Journal of Medieval History, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 1–18, 1999

1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.



P I I : S 0 3 0 4 - 4 1 8 1 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 1 6 - 5

Printed in The Netherlands.

0304-4181 / 99 $ – see front matter 1 0.00

1

Ideals and action in the reign of Otto III

*

David A. Warner

Division of Liberal Arts

, Rhode Island School of Design, 2 College Street, Providence, RI 02903, USA

Abstract

This article examines one of the most controversial aspects of Otto III’s reign, his plan to create

a revived Roman Empire with the city of Rome as its centre. More than sixty years ago the largely
literary, visual, and symbolic evidence for this Renovatio imperii Romanorum was assembled and
examined by P.E. Schramm. His pioneering study then became the basis for virtually all subse-
quent work on the subject. Recent literature has brought the literature, character and perhaps the
existence of Otto’s Renovatio strongly into question though without proposing any convincing
alternative or, so it is argued here, surmounting the basic assumptions upon which Schramm’s
interpretation was founded. Specifically, it is argued that Schramm’s assumptions regarding the
preeminence of the monarch and of the German part of Empire continue to influence more recent
literature and that, as in Schramm’s various studies, there is still a tendency to neglect the issues of
stage and audience. The present study reexamines the subject of Renovatio in light of these
objections, and suggests new ways to view both the evidence and the as yet current methodology.



1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords

: Otto III; Renovatio; Germany; Rome; P.E. Schramm; Ottonians

He was ‘the father of monks and mother of bishops, son of humility and mercy, pure

servant of religion and faith, rich in good will, but poor in virtue at his life’s end; he was
generous in worldly things, without respect to person, but conquered the sins of his
youthful flesh through the love of heaven; scorning his homeland, he became the
sweetest glory of golden Rome; a hated corpse because of God’s brief anger at him and

DAVID A. WARNER is Associate Professor of History at the Rhode Island School of Design. His previous

publications have appeared in Viator

, Early Medieval Europe and elsewhere. He is currently preparing an

annotated translation of the chronicle of Thietman of Merseburg for Manchester University Press.

*Tel.: [phone]; E-mail: [e-mail]

1

The present study represents a much revised version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Medieval Academy of America (Kansas City, 12 April, 1996). It is based on research chiefly carried out at
the Deutsches Historisches Institut in Rome, to whose librarian and staff I am deeply grateful.

After the first citation, literature will be cited by the author’s last name, short title, volume, and page. Primary

sources will usually be cited by the author’s name (or title if anonymous) and an appropriate subdivision of
the work, usually book and chapter. Royal diplomata will be cited by the first initial of the ruler’s name (e.g.
O III for Otto III), followed by the document’s number in the standard edition of the M[onumenta]
G[ermanica] H[istorica].

1

2

David A. Warner

2

yet long mourned by mortals’. It was in such seemingly contradictory terms that Brun
of Querfurt summed up the career of the Emperor Otto III (994–1002), a figure both
admired and disparaged by his contemporaries, and one of the must controversial rulers
of the medieval German Reich. Modern scholars have found Otto equally perplexing. He
has been characterized as ‘one of the most admirable figures in the history of the Middle
Ages’, a ruler whose death was ‘a catastrophe for all Christendom’, but also as a ‘naive

3

imperial youth preyed upon by crafty Lombards’. There have even been attempts to

4

psychoanalyze him. But however ambiguous in some respects, there can be little doubt
that the most intriguing aspect of Otto’s career was his ill-fated attempt to create a
revived Roman empire with the city of Rome as its centre, a plan embodied in the phrase
Renovatio imperii Romanorum.

It is with Otto III and his Renovatio that the following study is chiefly concerned.

Inevitably, it is also concerned with the intellectual legacy of Percy Ernst Schramm

5

(1894–1970) and his monograph, Kaiser

, Rom und Renovatio (published in 1929). In

spite of a veritable flood of recent scholarship relating to Otto III, the influence of
Schramm’s monograph remains so profound that one can scarcely consider the subject
of Renovatio without confronting it on one level or another. After all, it was Schramm
who first assembled the now standard pool of evidence, established principles for
analyzing it, and convinced the scholarly community to treat it seriously. To the extent
that it has hitherto focused on the reinterpretation of this evidence, it would be fair to say
that the current debate regarding the significance of Renovatio is still being framed
within parameters established by Schramm more than sixty years ago. Among those
parameters, one should also include several of the fundamental, though unstated
assumptions upon which Schramm based his study. I refer specifically to his point of
view, based securely on the German side of the Alps and fixed on the king and court. In
spite of their importance for Schramm’s interpretation (as well as for more recent ones)
these assumptions have yet to receive the critical attention they deserve. Without making
any claims to completeness, the present study examines Otto’s Renovatio in the light of
its effect on Italy, and from the perspective of the warriors and churchmen most directly

2

Brun of Querfurt, [Vita quinque fratrum eremitarum, ed. J. Karwasinska.] Monumenta Poloniae Historica. n.s.

4.3. (Warsaw, 1969), 27–84, at c. 7., 47–48.

3

G. Ladner, ‘The Holy Roman Empire of the Tenth Century and East Central Europe’, The Polish Review, 5

(1960), 3–14; cited from the reprinted edition in Ladner, Images and Ideas in the Middle Ages

: Selected

Studies in History and Art, 2 vols. Storia e letteratura raccolta di Studi e Testi, 1561 (Rome, 1983), vol. 2,
457–70, at 462; A. Ollivier, Otton III empereur de l

’an mille (Lausanne, 1969), 411; F. Schneider, Rom und

Romgedanke im Mittelalter

. Die geistigen Grundlagen der Renaissance (Munich, 1926), 198.

4

´

´ ´

E-R. Labande, ‘Mirabilia mundi. Essai sur la personnalite d’Otton III’, Cahiers de Civilisation Medievale, 6

(1963), 297–313, and 455–76, at e.g. 299–303.

5

¨

Kaiser

, Rom und Renovatio. Studien zur Geschichte des romischen Erneuerungsgedankens vom Ende des

karolingischen Reiches bis zum Investiturstreit, 2 vols. (Berlin and Leipzig, 1929). Henceforth, Schramm’s
text will cited as KRR with appropriate volume and page number. Originally published in two volumes, the
second volume of KRR comprised shorter studies and editions, most of which were revised for inclusion in

¨

¨

¨

the collection, Kaiser Konige und Papste

. Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 4 vols.

(Stuttgart, 1968–1971). The first volume of KRR, including the real heart of Schramm’s analysis, is more
familiar through a reprint published by the Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft (Darmstadt, 1984).

Ideals and action in the reign of Otto III

3

affected by it. Equally in need of attention are the general issues of stage and audience
which were largely ignored in Kaiser

, Rom und Renovatio, as in most of Schramm’s

6

studies. Indeed, some of the chief witnesses to a conscious Ottonian Rompolitik are only
compelling if one has already assumed that such a Politik existed and, moreover, tacitly
agreed to follow Schramm in attributing to them an exclusively symbolic testimony. By
examining two particularly noteworthy witnesses (Otto’s palace in Rome and an
imperial diploma, D O III 285), the present study will suggest the value of a more
pragmatic approach. Overall, we might argue that, in addition to considering the content
of Otto III’s Rompolitik, any attempt to exceed the parameters established by Schramm
must, with greater precision, define both the context in which the supporting evidence
was transmitted and the audience to whom it was expected to appeal. Before proceeding
to these themes, however, it will be useful to outline briefly Schramm’s basic argument
and place it within an appropriate historiographical context.

The general outlines of Schramm’s career are, if not common knowledge, at least

7

relatively familiar to scholars concerned with medieval Germany. As the subject of a
chapter in a recent publication by Norman Cantor, he has even gained a degree of

8

undeserved notoriety. There is no need to review this material here. Similarly, we need
merely recall that it was Schramm’s singular accomplishment, as one recent treatment
has put it, ‘to grant the testimony of signs, symbols, and images, correctly analyzed, an

9

equal standing to other sources of information’. In Kaiser

, Rom und Renovatio, the first

major work in which he employed this methodology, Schramm essentially argued that
Otto III had constructed the policies of his government around an ideal vision of
‘Golden Rome’ which was specifically secular, political, and universal. What was
Renovatio? Although neither Otto III nor any of his contemporaries explicitly defined it,
Schramm argued that its outlines could be discerned in a variety of seemingly
heterogeneous witnesses, including acts of state, new forms of intitulature, and the
literary works of imperial favourites such as Leo of Vercelli and Gerbert of Reims. The
truly remarkable feature of Schramm’s work, however, was the degree to which it
incorporated arguments based on his reading of images and symbolic objects, an

10

approach owing much to the traditions of the Warburg school.

