1. These themes have recently been clearly elucidated in Frümittelalterliche Studien 23 (1989)Google Scholar by Keller, H., “Zum Charakter der ‘Staatlichkeit’ zwischen karolingischer Reichsreform und hochmittelalterlichem Herrschaftsausbau,” 248–64Google Scholar, Althoff, G., “Königsherrschaft und Konfliktbewältigung im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert,” 265–90Google Scholar, Schieffer, R., “Der ottonische Reichsepiskopat zwischen Könightum und Adel,” 291–301Google Scholar, and Ehlers, J., “Schriftkultur, Ethnogense und Nationsbildung in ottonischer Zeit,” 302–18.Google Scholar

2. Universalstaat order Nationalstaat: Macht und Ende des Ersten des Ersten deutschen Reiches: Die Streitsschriften von Heinrich von Sybel und Julius Ficker zur deutschen Kaiserpolitik des Mittelalters, ed. with introduction by Schneider, Fr. (Innsbruck, 1941).Google Scholar

3. Much has been written recently about traditional German medieval historiography. Some representative titles are as follows: Böckenförde, E. W., Die deutsche verfassungsgeschichtliche Forschung im 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1961)Google Scholar, and Gegenstand und Begriffe der Verfassungsge-schichtsschreibung, in Der Staat: supplement 6 (1983).Google ScholarGollwitzer, H., Europabild und Europagedanke: Beiträge zur deutschen Geistesgeschichte des achtzehnten und neunzehnten Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1964)Google Scholar, and “Zur Auffassung der mittelaterlichen Kaiserpolitik im 19. Jahrhundert,” in Dauer und Wandel der Geschichte:Aspekte europäischer Vergangenheit: Festgabe für Kurt von Raumer (Münster, 1966), 483–512.Google ScholarFaber, k.-G., “Ausprägungen des Historismus,” Historische Zeitschrift 228 (1979): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSchulin, E., “Historismus und Teleologie,” Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 5 (1982): 131–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarKoselleck, R., “Standortbindung und Zeitlichkeit: Ein Beitrag zur historiographischen Erschliessung der geschichtlichen Welt,” in Objektivität und Parteilichkeit in der Geschichtswissenschaft, ed. Koselleck, R., Mommsen, W. J., and Rüsen, J. (Munich, 1977).Google ScholarMetz, K.-H., Grundformen historiographischen Denkens (Munich, 1979).Google ScholarOexle, O. G., “Die Geschichtswissnschaft im Zeichen des Historismus, Bemerkungen zum Standort der Geschichtsforschung,” Historische Zeitschrift 238 (1984): 17–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For the impact of National Socialism on German historical writing, see Werner, K. F, Das NS-Geschichtsbild und die deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1967).Google Scholar

4. See articles in Aspekte der Nationenbildung im Mittelalter, Nationes, (below, n. 44), 1, ed. Beumann, H. and Schröder, W. (Sigmaringen, 1983).Google ScholarWerner, K.F., “Les nations et le sentiment national dans l'Europe médiéval,” Revue historique 244 (1979): 285–304Google Scholar, and “L'Empire carolingien et le Saint Empire,” Le concept d'empire, ed. Duverger, M., (Paris, 1980), 151–98.Google ScholarFleckenstein, J., “Grossfränkisches Reich: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Grossreichsbildung im Mittelalter,” and “Die Grundlegung der europäischen Einheit im Mittelalter” as reprinted in Fleckenstein, , Ordnungen und formende Kräfte des Mittelalters: Ausgewählte Beiträge (Göttingen, 1989), 1–27 and 127–46.Google ScholarBrühl, C., Die Anfänge der deutschen Geschichte, Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft der Universität Frankfurt, 10, no. 5 (1972).Google Scholar It must be noted that modern German historians have generally continued to insist on Germany's “special path” (Sonderweg), view that is being modified in light of the work of Blackbourn, David and Eley, Geoff, The Peculiarties of History: Bourgeois Society and Politics in Nineteenth Century Germany (Oxford, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Eley, , From Unification to Nazism: Reinterpreting the German Past (Boston, 1986).Google Scholar

