Four decades have passed since Karl Leyser wrote Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society (1979), in which he analyzed the rise of the Ottonian dynasty to the German throne from a political and ideological viewpoint. The volume was a welcome addition to the Anglophone scholarship of the tenth century regarding the Saxon origins of the Ottonian kingship inspired by the Carolingian tradition. Following the same historiographical path but in greater detail, Laura E. Wangerin challenges traditional views of the Ottonian kingship. By analyzing the primary sources, most of secular origin (contemporary narratives, royal and imperial charters, manuscript illuminations), she tries to decode Ottonian kingship and the administration of justice. The methodology is accessible to less experienced readers. All the sources are investigated using traditional and comparative methodologies. Moreover, Wangerin applies various modern innovative approaches related to sociology and political science. With these useful tools, she questions the modern view about how Germany “transitioned from the Middle Ages to modern statehood” (4). However, she does not cite Antoni Grabowski's book The Construction of Ottonian Kingship: Narratives and Myth in Tenth-Century Germany (2018), which analyzes the beginning of the German state and the formation of a political identity in the Middle Ages, starting with the reign of Henry I (876–936) and continuing with the coronation of Otto I (912–973).
One of the ideas that the author questions is the so-called Sonderweg (“special path”), which originates in the title of a 1933 lecture by Hermann Heimpel and emphasizes the idea that German history differs from that of other European nations, such as England or France. The reasons for these differences, Heimpel argued, can be found in the Middle Ages, when the central monarchical authority was limited. Thus, the modern nation-state could be created only in the time of the German empire in the late nineteenth century. In this way, the emergence of the Third Reich would be an evolutionary and implicitly legitimate development.
In Wangerin's opinion, the exercise of power by the Ottonians can be seen in the narratives about ritual and symbolic behavior and the relationship with the German nobility, laity, and clergy alike. Thus, the Ottonian political system lacked an administrative structure. Their power was based, rather, on land and titles held by the Ottonians’ relatives. The author rightly considers that this worked as a sort of family power network. In the Ottonian governance system, it was important how the king interacted with the members of his large family, known as familiares. Under Otto I, members of the familia regis (the king's family) could serve as counselors to the ruler. Their influence in the territory was determined according to how close they were to the king (15, 34–36).
Ottonian kingship contained both analogous and unique features as compared with earlier dynasties. The Ottonian governing system had a decentralized structure. Indeed, the Ottonians were a sacred dynasty, like the Carolingians. Yet the Ottonian governing apparatus was limited to the court, which was not a static one; rather, it had an itinerant character. Its authority was distributed through the power network in all the major towns in the duchies. Those who carried that authority were highly privileged and included both laymen and clergy (bishops and archbishops, dukes, margraves, counts, and tributary sovereigns across the Elbe). The Ottonians were very well acquainted with the world in which they lived, and for this reason their political actions were not always unitary. This is why they had no interest in writing laws or creating a centralized administration based on a fixed hierarchy of power.
The author emphasizes the apparent disparity between Ottonian political and military achievements, as well as the development of written and visual culture. She notes that German bishops became pillars of the Ottonian governing system, acquiring secular rights in addition to their ecclesiastical power. In Saxony, many bishops had noble ancestry and thus acted as lay lords. One of the main ducal attributes was military command. Soldiers, especially Saxon ones, in the Ottonian exercitus Christianus (Christian army) could be commanded not only by dukes and counts, but also by bishops (75, 80–86).
Another relevant aspect of the Ottonian governance analyzed by Wangerin is legal authority. Unlike the Carolingians, the Ottonian rulers did not write their laws in capitularies. Their legislative system was not unitary; rather, they exploited traditional methods of conflict resolution and divided legal authority among their familiares, in order to maintain control over a vast empire. Conflicts were not always internal but also external, especially across the Elbe, when the Wendish leaders rejected Saxon authority and refused to pay tribute and tithe.
However, the Ottonians had an efficient governing system, although one that was not formalized in written legislation. By analyzing legal charters, Wangerin concludes that most internal disputes were settled formally by dueling, by feud, or in some cases by negotiation in accordance with specific interests. The main legislative agents were the royal and imperial missi (emissaries), who have attributes similar to those of their counterparts from the Carolingian period and often included clerics. The author also examines episcopal and abbatial elections in relation to the Ottonian governing system. The high clergy too held judicial power in their territories. Under the Ottonians, bishops were authorized to govern their dioceses and undertake judicial duties.
Wangerin notes what many researchers have observed, namely the significance of visual sources in the concept of Ottonian kingship. These were useful tools in legitimizing the power of the Ottonians among clergy and laity, in peacetime or in war. Wangerin mentions Maurice's Holy Lance, the hereditary symbol of the Ottonian dynasty (114–15, 129–31, 142–45, 152), as an essential instrument of faith in mobilizing the soldiers in battles against external enemies such as the non-Christian Wends.
The author made use of a wide range of secondary sources in English and German. In addition, readers can consult a very detailed index. Furthermore, Wangerin clarifies and puts in political and theological context essential terms such as Holy Roman Empire and East Francia, and reminds us of their proper usage, in contrast with the modern understanding of medieval states. Overall, the book offers a detailed, well-researched analysis of Ottonian kingship. It can be a useful tool for both researchers and students of the Ottonian period.