From this viewpoint, the

famous portrait from the Reichenau Gospels, in which Rome and various nationes
appear to offer Otto their homage, could be interpreted as an official statement of the

6

J.M. Bak, ‘Coronation Studies – Past, Present, and Future’, in: Coronations

: Medieval and Early Modern

Monarchic Ritual, ed. J.M. Bak (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford, 1990), 1–15; at 8.

7

See, most recently, J. Bak, ‘Percy Ernst Schramm (1894–1970)’, in: Medieval Scholarship

: Biographical

Studies of the Formation of a Discipline, vol. 1, eds. H. Damico and J.B. Zavadil (New York and London,
1995), 247–62.

8

N. Cantor, Inventing the Middle Ages

: The Lives, Works, and Ideas of the Great Medievalists of the Twentieth

Century (New York, 1991), 79–117. For a critical response to Cantor’s characterization of Schramm as a
Nazi see, Bak, ‘Percy Ernst Schramm’, in: Medieval Scholarship, 249.

9

J. Bak, ‘Medieval Symbology of the State: Percy E. Schramm’s Contribution’, Viator, 4 (1973), 33–63, at 35.

10

On the methodology espoused by Aby Warburg and his circle see, for example, C. Ginzburg, ‘From Aby

Warburg to E.H. Gombrich: A Problem of Method’, in: Clues

, Myths, and the Historical Method, trs. J. and

A. Tedeschi (Baltimore, 1992), 17–59.

4

David A. Warner

11

new order among the Empire’s component parts.

An ivory bucket (the so-called

Aachen Situla) depicting Pope Sylvester II and Otto III presiding over ranks of warriors
and churchmen became a visual commentary on the new relationship between Empire

12

and papacy.

Whatever their format, and regardless of the context or circumstances in

which they were produced, all such images and objects were to be associated with a
unified programme which found one of its clearest expressions, appropriately enough, in

13

a lead seal bearing the phrase Renovatio imperii Romanorum.

Of course, the notion that medieval politics can best be understood by examining its

symbols and images has long since entered the scholarly mainstream, and Kaiser

, Rom

und Renovatio has itself acquired the venerable aura of a classic work. To appreciate its
innovative character, one should recall that many of Schramm’s predecessors and
contemporaries had dismissed Otto’s Rompolitik as so much antiquarian nonsense or a
charming example of youthful romanticism. Such sentiments were shared, for example,
by both Ferdinand Gregorovius (1821–1891) and his archrival, Alfred von Reumont
(1808–1887), the latter going so far as to suggest that Otto had ‘abandoned the bedrock

14

of reality to pursue daydreams’.

Otto had also attracted the ire of German nationalists,

such as Wilhelm von Giesebrecht (1814–1889), who viewed the politics of nineteenth-

15

century nation states as a not always positive outgrowth of their medieval past.

In the

face of such attitudes, Schramm’s interpretation prevailed so thoroughly that, as a recent
study notes, there was a time when it would have been unnecessary to do anything more

16

than cite Schramm when referring to Otto III’s Rompolitik.

Those days have long since

passed, however. More recent literature has, for example, undermined both Schramm’s

17

insistence on an essentially secular Renovatio and his almost exclusive focus on ideas.
Equally apparent is a tendency to de-emphasize the more extraordinary aspects of Otto
III’s historical persona (and of Renovatio) in what we might refer to as a process of
‘normalization’. Even Otto’s purported desire to trade his crown for a monastic habit
now seems to place him closer to the norm for tenth-century kings rather than distancing

11

CLM 4453 f.23v–24r. KRR, 118–19.

12

KRR, 133.

13

KRR, 118.

14

F. Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter vom V

. bis zum XVI. Jahrhundert, 2 vols., ed. F.

Schillman (Dresden, 1926), vol. 1, 824.; A. von Reumont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, 3 vols. in 4. (Berlin,
1867–1870), vol. 2. p. 313. The debate between Gregorovius – Protestant, liberal, Prussian – and von
Reumont – aristocratic, Catholic, Rhenish – is discussed in detail by A. Forni, La questione di Roma
medievale

. una polemica tra Gregorovius e Reumont, Studi Storici, 150–151 (Rome, 1985), passim. A

useful overview of modern interpretations is provided by Althoff, Otto III (Darmstadt, 1996), 1–18.

15

W. von Giesebrecht, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, 5th. ed., 5 vols. (Leipzig, 1881), vol. 1. p. 719.

Giesebrecht’s career and political sympathies are discussed by H. Heimpel in the Neue Deutsche
Biographie, vol. 6, 379–82.

16

Althoff, Otto III, 114.

17

To my knowledge, only M. Seidlmayer has tried to duplicate Schramm’s approach. See, ‘Rom und

Romegedanke im Mittelalter’, Saeculum, 7 (1956), 395–412. Also in Rom als Idee, ed. B. Kytzler. Wege der
Forschung, vol. 656 (Darmstadt, 1993), 158–87. The spiritual or ecclesiastical (i.e. reform) aspects of Otto
III’s Renovatio have been emphasized by, among others, R. Morghen, ‘Ottone III ‘‘Romanorum imperator
servus Apostolorum’’ ’, in: I problemi comuni dell

’Europa post-Carolingia, Settimane, vol. 2 (Spoleto,

1955), 13–35, at p. 32. For an attempt to highlight the concrete (e.g. economic) effects of Renovatio, see, G.

¨

Beyreuter, ‘Otto III. 983–1002’, in: Deutsche Konige und Kaiser des Mittelalters, eds. E. Engel and E.
Holtz (Cologne and Vienna, 1989), 73–83, esp. 83.

Ideals and action in the reign of Otto III

5

18

him from it.

In what is arguably the most noteworthy case of ‘normalization’, two of

the hitherto most compelling witnesses to Otto’s originality have become so ques-
tionable as to be virtually at a dead end. I refer, specifically, to the imperial diploma
designated D.O. III 389 in the edition of the MGH, and to the supposed coronation of
Duke Boleslav Chrobry at Gniezno in 1000.

Issued for Pope Sylvester II (i.e. Gerbert of Reims), D.389 concerns the eight

countships of the Pentapolis, possession of which had long been a matter of dispute
between the papacy and the archbishops of Ravenna, and more recently between Otto III

19

and a surprisingly assertive Pope Gregory V (996–999).

By returning the counties as a

personal gift to his old teacher, Gerbert / Sylvester, as he proposed to do in the diploma,
the emperor managed to skirt the issue of whether or not the papacy actually had a right

20

to them.

The most remarkable feature of the diploma, as Schramm read it, was the fact

that it appeared to have Otto III rejecting papal claims because he believed the

21

Constitutum Constantini to be a forgery.

The problem with this claim is that the

passage upon which it depends is so ambiguous that it can, and has been interpreted to

22

mean something quite different from and contradictory to what Schramm proposed.
Nevertheless, because all interpretations must ultimately rest on the same tortured Latin,

23

new interpretations of this text are unlikely to be any more plausible than Schramm’s.
Hence, while the question of whether or not Otto III saw through one of the most
notorious forgeries in history will undoubtedly continue to be debated, one should no

18

`

See, J-M. Sansterre, ‘Otton III et les saints ascetes de son temps’, Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia, 43

(1989), 377–412. More mundane interpretations have also been suggested for his patronage of the
monastery of S. Alessio, his ‘establishment’ of the Polish Church, and his interest in acquiring a Byzantine

`

bride. See J-M. Sansterre, ‘Le monastere des Saints-Boniface-et-Alexis sur l’Aventine et l’expansion du
Christianismo dans le cadre de la ‘‘renovatio imperii Romanorum’’ d’Otton III’, Revue Benedictine, 100
(1990), 493–506, esp. 495–99; T. Reuter, ‘Otto III and the Historians’, History Today, 41 (1991), 21–27, at
27; and Reuter, Germany in the Early Middle Ages c

. 800 –1056 (London and New York, 1991), 259; G.

¨

¨

Wolf, ‘Die Byzantinisch-abendlandischen Heirats- und Verlobungsplane zwischen 750 und 1250’, Archiv

¨

f ur Diplomatik, 37 (1991), 15–32, at 20–23.

19

Indeed, he was both an imperial appointee and Otto’s own cousin! On the background to the dispute see, G.