5. The initial appearance of both works came in 1939, the year of Hitler's invasion of poland. The first edition of Brunner's book was titled Land und Herrschaft: Grundfragen der territorialen Verfassungegschichte Südostdeutschlands im Mittelater, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Geschichtsforschung und Archivwissenschaft in Wien, 1 (Baden bei Wien, 1939).Google Scholar It went through three revisions during the Nazi era, the last appearing in 1943 under the same title. In the fourth edition, Land und Herrschaft: Grundfragen der territorialen Verfassungeschichte Österreichs im Mittelalter (Vienna and Wiesbaden, 1959), much was changedGoogle Scholar. (Note that “Austria” replaced “South east Germany” in the title.) In this article I shall cite only this revised edition. Interest in Brunner's work is finally increasing outside of German-speaking countries, especially it Italy, where Land und Herrschaft has recently been translated as Terra e Potere by Schiera, Giuliana Nobili and Tommasi, Claudio, Arcana Imperii, 3 (Milan, 1983)Google Scholar, and where a conference of scholars on Otto Brunner and his work was held in Trent in 1987, the proceedings of which have been published in Annali dell' Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 13 (1987)Google Scholar. As I write the first American edition of Land und Herrschaft is being printed by the University of Pennsylvania Press. It will appear as “Land” and Lordship: Structures of Governance in Medieval Austria, translated from the fourth, revised edition by Howard Kaminsky and James Van Melton. Professor Melton was kind enough to provide me with a typed copy of their insightful and thoroughly documented introduction, which has been of great value to mein the preparation of this article. As for Tellenbach, , Könightum und Stämme in der Werdezeit des Deutschen Reiches, Quellen und Studien zur Verfassungsgeschichte des Deutschen Reiches in Mittelalter und Neuzzeit, 7, pt. 4 (Weimar, 1939)Google Scholar, he became a dominant figure in postwar German medieval historical writing, largely due to his role in developing prosopographical methodologies and inspiring many students, most notably Karl Schmid, who used these methodologies to demonstrate deep structural changes in the nobility in the post-Carolingian era. It must be stressed at this point that the simple fact that Brunner and Tellenbach wrote these works during the Third Reich in no way invalidates them, even in the case of Brunner, who was a party member and who was froced to retire from his chair in Vienna after the war. As Kaminsky and Melton put it, “Whatever appearance of Nazi trail-blazing Brunner lent to his book by salting it with ‘fashionable slogans’ and giving it a rousing Germanist-New Order conclusion, it was in fact a profoundly aristocratic construction of the late-medieval order. In the fourth edition he could strip away the modish jargon without affecting the substance.”

6. See especially Werner, , Structures politiques du monde franc (VIe–XIIe siècles): Etudes sur les origines de la france et de l'Allemagne (London, 1979).Google Scholar

7. Haverkamp, , Aufbruch und Gestaltung: Deutschland, 1056–1273 (Munich, 1984)Google Scholar, translated as Medieval Germany, 1056–1273, by Braun, H., and Mortimer, R., (Oxford, 1988).Google ScholarFuhrmann, , Deutsche Geschichte im hohen Mittelalter (Munich, 1986).Google Scholar translated as Germany in the High Middle Ages by Reuter, T. (Cambridge, 1986)Google Scholar, Keller, , Zwischen regionaler Begrenzung und universalem Horizont: Deutschland im Imperium der Sailer und Staufer 1024 bis 1250 (Berlin, 1986).Google Scholar

8. Haverkamp, Medieval Germany, 9–98 and 347–57.

9. Keller, Zwischen regionale Begrenzung, 37, also makes the point, “FOr several decades no serious scholarly work has appeared which treated the imperial history [Kaisergeschichte] of the Middle Ages as the history of the German state.”

10. Fuhrmann, Germany, 188–89. Reynolds, S., Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900–1300 (Oxford, 1984).Google Scholar

11. Keller, Zwischen regionaler Begrenzung, for an excellent, clearly written discussion of these factors, 37–48.

12. Freed, , “Reflections on the Medieval German Nobility,” American Historical Review 91 (1986): 553–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Freed, 574, is also convinced that German historians remain excessively concerned with the failure of the medieval monarchy there. He cites in this regard Sheehan, J. J., “What Is German History? Reflections on the Role of the Nation in German History and Historiography,” Journal of Modern History 53 (1981): 3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who emphasizes the role that Kleindeutsch, assumptions still play in German historical writing.

