Gerd Althoff. Otto III. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003. xii + 207 pp. $53.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-271-02232-1.
Reviewed by Julie A. Hofmann (History Department, Highline Community College)
Published on H-German (October, 2005)
Unraveling the Enigma
The life and rule of the emperor Otto III have long been the subjects of scholarly debate. Was he the dreamer who pushed for an unachievable renovatio imperii Romanorum, or the hairshirt-wearing man who would not be king? Or, as many scholars have asserted, was he an enigma who incorporated both personae, and whose friendship with advisors like Gerbert of Aurillac and Adalbert of Prague ultimately determined his reign and his legacy? Translated into flowing English by Phyllis G. Jestice, Gerd Althoff's Otto III sheds only partial light on these questions. More importantly, however, Althoff offers a useful, if in some ways limited, overview of the historiography of this complex emperor and his reign, and of medieval Germany in general. The questions he poses and, for the most part, answers, exemplify the type of honest revisionism that is crucial in attempts to understand the workings of the medieval world. If the book has a weakness, it is that it is more successful in proving why previous ideas about Otto and his reign are flawed, rather than offering a more positive construction of events. Nevertheless, Althoff's book serves to remind us that much of what we surmise about the past cannot be proven conclusively.
Althoff divides his book into a lengthy introduction and five chapters, each of which focuses on a central point in the historiographical debate surrounding Otto III and his rule. A sixth chapter concludes the book with an overall assessment and a series of questions that remain open to further inquiry. Throughout the book, Althoff frames the discussion around two main themes that he claims have been misinterpreted by scholars of the past: the importance of public ritual and private mediation in the absence of stable institutions and general popular literacy; and the meaning and interpretation of the emperor's friendship in the political arena. Private mediation and agreement on the type of public ritual required to bring back a balanced relationship between the emperor and his nobles, or even between peers, was a necessary step in providing a unified picture of agreement between the disputants. By clearly demonstrating public agreement in a prearranged ceremony, there was theoretically no chance of misunderstanding by those who witnessed and reported the ceremony. Friendship could range from the truly personal, something the sources can seldom indicate, to a more formal relationship that nevertheless allowed for greater access to the ruler and thus the possibility of greater consideration or personal influence.
Althoff examines these themes in the context of three particular areas: Otto's policies in the east, especially in regards to Boleslaw Chrobry and Poland; his travels to Rome and the renovatio imperii Romanorum; and in the controversy over the re-establishment of the diocese of Merseburg, which has often been seen as crucial to understanding the two previous areas. By reevaluating the documentary evidence for these areas and extending the discussion to include a broader view of the Ottonian political and social spheres, Althoff is often able to refute previous interpretations and present the same evidence in a newer context that takes advantage of more recent scholarship.
When Otto III succeeded his father at the age of three, there were rival claimants to the regency. In the first chapter, Althoff traces the attempts of Henry the Quarrelsome of Bavaria to claim guardianship over the minor emperor and his eventual withdrawal of those claims in favor of the emperor's mother, Theophanu, and grandmother, Adalheid. In exchange for his support Henry, who had been held prisoner under Otto II, was reinstated as duke of Bavaria. Relying on newer work that gives greater weight to the meaning of public ritual, Althoff shows that, despite some support by important nobles, both lay and ecclesiastic, Henry had never really conducted himself as an emperor, or indeed, as a proper regent. This interpretation follows a close reading of documentary sources that places them in the context of accepted norms of political ritual and the importance of mediation in Ottonian governance. Mediation between the principals and Henry's willingness to prostrate himself to the new king moved the regency solidly in to the hands of the dominae imperialis, Otto's widowed mother and grandmother, and his aunt, Mathilde of Quedlinburg. By showing that much of this political maneuvering was in fact normal for the people involved, Althoff sets up a solid argument denying previously held theories that Theophanu had any particular long-range plans for her son and the empire. Although his argument does not positively replace previous interpretations of Theophanu's regency, it sets the tone for the rest of the book. Althoff is clearly concerned that his audience consider his own interpretation, but more importantly, he wants it to understand the limits of the sources and avoid the temptation to read more into them than can be proved.
Continuing his discussion of public ritual and private mediation in the second chapter, Althoff concentrates on Otto's assumption of independent rule. This is most evident in his discussion of Otto's involvement in episcopal conflicts both in the west, where Otto took an interest in the quarrel between Gerbert and Arnulf over Rheims in 995, as well as in the east with a later dispute between Gebhart, Bishop of Regensburg, and Abbot Ramwold of St. Emmeram's. It is at this point that Althoff also begins to lay the groundwork for an overall revision of Otto's policies in Italy and the East. The reorganization of the diocese of Meissen has long been seen as proof of a new Eastern policy after a series of conflicts with the Elbe Slavs. Althoff astutely points out that there is no conclusive evidence for the reorganization having been carried out. Moreover, there is no mention of opposition to it, despite the fact that the proposed reorganization would have affected several other important dioceses. This leads into his discussion of the nature of friendship and what it meant in terms of access to and influence over the young emperor. Rejecting the assumptions of earlier historians like Mathilda Uhlirtz, who claim that there was an almost immediate break with Rome after Otto helped to install his cousin Bruno as Pope Gregory V, Althoff claims that the emperor and pope in fact worked together closely at synods, against the uprising of the Roman prefect Crescentius, and perhaps most importantly on the restoration of the diocese of Merseburg.