Fasoli, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi di Ravenna fra l’viii e l’xi secolo’, in: I poteri temporali dei
vescovi in Italia e in Germania nel Medioevo, ed. C.G. Mor and H. Schmidinger. Annali dell’Istituto Storico
Italo-Germanico, Quaderno, 3 (Bologna, 1979), 87–140, at 100–11. The eight countships are described as
being sub lite in a letter from Otto to Gregory. MGH, Diplomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae

, 2.2:

Ottonis III

. Diplomata, ed. T. Sickel (Hannover, 1893), nr. 228. The friction between pope and emperor is

¨

discussed (and probably exaggerated) by T. Moehs, Gregorius V

996 –999: A Biographical Study, Papste

und Papsttum, vol. 2 (Stuttgart, 1972), 31–40. Cf. Althoff, Otto III, 85.

20

KRR, 169.

21

Hec sunt enim commenta ab illis ipsis inventa quibus Iohannes diaconus cognomento Digitorum mutilus

preceptum aureis litteris scripsit et sub titulo magni Constantini longi mendacii tempora finxit. According to
Schramm’s reading (KRR, 163), Otto had declared that document to be a papal Machwerk which had been
falsely attributed to Constantine and also complained that Deacon John ‘of the mutilated fingers’ had made a
copy of it in gold letters.

22

E.g. studies by Fuhrmann and Zeilinger have argued that Otto did not reject the Constitutum per se, but

rather the alterations to a copy of the document which made it appear to be Constantine’s original. H.

¨

¨

Fuhrmann, ‘Konstantinische Schenkung und abendlandisches Kaisertum. Ein Beitrag zur Uberlieferungsges-
chichte des Constitutum Constantini’, Deutsches Archiv, 22 (1966), 63–178; K. Zeilinger, ‘Otto III. und die

¨

konstantinische Schenkung. Ein Beitrag zur Interpretation des Diploms Kaiser Ottos III. fur Papst Sylvester

¨

II. (DO III. 389)’, in: Falschungen im Mittelalter, 6 vols., Schriften der MGH, vol. 33 (Hannover, 1988),
vol. 2, 509–36.

23

See, H. Hoffmann, ‘Ottonische Fragen’, Deutsches Archiv, 51 (1995), 53–82, at 72–76.

6

David A. Warner

longer feel comfortable in employing D.389. as evidence of that emperor’s interest in a
specifically secular renewal of Rome. Ambiguity also surrounds the question of whether
or not Otto III crowned Boleslav Chrobry king during their meeting at Gniezno in

24

1000.

The answer depends almost entirely upon a chronicle compiled more than one

hundred years after the event (1100–1115), by an anonymous French monk residing at

25

the court of Duke Boleslav III (1102–1138).

While the chronicler’s reference to the

bestowal of a royal diadem upon the earlier Boleslav does not overly strain belief – the
political atmosphere may well have been conducive to such an act – the tone of the
passage (e.g. references to the duke’s fabulous wealth) suggests that he was primarily
engaged in dynastic myth-making, a motivation evident elsewhere in the text and

26

seemingly in accord with the wishes of his patron.

To say that assessments of the

chronicler’s reliability as a witness have differed markedly would be very much an

27

understatement.

Still, the fact that his account is supported by no source contemporary

with the events ensures that, once again, we are left with little more than uncertainties: a
new if undefined status for the Polish duke and no more than a hint of a new conception

28

of empire which was never made explicit.

¨

Amid this rising tide of doubt and scepticism, a recent monograph by Knut Gorich

24

This issue did not engage Schramm’s attention in KRR, but it represents a natural extension of his work and

¨

¨

he did turn to it in a later publication, Kaiser

, Konige und Papste (above n. 5), vol. 4.2, p. 571.

25

G. Labuda, ‘Gallus Anonymous’, in: Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. 4, col. 1099.

26

A crown definitely had been conceded to Stephan of Hungary and there are hints that Otto intended some

¨

new status for the Venetian Doge; M. Uhlirz, Jahrbucher des Deutschen Reiches unter Otto II

. und Otto III,

vol. 2 (Berlin, 1954), 572–82; W. Giese, ‘Venedig-Politik und Imperiums-Idee bei den Ottonen’, in:

¨

¨

Herrschaft

, Kirche, Kultur. Beitrage zur Geschichte des Mittelalters. Festschrift f ur Friedrich Prinz au

¨

seinem

65. Geburtstag, eds. G. Jenal and S. Haarlander. Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, vol.

37 (Stuttgart, 1993), 219–43, at 233–42. The chronicler’s literary intentions are discussed in E. Skibinski,
‘Identity and Difference. Polish Identity in the Historiography of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’, in:
The Birth of Identities

: Denmark and Europe in the Middle Ages, ed. B.P. McGuire (Copenhagen, 1996),

93–98. By the twelfth century, Piast sentiment had transformed the events at Gniezno into a kind of political
‘coming of age’ and a link to the traditions of Carolingian rulership. See R. Micholowski, ‘Aix-la-chapelle

`

et Cracovie au xie siecle’, Bullettino dell

’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo e Archivio Muratoriano,

95 (1989), 45–69, esp 62.

27

In a highly controversial study, Johannes Fried has argued strenuously in favour of the account, proposing

that what the Duke received was a kind of secular crowning which in no way prevented him from receiving
a second crown following the death of Emperor Henry II (1025). J. Fried, Otto III und Boleslaw Chrobry

.

¨

Das Widmungsbild des Aachener Evenageliars der

‘Akt von Gensen’ und das fruh polnische und ungarische

¨

Konigtum

. Eine Bildanalyse und ihre historischen Folgen (Stuttgart, 1989), 69–76. Althoff maintains that

what took place at Gniezno was a more conventional pact of friendship or amicitia and not a coronation.
Althoff, Otto III, 143–47. Althoff’s interpretation should be read in conjuction with his review of Fried’s

¨

contribution to the series Propylaen Geschichte Deutschlands and with Fried’s response. G. Althoff, ‘Von

¨

Fakten zu Motiven. Johannes Frieds Beschreibung der Ursprunge Deutschlands’, Historische Zeitschrift, 260

¨

(1995), 108–17; J. Fried, ‘Uber das Schreiben von Geschichtswerken und Rezension. Eine Erwiderung’,
Historische Zeitschrift, 260 (1995), 119–31.

28

E.g. Reuter, Germany, 280 Thietmar of Merseburg comes closest to suggesting that Boleslav was crowned

when he complains that Otto had transformed the Polish Duke from a ‘payer-of-tribute’ into a lord, and it is
also suggestive that he compares him to Arduin of Ivrea who actually was a king though in name only
according to Thietmar. Thietmar [of Merseburg, Chronicon, ed. R. Holtzmann. MGH. Scriptores rerum
Germanicarum], ns.9 (Berlin, 1935), 5.10, p. 232; 6.93, p. 384. In contrast, his assertion that Boleslav
named one of his sons after Otto would tend to suggest a more dependent, possibly feudal relationship (4.58.
p. 196). This point is highly controversial, however. See, perhaps, M. Mitterauer, ‘Senioris sui nomine’,

¨

¨

¨

‘Zur Verbreitung von Furstennamen durch das Lehenswesen’, Mitteilungen des Instituts f ur Ostereichische
Geschichtsforschung, 96 (1988), 275–330, at 297.

Ideals and action in the reign of Otto III

7

29

¨

deserves particular notice.

After revisiting much of the evidence, Gorich concludes not

only that it is mostly too ambiguous to support the kind of theoretical structure presented
by Schramm, but also that it may be insufficient to support the existence of any kind of

30

¨

Rompolitik at all.

Although not without its critics, Gorich’s unsettling, but credible

31

analysis has had a dramatic impact on subsequent discussions of Otto’s reign.

Indeed,

Otto’s most recent biographer, Gerd Althoff, devotes virtually his entire chapter on

32

¨

Renovatio to an exposition of Gorich’s arguments.

According to Althoff’s own,

distinctly functionalist assessment, Otto had discovered, in Renovatio, a formula which
was general and compelling enough to encompass his appointed tasks in a single
programme; viz to forcefully seize the reins of Empire, battle opponents, and combat

33

dissent.

In light of the concerns raised by these most recent assessments, one can no

longer feel secure in declaring, as was possible not so long ago, that ‘the renewal of

34

Rome stood completely in the forefront of [Otto III’s] political activity and thought.’
As yet, what one can say remains far from clear. There seems to be general agreement
that Renovatio was not a truly coherent programme but rather something less tidy or
easy to comprehend in modern terms. Drawing on the analogy of the so-called
Ottonian–Salian Reichskirchensystem, we might say that, just as royal intervention in the
German Church no longer appears to have been either consistent or widespread (i.e.
systematic), so Otto’s Rome programme no longer appears to have been very
programmatic. Although the ‘new’ Renovatio appears to have little in common with the
one proposed by Percy Ernst Schramm, as we have noted above, certain assumptions
inherent in Schramm’s Renovatio have persisted as an undercurrent in even the most
recent literature. We may now consider these in somewhat greater detail.