14. Freed, 574. In Freed's defense, I must admit that the terminal dates of recent general histories tend to be coincident with important political events rather than with social, economic, and cultural movements of a structural nature. Fuhrmann, Germany, ends his book c. 1200, shortly after the death of Henry VI deprived the Hohenstaufen of a youthful and vigorous monarch. Keller, Zwischen regionaler Begrenzungen, completes his volume in 1250, the death of Frederick II, and Haverkamp, Medieval Germany, terminates in 1273, the election of Rudolf of Habsburg. These dates coincide with those that traditional historians considered turning points in German political history, making the failure of the medieval Kaiserreich to develop into a nation-state. These dates are well before the structures and movements typically classified as “high medieval” had disappeared or ossified. It should be noted, on the other hand, that Leyser, K., “The German Aristocracy from the Ninth to the Early Twelfth Century: A Historical and Cultural Sketch,” as reprinted in his Medieval Germany and Its Neighbours, 900–1250 (London, 1982), 161–90Google Scholar, gives some very good reasons why the social history of the tenth and eleventh centuries in Germany is necessarily also the political history of the nobility. See especially 161–62.

15. Land und Herrschaft, esp. chap. 2, pt. 4, “Der Streit um deutschen Staat des Mittelalters,” 146–64.

16. Wood, , “The Return of Medieval Politics,” American Historical Review 94 (1989): 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar He calls attention to the following works: Baldwin, J. W., The Government of Philip Augustus: Foundations of French Royal Power in the Middle Ages (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1986).Google ScholarGiven-Wilson, C., The Royal Household and the King's Affinity: Service, politics and Finance in England, 1360–1413 (New Haven, 1986).Google ScholarGreen, J. A., The Government of England under Henry 1 (Cambridge, 1986).CrossRefGoogle ScholarJordan, W. C., Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade (Princeton, 1979).Google ScholarLewis, A. W., Royal Succession in Capetian France: Studies on the Familial Order the State (Cambridge, Mass., 1981).Google ScholarStrayer, J. R., The Reign of Philip the Fair (Princeton, 1980).Google ScholarWarren, W. L., The Govermance of Norman and Angevin England 1086–1272 (Stanford, 1987).Google Scholar In addition to the works cited by Wood, Kapelle, W. E., The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and Its Transformation, 1000–1135 (Chapel Hill, 1979)Google Scholar. An example of what German historians would call regional history (Landesgeschichte), Kapelle's monograph takes economic, geographic, and climatological factors into account to explain why Anglo-Normans had so many political and military difficulties in integrating the region north of the Humber into their regnum.

17. Kaminsky and Melton in their translation of “Land” and Lordship call attention to Fernand Braudel's grudging recognition of Brunner's originality. See their introduction, n. 121.

18. In my opinion the best study in this regard is Störmer, W., Früher Adel; Studien zur politischen Führungesschicht im fränkisch-deutschen Reich vom 8. bis 11. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1973)Google Scholar, a work that has not been given the attention that it deserves in this country. In the immediate pre-and postwar eras scholars vigorously debated the question: Who was dominant (king or noble) in this relationship? This question, however, assumes an adversarial relationship, which more recently has been de-emphasized. For the debates between G. Tellenbach, M. Lintzel, and W. Schlesinger over the relationship between the king and the nobility, see Freed, “Reflections” 555–56.

