im Breisgau 1968, 221–36, and ‘Hofkapelle und Reichsepiskopat unter Heinrich iv.’, in J. Fleckenstein (ed.), Investiturstreit undReichsverfassung (Vorträge und Forschungen herausgegeben vom Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für mittelalterliche Geschichte, xvii, 1972), 117–40, show how Henry gradually lost control over episcopal appointments in the early years of his majority. Recently R. Schieffer, Die Entstehung des päpstlichen Investiturvtrbots für den deutschen König (Schriften der M.G.H., xxviii, 1981), especially 7–47, 95–107, has shown that investiture, and hence royal involvement as such in elections, did not become an issue until the late 1070s; the attacks by Humbert in Adversus Simoniacos, found no contemporary resonance.

¹⁴⁶ D. Schäfer, ‘Zur Beurteilung des Wormser Konkordats’, Abhandlungen dcr koniglichpreussischcn Akademie der Wissenschaft, phil.-hist. Klasse, Berlin 1905, i. 8–37; G. Wolfram, Friedrich I. und das Wormser Concordat, Marburg 1883; R.Jordan, Die Stellung des deutschen Episkopats im Kampfum die Universalmachl unter Friedrich I. bis cum Frieden von Venedig (uyj), Wiirzburg 1939, 120–8; R. L. Benson, The Bishop-Elect. A study in medieval ecclesiastical office, Princeton 1968, 251ff.

¹⁴⁷ Uhlirz, M., ‘Die italienische Kirchenpolitik der Ottonen’, M.I.O.G., xlviii (1934), 229Google Scholar, 240, 288–9.

¹⁴⁸ See above, pp. 351–2, 365–6.

¹⁴⁹ Schlesinger, W., ‘Verfassungsgeschichte und Landesgeschichte’, in Beilräge Zur deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte des Mittelalters. ii. Städle und Terrilorien, Göttingen 1963, 9–41Google Scholar, 254–61; Mayer, T., ‘Der Wandel unseres Bild vom Mittelalter. Stand und Aufgaben der mittelalterlichen Geschichtsforschung’, Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte, xciv (1958), 1–37Google Scholar.