Although Schramm’s focus on the issue of continuity (i.e. of Antique culture in the

Middle Ages) avoided any overt association with nationalism, his intellectual standpoint
lay clearly and firmly to the north of the Alps. It also rested on the unstated assumption
that all medieval polities aimed, or should have aimed at the centralization of political

35

power.

Given this starting point, it was almost inevitable that the Emperor’s opponents

would be judged as obstacles to an altogether laudable, if quixotic goal (i.e. the unity of
the Empire). Like others before and after him, Schramm chiefly levelled this accusation

29

¨

Otto III

. Romanus Saxonicus et Italicus. Kaiserliche Rompolitik und sachische Historiographie, Historische

¨

Forschungen, vol. 18 (Sigmaringen, 1993). A good two-thirds of Gorich’s work focuses on the argument
that German resistance to Otto III’s rule had its roots in a growing sense of national identity and, more
specifically, in a perceived loss of status as the prevailing Reichsvolk. The issue of Renovatio is touched on

¨

only indirectly. It is central to the final third of Gorich’s book, however.

30

¨

¨

Gorich, Otto III, 187–274. Gorich does hold out the possibility, however, that Renovatio may have referred

to a more limited programme of ecclesiastical reform, with a specifically Roman aspect (cf. below n. 59).

31

¨

Gorich’s methodology, in particular, has been the subject of criticism. See reviews by S. Airlie, Early

Medieval Europe, 4 (1995), 115–16; and D. Warner Speculum, 70 (1995), 621–23.

32

G. Althoff, Otto III, 114–25.

33

Here, essentially translating Althoff’s comments at Otto III, 125.

34

¨

¨

Quoted from, E. Boshof, Konigtum und Konigsherrschaft im

10. und 11. Jahrhundert Enzyklopedie

deutscher Geschichte, 27 (Munich, 1993), 22.

35

Indeed, Schramm concluded his treatment of Otto III’s reign by questioning, more or less like Giesebrecht,

whether the emperor’s death had ended an era of great possibilities for the Empire or freed it from a grave
misfortune (KRR, 184). In fact, the question itself is anachronistic, in that it assumes the birth of the nation
state as its chief point of reference. See, e.g. J. Gillingham, ‘Elective Kingship and the Unity of Medieval
Germany’, German History, 9 (1991), 124–35.

8

David A. Warner

at the Roman and Italian aristocracy, going so far as to accuse it of being uniquely

36

rebellious and an ‘unworthy ally of the Empire’.

The Roman nobility’s apparently

corrupting influence on the papacy and the Church merely added to its already scurrilous

37

reputation.

Similar attitudes are implicit in more recent literature, if only because it

tends to employ an approach in which both Italy and Renovatio are treated more or less

38

exclusively in terms of their impact on the Empire.

We should say, at the outset, that

such an approach is by no means self-evident. Thus, scholars for whom Italy represents
the primary focus of attention, when they mention the Ottonians at all, have tended to be
more concerned with their contribution to specifically Italian phenomena such as the
growth of communes or the rise of seigneuries, or with those in which they were not so

39

much the active party as the beneficiary (viz. the trade in intellectual goods and relics).
It is also worth noting that the reputation of the popes installed by the Roman nobility no
longer seems unambiguously negative. Insofar as it relies on the far from dispassionate
testimony of outsiders, such as Gerbert of Reims, or on the hyperbole of Liudprand of

40

Cremona, this reputation has always been somewhat questionable.

Recent studies have

suggested, moreover, that men such as Pope John X and John XII were not altogether
lacking in redeeming qualities and that even their most egregious moral lapses may have
been less a matter of outright corruption than a reaction to practical politics and Italy’s

41

post-Carolingian ‘crisis of authority’.

Indeed, the German clergy may not have been

much better. While we have no evidence of serious moral failings on the part of Ottonian

36

KRR, 17–20, 185.

37

KRR, 17–20, 185.

38

¨

E.g. Althoff, Otto III, 82–91. Gorich takes a somewhat more balanced approach to the situation in Rome

(e.g. Otto III, 250–261), but the book, as a whole, is still focused predominantly on Germany and on
German public opinion. More general objections to the ultramontane perspective of modern medieval

¨

scholarship have been raised by G. Wolf, ‘Der Sogenannte ‘Gegenkonig’ Arduin von Ivrea (ca. 955–1015)’,

¨

Archiv f ur Diplomatik 39 (1993), 19–34; and B.H. Rosenwein, ‘The Family Politics of Berengar I, King of
Italy (888–924)’, Speculum, 71 (1988), 247–89, esp. 249–250.

39

´

E.g. E. Dupre Theseider, ‘Ottone I e l’Italia’, in:

‘Renovatio imperii’, Atti della giornata internazionale di

studio per il millenario (Faenza, 1963), 97–45; G. Tabacco, ‘Regno, impero e aristocrazie nell’Italia

`

post-Carolingia’, in: Il secolo di ferro

: mito et realta del secolo x, Settimane 37.1-2. (Spoleto, 1991), vol. 1,

243–69, esp. 264–68; and M. Ferrari, ‘Manoscritti e testi fra Lombardia e Germania nel secolo X’,
Lateinische Kultur im X Jahrhundert 5 Mittelateinisches Jahrbuch, 24 (1991), 105–116, at 105–07,
110–11.

40

After one of his earlier visits to the city, Gerbert asked, with evident disgust: ‘In quo nunc statu Roma est?

Qui pontifices vel domini rerum sunt?’ Die Briefsamlung Gerberts von Reims, ed. F. Weigle. MGH. Die
Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit, vol. 2 (Berlin, Zurich, Dublin, 1966), esp. 40, 68–69. The prejudices and

¨

antipathies of the major German witnesses are examined in great detail by Gorich, Otto III passim. On
Liudprand, see P. Buc, ‘Italian Hussies and German Matrons. Liudprand of Cremona on Dynastic

¨

Legitimacy’, Fruhmittelalterliche Studien, 26 (1991), 207–25, at 214–25.

41

Attempts to partially rehabilitate these two popes have been offered by E.-D. Hehl, ‘Der wohlberatene Papst.

¨

¨

Die romische Synode Johannes XII vom Februar 964’, Ex ipsis rerum documentis Beitrage zur Mediaevistic

.

¨

Festschrift f ur Harald Zimmermann zum

65. Geburtstag, ed. K. Herbers et al. (Sigmaringen, 1991),

`

257–75; and R. Savigni, ‘Sacerdozio e regno in eta post-Carolingia: L’episcopato di Giovanni X,
Arcivescovo di Ravenna (905–914) e papa (914–928)’, Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia, 46 (1992),
1–29. For a more sympathetic view of the so-called ‘papal pornocracy’ see, for example, G. Arnaldi,

`

‘Papato, arcivescovi e vescovi nell eta post-carolingia’, in: Vescovi e diocesi in Italia nel medioevo

(sec.

ix –xiii

), Italia sacra, vol. 5 (Padua, 1964), 27–53, esp. 51; and O. Capitani, Storia dell’Italia medievale

410 –1216 (Rome and Bari, 1986), 155–59.

Ideals and action in the reign of Otto III

9

popes, the seven deadly sins are certainly evident among the German episcopate, the

42

ranks of which were heavily populated with royal / imperial appointees.

A ‘top-down’ approach to Otto’s Rompolitik also involves a number of more specific,

methodological problems. For one, it tends to skew the picture in the ruler’s favour by
assigning an active and positive character to his intervention while implying that his

43

opponents were merely reactive.

As we follow Otto III on his first trip to Rome, for

example, local populations and concerns come suddenly and sharply into focus, and

44

when he leaves the focus moves with him.

One can easily lose the sense that such

populations would have been affected by political forces which, in terms of their
durability, were far more substantial than the relatively brief intrusions of an itinerant
monarch. If allied, even implicitly, with the assumption that Renovatio represented
anything approaching an organized programme, a ‘top-down’ approach would also
appear to contradict an emerging consensus that the Ottonian monarchy was an
essentially reactive institution. Indeed, rather than consistently and deliberately fostering

45

unity, the acta of Ottonian kings were as likely to produce the opposite effect.

In this

respect, their relations with the German aristocracy were no more or less difficult than
their relations with its southern counterpart. Ottonian kings readily engaged in internal
feuds and employed the mechanisms of government and the Church to punish their
enemies. Even in relatively peaceful contexts, moreover, their presence could have an
intrusive and disruptive effect. The king’s entourage might descend upon its hosts like a
conquering army and his acts of munificence, especially in the distribution of
ecclesiastical resources, represented a potential threat to the credibility of local power-

46

brokers and to the generally accepted influence of consanguinity and clientage.