19. Th. Mayer in a seminal study, also first published in 1939, “Die Ausbildung der Grundlagen des modernen deutschen Staates im hohen Mittelalter,” reprinted in Herrschaft und Staat im Mittelalter, Forschung, Wege der, 2 (Darmstadt, 1960), 284–331Google Scholar, coined the term Personenver Bandsstaat, a more exact word than feudalism to describe the type of governance existing in the early Middle Ages. For the Concept of “Aristokratie mit monarchischer Spitze,” see Mitteis, H., “Formen der Adelsherrschaaft im Mittelalter,” as printed in Mitteis, , Die Rechtsidee in der Geschichte (Weimar, 1957), 636–68.Google Scholar Also conceptually important is Werner's, clearly written article, “Bedeutende Adelsfamilien im Reich Karls des Grossen,” in Karl der Grosse, vol. 1: Persönlichkeit und Geschichte, ed. Heumann, H. (Düsseldorf, 1965), 85–142, esp. 86–90.Google Scholar Werner's article has been translated as “Important Noble Families in the Kingdom of Charlesmagne–A Prosopographical Study of the Relationship between King and Nobility in the Early Middle Ages,” The Medieval Nobility: Studies on the Ruling Classes of France and Germany from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century, trans. Reuter, T. (Amsterdam, 1979).Google Scholar

20. Keller, “Staatlichkeit,” 261–62, observes that in most respects Ottonian governance was more “archaic” (i.e., less institutional) than was Carolingian. Although much of the legislation in Charlemagne's capitularies may have been wishful thinking, these sources represent the aspirations of Carolingian rulers for a hierarchical government. For the pretensions of the Carolingians see Werner, , “Hludovicus Augustus: Gouverner I'empire chrétien–Idées et réalités,” in Charlemagne's Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814–840), ed. Godman, P. and Collins, R. (Oxford, 1990), 3–124.Google Scholar

21. See three articles by Fleckenstein, “Adel und Kriegertum und ihre Wandlung im Karolingerreich,” “Zur Frage der Abgrenzung von Bauer und Ritter,” and “Zum Problem der agrarii milites bei Widukind von Corvey,” all reprinted in Ordnungen und formende Kräfte, 287–356. Störmer, W., Früher Adel, chap. 5, “Der Adelige als Krieger,” 157–99.Google ScholarMüller-Mertens, E., Karl der Grosse, Ludwig der Fromme und die Freien (Berlin, 1963).Google Scholar For the military obligations of ecclesiastical lords, see Auer, L., “Der Kriegsdientst des Klerus unter den sächsischen Kaisern,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 79 (1971): 316–407, and 80 (1972): 48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also very important is Werner's discussion of the Indiculus loricatorum of , Otto II, “Heeresorganisation und Kriegführung im deutschen Königreich des 10. und 11. Jahrhunders,” Ordinamenti militari in occidente nell' alto medioevo, Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo, 15, no. 2 (1968)Google Scholar. See Fleckenstein's critique, Ordnungen und formende Kräfte, 298.

22. The question of the social origins of the men who formed the military retinues of Ottonian magnates is still an open one. Leyser, Karl, “Henry I and the Beginning of the Saxon Empire,” in Medieval Germany and Its Neighbours, 11–42Google Scholar, has argued, for example, that the great bulk of them were less fortunate nobiles from rich and important stirpes, “there was scarcely room for more than two or three of its [a stirps'] members to cut a great figure in any generation.” On the other hand, it is impossible to deny the existence of large number of unfree retainers as well, a servile class called ministeriales, which developed eventually into a lesser nobility. The path-breaking work in regard to the ministeriales remains Bosl's, K.Die Reichsministerialität der Salier und Staufer: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des hochmittelalterlichen deutschen Volks, Staates und Reiches, Monuments Germaniae Historica, Schriften, 10 (Stuttgart, 1950–1951)Google Scholar, in which the author employed many of the prosopographical techniques and assumptions now associated with the “new” social history. Also concerning the ministeriales, see Arnold, B., German Knighthood,1050–1300 (Oxford, 1985)Google Scholar, especially his introduction, “Monarchy, Lordship, and Violence in the Medieval German Empire,” 1–22.