Because the restoration of Merseburg was connected both to Otto's eastern policy and to his two most famous advisors, Gerbert of Aurillac and Adalbert of Prague, Althoff pays close attention to claims that the men had a special relationship that allowed them a greater level of access to and influence over the young emperor and generally rejects them. Part of this rejection is based on what Althoff sees as a lack of contextual interpretation of the sources. For example, it made sense that Gerbert, whose own scholarship was attractive to Otto, would spend long periods in the emperor's company after being ousted from Rheims and entering the emperor's service. In the case of Adalbert, Althoff reminds his audience that, in the context of medieval hagiography, a particular topos is that of the saint's personal friendship with the ruler, which served to elevate the importance of the saint and to cast the ruler in a better, more pious light. Having said that, Althoff does claim that other evidence, for example Otto's establishment of several churches dedicated to the martyred Adalbert, might point to a deeper friendship between the men than the hagiographical record alone can prove.
The best examples of Althoff's reinterpretation of sources can be found in the discussion of Otto's Roman expeditions and the journey to Gniezno. The so-called Revenge Expedition to Rome is especially ripe for reexamination, and Althoff raises many important questions about the world-view of previous historians in their presentation of the facts. Otto's journey to Rome in 997 resulted in the capture, mutilation, and eventual executions of the prefect Crescentius and the anti-pope, Johannes Philagathos. In order to manage this, Otto had to renege on his guarantee of safe conduct granted to a penitent Crescentius. The main sources for this incident, the Brauweiler Fundatio and the Quedlinburg Annals, have generally been interpreted as evidence for a journey fired by a desire for vengeance against those willing to defy the emperor and his chosen pope and hold both Otto and Gregory V responsible for the rebels' fates. Relying mainly on the account of Rudolfus Glaber, Althoff demonstrates that the older version of events is debatable at best. According to the evidence in Glaber's account, the trip took no longer than any other journey to Rome; moreover, based on Glaber's account, Althoff concludes that Otto had never intended to parley with the two men. Otto had granted clementia once to the prefect: no matter what the public ritual--and Crescentius had attempted to ask for forgiveness in public, but without any formal mediation with the emperor beforehand--Clementius was an oathbreaker. Otto could not afford to grant him forgiveness, nor appear to consider it, a second time.
Like the Roman expeditions, the journey to Gniezno has served as a central point in the historical debate over Otto III, and one especially connected to the nationalist arguments that Althoff seeks to re-contextualize. Historians of the past have tied the trip to part of the overall renovatio, or as a response to Boleslaw Chrobry's machinations, perhaps with papal support, to strengthen the claims for an independent Polish state. The so-called coronation ceremony, in which Otto supposedly laid his own crown upon the head of the newly named patricius, is a fundamental part of the controversy. So, too is the supposed conspiracy between Chrobry and the pope to reestablish the diocese of Merseburg as part of an independent ecclesiastic structure that might mitigate the growing power of the emperor. Most of these arguments, however, are based solely on the documents, primarily the accounts of Thietmar of Merseburg, which talk about the meeting between Otto III and Boleslaw Chrobry. Althoff's assessment of the events at Gniezno relies on a much broader body of evidence. This allows him to make a strong argument for the trip being primarily a step in preparing for the eventual canonization of the martyred Adalbert: the elevation of Boleslaw Chrobry to patricius (or, according to Thietmar, to dominus) included an exchange of relics that would have helped in the canonization process. In Althoff's reconstruction of events, the reestablishment of Merseburg was part of an Ottonian reorganization made possible in part by the death of Hildiward of Halberstadt, who had long opposed any such action, and perhaps as a response to claims that the dissolution of the diocese had brought God's disfavor in the guise of the military defeat at Croton and the Slav rebellions. It is certainly true that establishing further ecclesiastical administration in the east, especially an administration tied by some measure of obligation to the emperor, would help to solidify his own hold there.
Althoff concludes his book by reiterating his main themes and the problems of the historiography of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He makes it clear that there are many questions still open, and that in many cases, the sources dictate that the answers to some of those questions will never be conclusive. In some ways, this judgment echoes many of Althoff's assertions in the introduction which, despite his claims in the preface to the English edition that the introduction might be of little interest to English-speaking historians, is one of the most valuable parts of the book. Because there is comparatively little available in English on the general subject of medieval Germany, the fairly comprehensive overview of the German historiography of the period is immensely useful. Althoff seems to pay less attention to the views of those few scholars working on the Ottonians in English; however, this is clearly because the discussion is more concerned with Ottonian historiography in terms of German national--and nationalist--writing. There may be a disadvantage to such a narrow focus: for readers more familiar with the period, it may sometimes seem that Althoff's critiques do not fully incorporate relevant scholarship from outside Germany, or even by other Ottonian specialists, although such works do appear in the bibliography. Nevertheless, a more detailed exposition of recent works on the importance of public ritual, private mediation, and the importance of political friendship in areas other than the empire would certainly have strengthened the arguments against a particularly nationalist interpretation of Otto III and his reign. As it stands, Otto III allows readers to grasp the historiographic shortcomings of the past and understand the more thorough and perhaps more objective reevaluations that Althoff rightly claims historians of the present can and should offer.
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at: https://networks.h-net.org/h-german.
Citation:
Julie A. Hofmann. Review of Althoff, Gerd, Otto III.
H-German, H-Net Reviews.
October, 2005.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=11189
Copyright © 2005 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For any other proposed use, contact the Reviews editorial staff at hbooks@mail.h-net.org.