The

aristocracy, including churchmen, responded by forming conspiracies, staging uprisings,
and colluding with the monarchs’ bitterest enemies. Public opinion, at least as
represented by clerical litterati, did not necessarily view such actions as treasonous and
might even sympathize. Resentment spawned during Otto’s reign was just coming to a

42

¨

For an interesting example of episcopal sinning, see G. Wolf, ‘Prinzessin Sophia (978–1039). Abtissen von

¨

¨

Gandersheim und Essen. Enkelin, Tochter und Schwester von Kaisern’, Niedersachsisches Jahrbuch f ur
Landesgeschichte, 61 (1989), 105–23, at 114, who argues that Archbishop Willigis of Mainz, one of Otto
III’s confidants, was openly keeping a mistress.

43

In contrast, see the works cited at n. 39.

44

See, e.g. Althoff, Otto III, 82–91.

45

I do not, however, dispute the argument that, over time, the experience of electing kings may have

¨

encouraged the German aristocracy to think in terms of a unified realm. See R. Schneider, ‘Das Konigtum

¨

¨

als Integrationsfaktor im Reich’, in: Ansatze und Diskontinuitat deutscher Nationsbildung im Mittelalter, ed.
J. Ehlers. Nationes. vol. 8 (Sigmaringen, 1989), 59–82, at 72–77.

46

¨

¨

¨

¨

T. Zotz, ‘Prasenz und Reprasentation. Beobachtungen zur koniglichen Herrschaftspraxis im hohen und spaten

Mittelalter’, in: Herrschaft als Soziale Praxis

. Historische und sozial-anthropologische Studien, ed. A.

¨

¨

¨

¨

Ludtke. Veroffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Insituts fur Geschichte, 91 (Gottingen, 1991), 168–94, at

¨

176–77; K. Schreiner, ‘Consanguinitas Verwandtschaft als Strukturprinzip religioser Gemeinschafts- und

¨

¨

Verfassungsbildung in Kirche und Monchtum des Mittelalters’, Beitrage zur Geschichte und Struktur der

¨

mittelalterlichen Germania Sacra, ed. I. Crusius. Studien zur Germania Sacra, vol. 17 (Gottingen, 1989),
176–305, at 185–90. In regard to bishops favoured by the king, see T. Reuter, ‘Property Transactions and
Social Relations between Rulers, Bishops and Nobles in Early Eleventh-Century Saxony: The Evidence of
the Vita Meinwerci’, in: Property and Power in the Early Middle Ages, eds. W. Davies and P. Fouracre
(Cambridge, 1995), 165–99, at 192.

10

David A. Warner

head as the emperor lay dying at Paterno and, had he survived, he might well have faced

47

a major uprising of the sort that later plagued his successor, Henry II.

The disruptive effect of Ottonian rulership was equally apparent in Italy, where the

dynasty’s representatives resided long enough to generate resentment, but not long
enough to be incorporated into the prevailing balance of power. The depth of that
resentment is suggested by Benedict of St Andrew’s complaint that Rome had

48

effectively been ‘despoiled, plundered, and ravaged’.

More concrete sources of

resentment are apparent, for example, in increasing levels of royally sponsored judicial
activity and in the unequal distribution of royal patronage among Italy’s governing elite

49

of warriors and churchmen.

As in Germany, resentment at the monarch’s actions

tended to inspire conspiracies and acts of rebellion. Among Otto III’s enemies, for
example, one can find both great magnates such as Margrave Arduin of Ivrea and
obscure men such as Count Lantbert, an otherwise unidentifiable lord who was declared

50

a public enemy and dispossessed of his lands.

In Rome itself, the emperor confronted

Crescenzio ‘Nomentano’, the leader of a loosely organized faction of the local
aristocracy, who went so far as to expel Otto’s hand-picked pope (i.e. Gregory V) from

51

the city and replace him with his own appointee, John Philagathos (Pope John XVI).
Each of these men would have had good reason to find the Ottonian presence disturbing.
Arduin, hindered in his efforts to establish control over the March of Turin, had been

52

provoked into murdering Bishop Peter III (977–997), an Ottonian loyalist.

Later, with

Otto’s support, Bishop Leo of Vercelli (999–1026) secured the margrave’s condemna-

53

tion by an imperial tribunal and the confiscation of his property.

Given this rather

substantial benefit, one should not be surprised to find that Leo was also the author of a

54

poem dedicated to the praise of Otto III’s Rompolitik.

Count Lantbert’s situation seems

to parallel that of Arduin, and in more ways than one. That his confiscated lands were
subsequently added to the endowment at Ravenna, another church favoured by the
Ottonians and especially by Otto III, suggests that the expansion of the archbishops’

47

Thietmar 4.49. p. 188. A detailed analysis of this passage and plausible identification of the chief

¨

conspirators is provided by Gorich, Otto III, 146–76.

48

Il Chronicon di Benedetto monaco di S

. Andrea del Soratte e il Libellus de imperatoria potestate in urbe

Roma, ed. G. Zuchetti. Fonti per la storia Italiano, vol. 55 (Rome, 1820), 186.

49

The increase in royal / imperial placita, in particular, is noted by F. Bougard, La justice dans le royaume

´

`

´

`

`

`

d

’Italie de la fin du viiie siecle au debut du xie siecle, Bibliotheque des Ecoles Franc¸ais d’Athenes et de

´

Rome, 291 (Rome, 1995), 299. See also the studies by Arnaldi and Dupre Theseider cited at n. 39.

50

Lantbert’s rebellion and the confiscation of his lands are noted in, DO III 330. Both may also be associated

with disturbances in the city of Ravenna itself. See G. Fasoli, ‘Il dominio territoriale’, 117–18.

51

¨

Uhlirz, Jahrbucher 2, 511–517. The cognomen ‘Nomentanus’, commonly employed to distinguish this

Crescenzio from other persons bearing that name, only appears in later sources. In general see C. Romeo,
‘Crescenzio Nomentano’, in: Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 30, 661–65.

52

See, G. Sergi, ‘Anscarici, Arduinici, Aleramici: elementi per una comparazione fra dinastie marchionali’, in:

Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominante nel regno Italico

(secc. ix–xii), Istituto Storico Italiano per il

Medio Evo, nuovi studi storici, 1 (Rome, 1988), 11–28, esp. 26.

53

Arduin’s condemnation by a tribunal and the confiscation of his property are noted in, DO III 323. On Leo’s

career and on the conflict with Arduin consult R. Pauler, Das Regnum Italiae in ottonischer Zeit

.

¨

¨

¨

Markgrafen

, Grafen und Bischofe als politische Krafte (Tubingen, 1982), 31–45; and G. Arnaldi, ‘Arduino’,

in: Dizionario biografico degli Italiani vol. 4, 53–60.

54

MGH. Poetae vol. 5.2, p. 477. vv. 1–4.

Ideals and action in the reign of Otto III

11

already substantial territory may have been the chief motivation for Lantbert’s

55

rebellion.

And again, it is worth noting that the see of Ravenna had recently been

occupied by Gerbert ‘of Reims’, author of yet another literary tribute to the Ottonian

56

Renovatio. Although Ottonian sources tend to place Crescenzio’s attempt to rid himself
of Otto’s pope in a particularly harsh light, a more objective observer might well
conclude that his actions were very much in keeping with those of his northern

57

counterparts, Arduin and Lantbert.

Indeed, the installation of John XVI was not so

much an act of treachery, as an attempt to reassert the integrity of a local network of

58

patronage, albeit one in which non-Romans had a vested interest.

Crescenzio’s success

was temporary since he was subsequently captured by imperial forces and put to death in
a manner which will concern us somewhat later in this study.

If ecclesiastical reform is to be considered an integral part of Renovatio, as some

scholars have suggested, one would have to conclude that, even in regard to the Church,

59

the emperor’s actions would have been as likely to produce discord as harmony.
Indeed, to the extent that they aimed to prevent clerics from using church property ‘to
acquire wealth, benefit their families and gain allies’, the emperor’s efforts to purify the
Church constituted an implicit threat to the status quo of Italian land-holding and social

60

relations.

It was equally threatening that, in practical terms, those efforts tended to

favour the interests of certain institutions and individuals over those of others. In effect,
reform could function as another form of royal patronage, with all the negative
implications that went with it. By way of an example, we might consider the effect of
Otto III’s intervention on two property disputes involving Abbot Hugh of the monastery
of Farfa, a once prosperous community that had fallen on hard times toward the end of

61

the ninth century.

With Otto III’s support, Hugh was able to defend his monastery’s

Grundherrschaft against a claim raised by the priests of St Eustachio (998) and
successfully prosecuted a claim of his own against the monastery of Sts Cosma and

55

Above n. 50.