23. Brunner ignored the word “feudalism” altogether, Kaminsky and Melton, “Land” and Lordship, note 78 in their introduction. Although all would admit the importance of the autogenous rights of the magnates in Germany and the widespread existence of allodial property, vassalage was not unknown there, and, it might be added, allodial holdings were not at all uncommon in the west. See, for example, Lewis, A. R., The Development of Southern French and Catalan Society (718–1050) (Austin, 1965).Google ScholarFleckenstein, , Early Medieval Germany, trans. Smith, B. S. (Amsterdam, 1978), 88Google Scholar, makes the excellent point that the “feudal system” might more properly be called allodialism. Nevertheless, the adjective feudal and the noun Lehnwesen appear regularly in German historical writing, including Fleckenstein's, “Die Grundlegung der europäischen Einheit,” reprinted in Fleckenstein, Ordnungen und formende Kräfte, 142–43, where he singles out feudalism (Lehnwesen) as one of the most important “general European characteristics” (gesamteuropäische Züge) of the Middle Ages. Fuhrmann, Germany, 33, writes, “The king's power depended largely on the feudal relationship.” See also Keller, Zwischen regionaler Begrenzung, 70. It is certainly difficult to deny that vassalage was at least almost as common in Germany as in France. It might also be noted that “feudalism” (classically defined) never really existed anywhere in medieval Europe. See, for example, Brown, E.A.R., “The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe,” American Historical Review 79 (1974): 1063–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It is fallacious to set up a static definition of feudalism based on the presumption of plenitude of fiefs in France and England and, then, to argue from the evidence of widespread allodial holdings east of the Rhine that medieval Germany was somehow different from its western European neighbours because “classic” feudalism did not exist in the Ottonian Reich, In this regard, see Werner, “Important Noble Families,” 144–45, who has gone so far as to argue that the autogenous rights of the nobility actually originated in Roman Gaul and spread from there to Germania libra, not the other way around as earlier scholars believed. Werner, it is necessary to add, stresses the dependence of the early medieval monarchy on the nobility in both Germany and in France. FOr important literature on feudalism orginating from the former German Democratic Republic, see Müller-Mertens, E., Die Reichsstruktur im Spiegel der Herrschaftspraxis Ottos des Grossen: Mit historiographischen Prolegomena zur Frage Feudalstaat auf deutschem Boden, seit wann deutscher Feudalstaat? (Berlin, 1980)Google Scholar, and Herrmann, J., “Allod und Feudum als Grundlagen des west-und mitteleuropäischen Feudalismus und der feudalen Staatsbildung,” in Beriträge zur Entstehung des Staates, ed. Herrmann, and Sellnow, I. (Berlin, 1973), 164–201.Google Scholar

24. Althoff, , “Konfliktbewältigung” (above, n. 1), and also “Zur Frage nach der Organiusation sächsischer conjurationes in der Ottonenzeit,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 16 (129–42.Google Scholar Also, Keller, Zwischen regionaler Begrenzung, especially his chapter “Königsherrschaft in und über dem Rangstreit der Grossen,” 73–88, and “Grundlagen ottonischer Königsherrschaft,” in Reich und Kirche vor dem Investiturstreit: Vorträge beim wissenschaftlichen Kolloquium aus Anlass des achtzigsten Geburtstages von Gerd Tellenbach, ed. Schmid, K. (Sigmaringen, 1985), 17–34Google Scholar. Although recent scholarship has contributed much to this discussion, Burnner, once again, must be given credit for making the original conceptual breakthroughs, Land und Herrschaft, chap. 1, “Friedeund Fehde,” 1–110.

25. Althoff, “Konfliktbewältigung,” 268.

26. Ibid., 266–27.

27. Ibid., 268.

28. In a stimulating article Reuter, T., “The End of Carolingian Military Expansion,” in Charlemagne's Heir, 405Google Scholar, has linked the necessity of such virtues as “forgiveness and reconciliation” to the end of Carolingian expansion. As the conquests ended, external resources dried up, and it became necessary for monarchs to reward the leaders of warbands with internal resources, resulting in the development of a partnership between the ruler and the nobility.

29. Althoff, “Konfliktbewältigung,” 248–88.

30. Althoff, ibid., 286, does admit, however, that it is only in sources partial to the monarch that we find this “royal patience and readiness to forgive.”

31. ibid., 288.

32. For a stimulating attempt to deal with similar, roughly contemporary, legal developments in France and theri impact on the nobility as reflected in medieval French literature, see Bloch, R. Howard, Medieval French Literature and Law (Berkely, Los Angeles, London, 1977).Google Scholar

33. For the basis of these views, see Ficker, J., Über das Eigenthum des Reichs am Reichskirchengute, Sitzungsberichte der philosphisch-Historischen Class der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wisenschaften, 72 (Vienna, 1872), 55–146, 381–450.Google ScholarWaitz, G., Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, 7 (Kiel, 1876): 183–301.Google ScholarStutz, U., Die Eigenkirche als Element des mittelalterlich-germanischen Kirchenrechts (Berlin, 1895).Google ScholarHoltzmann, R., Geschichte der sächsischen Kaiserzeit (Munich, 1941), 175–84.Google Scholar For a summary of the historiography until 1968, see Köhler, O., “Die Ottonische Reichskirche:Ein Forschungsbericht,” Adel und Kirche: Gerd Tellenbach zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Fleckenstein, J. and Schmid, K. (Freiburg, 1968), 141–204.Google Scholar For an excellent article that generally defands the traditional view, but points out the difficulties with it (as of 1974) see Fleckenstein, “Zum Begriff der ottonisch-salischen Reichskirche,” Ordnungen und formende Kräfte, 211–22. For a stimulating recent challenge to the traditional view, see Reuter, , “The ‘Imperial Church System’ of the Ottonian and Salian Rulers: A Reconsideration,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 33 (1982): 347–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Schieffer, “Reichsepiskopat,” 292–93.

35. For the duties of imperial bishops in providing logistical support for an itinerant court, see Brühl's, C. thorough study, Fodrum Gistum, Servitium regis: Studien zu den wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen des Könightums im Frankenreich und in den fräkischen Nachfolgestaaten Deutschland, Frankreich und Italien vom 6. bis zur Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts (Cologne and Graz, 1968), especially for Germany, 116–219.Google Scholar Also Metz, W., “Quellenstudien zum Servitium regis (900–1250),” Archiv für Diplomatik 22 (1976): 187–271; 24 (1978): 203–91; and 31 (1985): 273–326.Google Scholar For their military role, see Auer, , “Kriegsdienst des Klerus,” and Prinz, F., Klerus und Krieg im früheren Mittelalter: Untersuchungen zur Rolle der Kirche beim Aufbau der Königsherrschaft (Stuttgart, 1971).Google Scholar

36. The most important book on this subject remains Fleckenstein, , Die Hofkapelle der deutschen Könige, vol. 2: Die Hofkapelle ins Rahmen der ottonisch-salischen Reichskirche, Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica, 16/2 (Stuttgart, 1966).Google Scholar

37. Keller, “Grundlagen ottonischer Königsherrschaft,” 26.

38. Engels, O., “Der Reichsbischof (10.-11. Jahrhundert),” in Der Bischof in seiner Zeit: Bischofstypus und Bischofstypus und Bischofsideal im Spiegel der Kölner Kirche: Festgabe für Joseph Kardinal Höffner, ed. Bergiar, P. and Engels, (Cologne, 1986), 41–94, especially 42;Google ScholarTellenbach, , “Die westliche Kirche vom 10. bis zum frühen 12. Jahrhundert,” in Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte, 2/1 (Göttingen, 1988), 43–46.Google Scholar Fleckenstein, “Problematik und Gestalt der ottonisch-salischen Reichskirche,” in Reich und Kirche, 92, insists that Ottonian patronage represented “a quantitative difference that developed into a qualitative one.” Cf. Reuter, “Imperial Church System,” 366–70. Most bishops came as a matter of fact from the highest circles in Ottonian-Salian society, Störmer, Früher Adel, especially his section on “Adelsbischof,” 312–56. Valuable comparative material from the West Frankish (French) kingdom has been assembled by Kaiser, R., Bischofsherrschaft zwischen Königtum und Fürstenmacht: Studien zur bischöflichen Stadtherrschaft im westfränkisch-französischen Reich im frühen und hohen Mittelalter, Pariser Historische Studien, 17 (Bonn, 1981).Google Scholar