56

I refer to the dedication attached by Gerbert to his philosophical tract, Concerning Reason and the Use of

Reason. The text includes the author’s frequently quoted assertion of his and Otto’s possession of a
resurgent empire encompassing Italy, Lorraine, Germany, and the ‘Kingdoms of the Slavs’. De rationali et
ratione uti, Patrologia Latina, ed. J.P. Migne, vol. 139, col. 139. The tracts content and (negligible)
significance for the history of philosophy and logic are discussed by C. Frova, ‘Gerberto philosopus: il De
rationali et ratione uti’, in: Gerberto

. scienza, storia e mito, Archivum Bobiense, Studia, vol. 2 (Bobbio,

1985), 351–77, at 386–74.

57

The Annals of Quedlinburg, for example, characterize John XVI’s installation as an act of ‘diabolical fraud’.

Annales Quedlinburgensis ed. G. Pertz. MGH. scriptores, vol. 3 (Hannover, 1839) an. 997. p. 74.

58

Cf. Alhoff, Otto III, 86.

59

¨

Gorich, Otto III, 269, 277.

60

MGH. Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum, vol. 1, ed. L. Weiland, (Hannover, 1893), nr. 23.

[Capitulare Ticinense]. See also Otto’s complaint that the papacy’s possessions had been alienated to
‘persons of low character’ (D O III 389).

61

Farfa suffered grievously when Arab raids forced its temporary abandonment. Even after its restoration

(930–933), the community remained in a parlous state with much of its property scattered or in danger of
being absorbed by the noble houses of the Sabine. In general, see R. Ring, The Lands of Farfa

: Studies in

Lombard and Carolingian Italy, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison (1972), 177–241; and C.B.
McClendon, The Imperial Abbey of Farfa

: Architectural Currents of the Early Middle Ages, Yale

Publications in the History of Art, 36 (New Haven and London, 1987), 9–11.

12

David A. Warner

62

Damiano in Mica Aurea (999), each establishment being located in the city of Rome.
The surviving documentation, generated by a papal tribunal, essentially presents these
cases as a victory of imperial virtue and reform over parochial wickedness and fraud.
There is more to it than this, however, especially if we refrain from assuming that the

63

losing parties were acting in bad faith.

In fact, there is more than a hint of venality and

manipulation in the tribunal’s actions, even if we allow for the relatively low standards
of judicial rectitude prevalent in the tenth-century. The pope himself (Gregory V) was
willing to accept a bribe from Abbot Gregory as payment for a favourable judgement.
Abbot Hugh, clearly the more cunning, tried to intimidate his opponents by proposing
that certain ancillary issues be decided by combat and repeatedly threw the proceedings

64

into turmoil by demanding to be judged by Lombard rather than Roman law.

The

second strategy had particular success against the brothers of St Eustachio who must
surely have realized that their cause was lost when Farfa’s own advocate, ostensibly the
only resident expert on Lombard law, was invited to join the other judges on the
tribunal. These gambits succeeded primarily because the tribunal repeatedly deferred to
Otto’s will, thereby overturning its own decisions. Whatever grand strategy may have
lurked in the background, it is clear that, in the name of reform, the favour bestowed
upon Abbot Hugh had destabilized the balance of power among the communities

65

involved.

Replacing the image of Otto III as idealistic reformer with the more mundane one of

the monarch as invasive presence and general nuisance does not necessarily undermine
the basic concept of Renovatio, but it does raise the question of what, if any purpose, it
was intended to serve. If the aim was to provide an overarching framework for the Reich
(i.e. to foster unity), it would seem to be at cross purposes with the reactive and partisan
character of Ottonian rulership. Indeed, in Germany, it appears that Otto’s Rompolitik

66

received at best an ambivalent reception.

In Italy it can certainly have been no better.

¨

Perhaps, as Gorich has conjectured, Renovatio was simply an isolated theme that came

67

to the forefront when a specific audience seemed to call for it.

If so, one can go still

further and say that the more important task is to identify the membership of these
audiences. To the extent that it emanated from people who mattered, chiefly the higher
clergy and the leading men among the nobility, Ottonian kings were sensitive to public

62

DD OIII 278; 339. On the background to these disputes see M. Stroll, The Medieval Abbey of Farfa

: Target

of Papal and Imperial Ambitions, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History, vol. 74 (Leiden, New York, and
Cologne, 1997), 32–49.

63

That the tribunal declared the the losing parties’ evidence to be fraudulent does not, in itself, constitute proof

that it lacked merit, given the fairly clear evidence that the tribunal’s decision was less than dispassionate
(see below).

64

The use of the ordeal (or trial-by-combat) as a means of intimidation is discussed by S.D. White, ‘Proposing

the Ordeal and Avoiding it: Strategy and Power in Western French Litigation, 1050–1100’, in: Cultures of
Power

: Lordship, Status, and Process in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. T.N. Bisson (Philadelphia, 1995),

89–123, at 96–104. Farfa certainly had the right to be judged according to Lombard law, but this by no
means diminishes the value of the Abbot’s insistence on that right as a means of initimidating his opponents
(cf. Stroll, above n. 61).

65

¨

C.f. Gorich, Otto III, 256–58.

66

E.g. Thietmar 4.47. p. 184.

67

¨

Gorich, Otto III, 269. Along the same lines, see Reuter’s suggestion that Renovatio be seen as a kind of

‘shorthand for a whole complex of ideas, not all of which were consistent with one another’. Reuter, Otto
III, 23.

Ideals and action in the reign of Otto III

13

opinion and appear to have made a conscious effort to present themselves in a manner
that would reinforce their loyalty and empathy. Among the individuals and groups that
‘mattered’ to Otto III there were certainly some for whom a persona incorporating the
memory of Rome must have accomplished precisely that goal. Although the relatively
thin pool of evidence would preclude any attempt at a prosopographical approach, we
might at least reckon that, aside from clients such as Gerbert, their number would also
have included men such as Archbishop Heribert of Cologne or Margrave Ekkehard of
Meißen who were responsible for the implementation of the emperor’s policies and

68

derived personal benefit from them.

It may be significant, then, that the ambivalence

expressed by Brun of Querfurt is absent from Heribert’s biography (compiled c.
1045 / 46–1056) although the Archbishop’s activity as Otto III’s Archchancellor for Italy

69

is commented on in some detail. For some Italian clerics, Renovatio may have signified
increased support against predators and rivals. Presumably, Leo of Vercelli and Hugh of
Farfa would have viewed it in this manner. Indeed, when Leo attempted to enlist the
support of Otto’s successor (Henry II) against a resurgent Arduin of Ivrea, he dedicated
a poem to the ruler in which he returned to the familiar imagery of Rome and Renovatio.
After invoking the image of regna rushing to do homage and of Rome rejoicing, the
poem concludes: ‘May Henry never rejoice, may he never be happy / If he does not make

70

Leo the richest bishop / If he does not subjugate his enemies and bind their feet.’

For

Otto’s enemies among the Italian aristocracy and for clerical corporations whose
interests had suffered through his intervention, Renovatio may have been a code for a
more intense and not necessarily beneficial intervention in the politics of property and
patronage. In any case, this more complex relationship between ruler and regna suggests
the value of viewing Otto’s Rompolitik from a wider variety of perspectives. Much the
same might be said in regard to the symbolic aura that has customarily surrounded most,
if not all, of Otto’s gesta.

Symbols, employed alone or in various ritual settings, formed an integral part of

Ottonian political culture, as they did in virtually every medieval polity. Indeed, in the
absence of a central bureaucracy or other formal institutions of government, they were
its most visible and compelling feature. Nor is there any reason to doubt that
contemporaries appreciated their value. One merely needs to recall the eagerness with
which the Rhenish archbishops competed for the right to bestow the royal crown, or the
efforts expended by Otto’s successor, Henry II, to obtain the Holy Lance. Whatever we
may conclude regarding the true character of Renovatio, it seems clear that it must be
considered within the context of this more general trafficking in images and meaningful

71

objects. This body of evidence is far too important to simply dismiss.

It does however,

68

According to Thietmar (4.c. 30. p. 167), Margrave Ekkehard’s military support was crucial to the

establishment of Otto’s power in Rome.

69

Lantbert, Vita Hereberti archiepiscopi Coloniensis, ed. G. Pertz. MGH. ss. 4 (Hannover, 1841), 739–53, at

cc. 5, 7. 743, 745. On Heribert’s career and on all questions regarding the author and text of his vita consult,

¨

¨

H. Muller, Heribert

, Kanzler Ottos III. und Erzbischof von Koln (Cologne, 1977), 133–42; and ‘Die Vita

¨

sancti Heriberti des Lantbert von Luttich’, in: Kaiserin Theophanu

. Begegnung des Ostens und Westens um

die Wende des ersten Jahrtausends, 2 vols., eds. A. von Euw and P. Schreiner (Cologne, 1991), vol. 1,
47–58.