39. Leyser, “Ottonian Government,” in Medieval Germany and Its Neighbors, 81, comments that the traditional view, as it was developed by Mitteis and Holtzmann, “has not been shaken or altered” on one point, namely that after the round of rebellions in 953–954, Otto I “deliberately and purposefully enhanced [the church] in rights, riches and powers and made [it] occupy the place in government which the fluctuating loyalties of dukes and counts, including members of the stirps regia, could not be trusted to fill reliably.” Leyser added, however, “Yet this shift too was much slower and much less deliberate than is sometimes assumed.” It was much slower indeed. Schieffer, “Reichsepiskopat,” 296, observes that “not even in the reign of Henry II did former royal chaplains dominate the Reichsepiscopat.” Even more importantly, he points out that while some bishops enjoyed easy access to the king (Königsnähe), others were kept at a distance (Königsferne). Moreover, he also demonstrates, 296, nn. 28–29, (in opposition to the traditional view, Holtzmann, Robert, Sächsische Kaiserzeit, 181)Google Scholar that monarchs had to respect local interests in the appointment of bishops. See also, Zielinski, , Der Reichsepikopat in spätottonischer und salischer Zeit (1002–1125) (Stuttgart, 1984), 64, 104–5Google Scholar. Brühl's study of the royal iter, in Servitium regis also shows that monarchs oniy slowly began to forsake the royal palatia for the episcopal civitates during the course of the eleventh century, the major turning point coming late in the reign of Henry II.

40. Schieffer, “Reichsepiskopat,” 301, puts it very pointedly, “The ruler established his uncontested supremacy over the church with the nobles and not against them. One can see in this a system if one chooses.”

41. Universalstaat oder Nationalstaat, (above, n. 2), 12.

42. Fleckenstein, “Über die Anfänge der deutschen Gescbichte,” Ordnungen und formende Kräfte, 166. This article, which was first published in 1987, demonstrates the continuing propensity of modem German historians to accept the kleindeutsch settlement of 1871, for he writes of the “German folk” (deutsche Volk), existing today in “two states” (zwei Staaten), apparently overlooking Austria and German-speaking Switzerland, which were a part of das deutsche Reich (if it existed) in the Middle Ages. It would be interesting to know if Fleckenstein's article was in any way a response to Erdmann's, K. D. “Drei Staaten–zwei Nationen–ein Volk? Überlegungen zu einer deutschen Geschichte seit der Teilung,” Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 35 (1985): 675–83Google Scholar, which stimulated much discussion. Fleckenstein certainly makes no reference to this piece in his notes. However, we may presume that he and his audience were familiar with it.

43. Brühl, Die Anfänge der deutschen Geschichte, esp. 152, where he asserts, “Germany and France are twin brothers.” Unfortunately the only argument that he makes to establish this sibling relationship is that Germany and France “emerged simultaneously from the dissolution of the Carolingian empire.” As Fleckenstein has observed, however, ibid., 163, “the dissolution [of the Carolingian empire] demonstrably did not occur at the same time everywhere.” In this regard, see Hlawitschka, E., Lotharingen und das Reich an der Schwelle der deutschen Geschichte, Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historia, 21 (1968), 139–45.Google Scholar

44. Under the influence of Wenskus, Reinhard, Stammsbildung und Verfassung: Das Werden der frühmittelalterlichen gentes, 2d ed. (Cologne, 1972)Google Scholar, research in German-speaking countries into ethnicity and nationality during the Middle Ages is currently making major breakthroughs. See, for example, Wolfram, H., Geschichte der Goten: Von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts: Entwurf einer historischen Ethnographie, 2d ed. (Munich, 1979)Google Scholar, now available in English translation, History of the Goths, trans. Dunlap, T. J. (revised from 2d ed., Berkely and Los Angeles, 1987).Google Scholar Most noteworthy is the publication of collected papers by various scholars on the topic of ethnicity and nationality under the general editorship of Beumann, H. and Schröder, W.: Nationes: Historische und philologische Untersuchungen zur Entstehung der europäischen Nationen im Mittelalter, 8 vols. (Sigmariangen, 1975–1989).Google Scholar

45. Ehlers, “Schriftkultur, Ethnogenese und Nationsbildung,” 308–9.

46. Ehlers, , “Die deutsche Nation des Mittelalters als Gegenstand der Forschung,” Ansätze und Diskontinuität deutscher Nationsbildung im Mittealter, ed. Ehlers, , Nationes, 8 (1989), 11–58, esp. 46–52.Google Scholar This point is also stressed by Störmer, Früher Adel, 155–56, who brings it into the context of an imperial court with an aristocratic retinue constantly on the move. Scholars such as Brühl, Servitium Regis, and Müller-Mertens, Reichsstruktur, have dealt with the problems of itinerant kingship (Reisekönigtum). Störmer's contribution has been to demonstrate the extent to which the noble was also caught up in this perpetual-motion machine.