70

Versus de Ottone et Heinrico, ed. H. Strecker. MGH. Poetae, 5.2. no.19, pp. 480–83.

71

E.g. Althoff, Otto III, 116.

14

David A. Warner

present a number of pitfalls and problems which make it exceedingly difficult to use.
One of the weaknesses of Schramm’s treatment of Ottonian ‘Staatssymbolik’ and, in
particular, of Otto III’s Renovatio, was that he tended to examine his witnesses apart
from the specific context in which they were produced or displayed (i.e. without
reference to matters of stage or audience). To be sure, there tends to be a certain abstract
and timeless quality to much of this material. One could scarcely argue, for example,
that the strict and orderly hierarchy represented on the Aachen situla had any
resemblance to the gritty reality of Ottonian politics. And yet, these and other symbolic
statements must have been produced in response to specific stimuli, perhaps even quite
mundane ones. Let us consider a single, but particularly noteworthy instance, the
emperor’s decision to establish a permanent residence in Rome.

Set among the ruins on the Palatine hill, Otto’s palace may well have conjured up

memories of the emperors of classical Antiquity though not necessarily to the detriment

72

of more recent, but equally resonant figures such as Theodorich the Great.

For anyone

familiar with the Constitutum Constantini, the presence of such a palace may also have
affirmed the secular character of Otto’s Renovatio. After all, that much venerated

73

document had specifically forbidden secular rulers to live in the city of the Apostles.
Even if the citizens of Rome were obligated to obey the emperor, the city itself, as Brun
of Querfurt observed, ‘had been given by God as the residence of the Apostles (i.e. Peter

74

and Paul)’.

Nevertheless, a strong case can be made for a more prosaic interpretation

75

based on the issue of security. Whatever else it might represent, an Ottonian palace had
to provide a secure or at least reasonably defensible place of residence. When it did not,
or did so inadequately, a visiting monarch did well to keep his army close at hand and a

¨

safe place of refuge in mind. Knut Gorich has argued, convincingly, that there was no
more secure location for Otto’s palace than the Palatine hill which was close to
strongholds occupied by one of the few Roman clans that stood firmly within Otto’s

76

camp and had a stronghold of its own in the Septizonium.

The strength of the

Septizonium, an ancient facade fortified during the Middle Ages, is suggested by the fact
that it provided a refuge for supporters of Pope Gregory VII during Henry IV’s attack on

77

Rome in 1084 and, in similar circumstances, for Pope Pascal II in 1117.

It is scarcely a

coincidence, then, that Otto and Sylvester II chose a monastic church on the Palatine,
San Sebastiano, as the site for an important synod (13 January, 1001) that met at a time

72

Schramm, KRR pp. 108–09. That Otto’s palace was located on the Palatine hill rather than on the Aventine

¨

has been established by C. Bruhl, ‘Die Kaiserpfalz bei St Peter und die Pfalz Ottos III. auf dem Palatin

¨

(Neufassung 1983)’, in: Aus Mittelalter und Diplomatik

. Gesammelte Aufsatze, 2 vols. (Munich, 1989), vol.

¨

1, 3–31, at 20–31. On Theodorich’s palace at Rome see B. Pferschy, ‘Bauten und Baupolitik fruhmittelalter-

¨

¨

¨

licher Konige’, Mitteilungen des Instituts f ur Ostereichische Geschichtsforshung, 97 (1989), 257–328, at
281.

73

Constitutum Constantini, ed. H. Fuhrmann. MGH. Fontes iuris Germanici, 10 (Hannover, 1968), 94–95, c.

18; and KRR, 109–10.

74

Brun of Querfurt, c. 7. p. 43.

75

¨

See especially Gorich, below n. 76.

76

¨

¨

¨

K. Gorich, ‘Die de Imiza-Versuch uber eine romische Adelsfamilie zur Zeit Ottos III’, Quellen und

Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, 74 (1994), 1–41, at 28–30.

77

In general, R. Krautheimer, Rome

. Profile of a City, 312 –1308 (Princeton, 1980), 149, 322. Cf. Althoff, Otto

III, 119–20.

Ideals and action in the reign of Otto III

15

78

when local unrest would have made both men rather wary of their situation.

Once

again, the strategic location of the church and its community is suggested by a later
report that the election of Pope Gelasius II was held there because it was considered to

79

be particularly secure.

Even if it is no longer possible to perceive the circumstances in which the symbolic

manifestations of Renovatio were produced, we might at least give recognition to the
differences inherent in the evidence itself. Can it simply be assumed, for example, that a
royal portrait in a liturgical manuscript and the language of a royal diploma were
formulated with the same audience in mind? And if so, how did it react to them? Royal
portraits could be viewed by at best a small group of people, their effect was passive,
and even in the case of a royal commission the degree to which they reflected the royal

80

will rather than that of the artist or community that produced them is far from clear.
Thus, while Otto’s portrait in the royally sponsored ‘Reichenau Gospels’ may confirm
that the theme of Renovatio had acquired a heightened currency, it may not tells us
much more than this. The ground becomes much firmer if we turn from portraits to
diplomata. A diploma was a consciously crafted piece of propaganda, its content,
diction, and overall appearance designed to reinforce whatever image of himself the

81

ruler wished to present.

It is for this reason, for example, that the appearance of new

forms of intitulature in diplomata issued during Otto’s progress to and from Gniezno has

82

attracted so much scholarly attention.

Even if the precise significance of the new title

(‘Servant of Jesus Christ’) is debatable, it clearly represented a conscious effort to add a
new theme to the emperor’s public persona.

The presentation of a diploma might assume the character of a performance. We

should have in mind the image of the canons of Arezzo, standing silently before Otto III
as he bestowed a diploma confirming their possessions, or of his predecessor, Otto II,
presiding over a crowded church at Magdeburg as the chapter’s newly granted election

83

privilege was displayed and read aloud. Such occasions appealed simultaneously to two
distinct audiences; the more narrowly defined one which actually benefited from the
grant and a larger, more diverse one comprising individuals unaffected by the grant itself

78

¨

J.F. Boehmer, Regesta imperii

2. (Sachsisches Haus 919 –1024) /3: Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter

Otto III, new ed. M. Uhlirz (Graz and Cologne, 1956), 1396e, 1397a. 1398a, 1400a. The Church and
community were founded around the middle of the tenth century and reformed ca. 987–999. See W.

¨

Buchowiechi, Handbuch der Kirchen Roms

. Der Romische Sakralbau in Geschichte und Kunst von der

altchristlichen Zeit bis zur Gegenwart, 3 vols. (Vienna, 1974), vol. 3, 837–42. The synod was chiefly
concerned with a bitter dispute between Mainz and Hildesheim regarding their respective rights over the

¨

convent of Gandersheim. See K. Gorich, ‘Der Gandersheimer Streit zur Zeit Otto III. Ein Konflikt um die

¨

Metropolitanrechte des Erzbischofs Willigis von Mainz’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung f ur Rechtsges-
chichte Kanonistische Abteilung, 79 (1993), 56–94.

79

Le Liber Pontificalis, 3 vols., ed. L. Duschesne. (Paris, 1892), vol. 2, 313.

80

R. McKitterick, ‘Ottonian Intellectual Culture in the Tenth Century and the Role of Theophanu’, Early

Medieval Europe, 2 (1993), 53–74, at 59–60.

81

I.e. insofar as they emanated from the royal chancery and not from the recipient himself. Out of the abundant

literature on this topic see H. Wolfram, ‘Political Theory and Narrative in Charters’, Viator, 26 (1995),
39–51.

82

See, e.g. Althoff, Otto III, 136.

83

Historia custodum Aretinorum, ed. A. Hofmeister. MGH. Scriptores, vol. 30.3 (Leipzig, 1934), 1468–1482,

at 1472–73; Thietmar 3.1, 96–98.

16

David A. Warner

but open to its representational aspects. In some cases, a clear disjunction between a
diploma’s content and its representational aspects may permit the identity of its second
audience to be defined with greater precision. This appears to be the case with one of the
more noteworthy manifestations of Otto’s Renovatio, an imperial diploma issued, at
Rome, for the Swabian monastery of St Mary at Einsiedeln (DO III 285). Insofar as its
contents are concerned, D. 285. is nothing if not mundane, being essentially a simple
grant of property justified by the emperor’s desire to aid his own and his parents’
salvation. For a community enjoying the king’s favour such a grant would have been

84

fairly routine and not unexpected.

The diploma’s content is not its most remarkable

aspect, however. Attached to it is a lead seal bearing the phrase Renovatio imperii
Romanorum, seemingly a clear reference to Otto’s Rompolitik. Other aspects of the
document are also worth noting, in particular, the date. Among the formulae employed
in this section, the notary refers to the fact that the diploma was issued in conjunction
with the execution of Crescenzio ‘Nomentano’ (i.e. following the collapse of his

85

rebellion).

This reference resides rather uneasily among the moral and spiritual

commonplaces that comprised the usual stock in trade of imperial notaries and is so
unusual that one would suspect that the emperor himself had dictated it, as was his

86

custom on occasion.

To recall such a grim event in conjunction with an affirmation of

Otto’s rulership over an Imperium Romanorum would have had little impact on the
distant monks of Einsiedeln, but quite a bit more on an audience for which it would have
constituted a recent memory. In fact, the death of Crescenzio had been an especially
public event involving not only the execution itself, but also the public display and

87

humiliation of the corpse.

The effect of Crescenzio’s death, especially in and around

88

Rome, had been both dramatic and disturbing.

We may conclude by suggesting that

this effect may provide a hint as to how we might give the notion of Renovatio a sense
of audience and, more generally, take account of some of the objections raised by

¨

Gorich et al.

Although never loath to execute persons of low status, Ottonian kings were usually

more careful when dealing with the aristocracy. Aristocratic rebels could typically count
on intermediaries to negotiate a surrender of some sort, with the at least tacit

89

understanding that punishment would stop well short of any physical injury.

It was

common, moreover, for the process of surrendering to include forms of ritualized
behaviour which documented the supplicant’s humility and his acceptance of the
monarch’s authority (i.e. a formal deditio). Thus, Duke Henry ‘the Quarrelsome’ of

84

Einsiedeln’s history and close relationship with the Ottonian house are examined by H. Keller, Kloster

Einsiedeln im ottonischen Schwaben, Forschungen zur oberrheinischen Landesgeschichte, vol. 13 (Freiburg
im Breisgau, 1964), 98–105.

85

...quando Crescencius decollatus suspensus fuit.

86

See H. Hoffmann, ‘Eigendiktat in den Urkunden Ottos III. und Heinrichs II’, Deutsches Archiv, 44 (1988),

390–423, who does not, however, discuss this particular diploma.

87

¨

Bohmer / Uhlirz Regesta, 1259d.

88

¨

On the effect of Crescenzio’s death, see G. Tellenbach, ‘Die Stadt Rom in der Sicht auslandischer

Zeitgenossen (800–1200)’, Saeculum, 24 (1973), 9–10.

89

The literature relating to this topic is now quite extensive, see, most recently, G. Althoff, ‘Das Privileg der

¨

deditio. Formen gutlicher Konfliktbeendigung in der mittelalterlichen Adelgesellschaft’, in: Spielregeln der
Politik im Mittelalter

. Kommunikation in Frieden und Fehde (Darmstadt, 1997), 99–125.

Ideals and action in the reign of Otto III

17

Bavaria, whose crimes included the kidnapping of the king himself, avoided the
consequences of his actions by appearing before the court with an appropriately humble

90

mien and doing homage to his former captive.

The citizens of Tivoli atoned for an

uprising by appearing before Otto in their undergarments while carrying swords in their
right hands and rods in their left hands, an act signifying complete and total submission

91

to his power.

That a similar opportunity was not extended to Crecenzio is unusual.

Perhaps the negotiations went bad, or it was felt that an example had to be made of this

92

particular rebel.

In any case, this does not preclude the possibility that it may also have

had something to do with a kind of Renovatio, especially if we consider that, in
governing, a ruler’s manner was as important as the substance of his actions. Indeed, the
execution of Crescenzio was not the only instance in which Otto displayed his capacity
for cruelty before a Roman audience. This event was accompanied by the equally brutal
though less final punishment of his pope, John Philagathos, who was subjected to
physical mutilation, and a ritualized form of humiliation (i.e. being led through the

93

streets while riding backwards on a donkey).

According to the testimony of Thangmar

of Hildesheim, a similar act of cruelty concluded Otto’s final speech to the Romans. The
speech, preserved as a brief vignette in Thangmar’s biography of Bishop Bernward of
Hildesheim, is delivered from the top of an otherwise unidentified tower and includes a

94

widely quoted lament on the apparent failure of Renovatio.

Are you not my Romans? Because of you, I abandoned my homeland and kin. For
love of you, I cast off my Saxons and all of the Germans, my own blood. I led you to
distant regions of our empire, where your fathers never set foot, even when they held
the world in subjection. All of this, that I might spread your name and glory to the
ends of the earth. I adopted you as sons and favoured you above all others. For your
sake, as you were placed above everyone else, I was universally hated and resented.

When read in conjunction with the two chapters preceding it, it is clear that Otto’s

95

speech, however sad in tone, actually caps a series of successes on Otto’s part.

This

series begins with the surrender of the citizens of Tivoli, which we have already noted,
followed by a similar revolt and surrender on the part of the Romans. Although it
concludes the surrender of the Roman populace to Otto’s authority, the speech could
hardly be described as magnanimous. It concludes, moreover, with what appears to be a

96

calculated act of intimidation.

Fixing two members of the audience in his gaze, the

emperor complains that his Roman friends seem altogether too friendly with two of his
enemies. Readily discerning the implications of this comment, members of the audience
seize the men, drag them up the stairs of the tower, and throw them naked at the

90

Annales Quedlinburgensis, ed. G. Pertz. MGH. ss. vol. 3 (Hannover, 1839), 22–90, at an. 985, 67.

91

Or, more specifically, that he could punish or put them to death as he saw fit. Thangmar, Vita Bernwardi

episcopi Hildesheimensis, ed. G. Pertz. MGH. Scriptores, vol. 4 (Hannover, 1841), 764–82, at c. 23, 769.
See also, Althoff, Otto III, 169–71.

92

Althoff, Otto III, 105–14.

93

Althoff, Otto III, 105–14.

94

Thangmar, c. 25, 770.

95

Althoff, Otto III, 169–81.

96

Althoff, Otto III, 179.

18

David A. Warner

emperor’s feet. For an audience whose memory of late Antique and Byzantine
government was still fresh, such moments would have had a particular resonance, and
precisely because they were so out of keeping with the normal practice of Ottonian

97

rulership.

Clemency was a virtue appropriate to sacral kings whose clerical advisors were

always prepared to remind them of their obligations to God and Christendom. The brutal
treatment of John Philagathos, for example, earned Otto the reproach of no less a figure

98

than St Nilo of Grottaferrata.

Clemency was also a very pragmatic virtue when dealing

with men of substance whose family and allies were unlikely to forgive a monarch’s
disregard for a prisoner’s honour. In contrast, irresistible and seemingly arbitrary cruelty
was the imperial virtue par excellence. As Ammianus Marcellinus observed, ‘there is no
correcting the depravity of [princes], who believe that whatever they wish to be done

99

represents the greatest good’.

We might compare this assessment of Valentinian I’s

cruelty with Brun of Querfurt’s comment on the self-destructive rage of Otto III, viz
‘because this is generally permitted to such powers – or rather, it is thought to be
permitted but actually is not – he uttered threats, swearing and furiously affirming that
he would not withdraw . . . until he had seen the city humiliated and had taken vengeance

100

upon his enemies.’

Even more to the point, we might recall the ritualized triumphs of

Roman Antiquity or the famous image, on the Barbarini Dyptich, of a mounted emperor

101

looming over barbarians crouched in supplication below him.

Whatever may remain

of Renovatio as Schramm envisioned it, one might argue that nothing would have more
clearly bound Otto to his Roman predecessors than those occasions when, in the manner
of an ancient triumph, he trampled his enemy in the dust rather than forgiving him.

97

See A. Nitschke, ‘Der Mißhandelte Papst. Folgen ottonischer Italienpolitik’, in: Staat und Gesellschaft im

¨

¨

¨

Mittelalter und fruher Neuzeit

. Gedenkschrift f ur Joachim Leuscher (Gottingen, 1983), 40–53.

98

Vita s

. Nili abbatis Cryptae Ferratae, ed. G. Pertz. MGH. Scriptores, vol. 4 (Hannover, 1841), 616–18, at cc.

89–91, 616–17.

99

Nil autem valet correctio pravitatum apud eos qui quod effici velint maximae putant esse virtutis. Bk

27.7.9. 5 Ammianus Marcellinus, 3 vols., ed. J.C. Rolfe (Cambridge, 1939), vol. 3, 50.

100

Brun of Querfurt, c. 7. p. 44.

101

M. McCormick, Eternal Victory

: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval

West (Cambridge, 1986), 96–67.