47. Ehlers, “Schriftkultur, Ethnogenese und Nationsbildung,” 315. Störmer, ibid., 292–94, uses the example of the counts of Andechs, to show how geographically wide-ranging the interests of a noble family in the eleventh and twelfth centuries could become.

48. Ehlers, 317.

49. ibid., 309–10. Müfler-Mertens, Die Reichsstruktur, uses charters and royal itineraries to illustrate the types of bargains that Otto the Great had to make with the Adel of the various gentes of the empire.

50. Müller-Mertens, , Regnum Teutonicum; Aufkommen und Verbreitung der deutschen Reichs- und Königsauffassung im früheren Mittelalter (Vienna, Cologne, Graz, 1970).Google ScholarBeumann, reviewed this book, “Regnum Teutonicum und rex Teutonicorum in ottonischer und salischer Zeit: Bemerkungen zu einem Buch von Eckhard Müller-Mertens,” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 55; 215–23Google Scholar, reprinted in Beumann, , Ausgewählte Aufsätze aus den Jahren 1966–1986; Festgabe zu seinem 75. Geburtstag (Sigmaringen, 1987), 115–24.Google Scholar Also see Beumann, “Die Bedeutung des Kaisertums für die Entstehung der deutschen Nation im Spiegel der Bezeichnungen von Reich und Herrscher,” also reprinted in Ausgewählte Aufsätze, 66–114.

51. Wolfram, Intitulatio I: Latinische Königs- und Fürstentitel bis zum Ende des achten des achten Jahrhunderts, Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, supp. 21, 1968, and with Burnner, Intitulatio II: Latinische Herrscher- und Fürstentitel im neunten und zehnten Jahrhundert, Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, supp. 24, 1973.

52. Beumann, “Kaiserturm und deutsche Nation,” in Ausgewählte Aufsätze, 77, 88, and 111.

53. Müller-Mertens, Regnum Teutonicum, 382.

54. Keller, Zwischen regionaler Begrenzung, 105–6.

55. Stömer, Früher Adel, 83–84, 156, 189, 254, 287, 296, 299, 323, 348, 353, 355–64, 454, 467, 403–502, 511.

56. Keller, Zwischen regionaler Begrenzung, 106.

57. Wood, “Return of Medieval Politics,” 393, points Out how Joseph R. Strayer (not a specialist in medieval Germany) instinctively understood the point that current German medievalists are making when he revised Munro's textbook, The Middle Ages 395–1500, 4th ed. (New York, 1959), 153.Google Scholar “Munro,” writes Wood, “had lamented the consequences of the Italian dreams of Otto I and his successors.” Strayer, however, added to his revised edition, “But looking at the matter from the viewpoint of the tenth century, it is hard to see how Otto could have acted otherwise. No one then believed that the development of national states was the chief end of man.”

58. Haverkamp, Medieval Germany, 350.

59. Leyser, “Ottonian Government,” 80. In this respect keller's statement, “Staatlichkeit,” 162, that “Ottonian governance was much more archaic than Carolingian” is very much to the point. The emphasis is keller's.

60. Keutgen, F., Der deutsche Staat des Mittelalters (Jena, 1918).Google Scholarvon Below, G., Der deutsche Staat des Mittelalters, vol. 1, 2d ed. (Leipzig, 1925).Google ScholarWaas, A., Herrschaft und Staat im deutschen Frühmittelalter (Berlin, 1938)Google Scholar. Brunner, Land und Herrschaft, must ultimately be given credit for framing the issues in such a way that the debate could be resolved.

61. For a provocative analysis of power that is not bound to anachronistic definitions of states, see Mann, M., The Sources of Social Power, vol. 1: A History of Power from the Beginnings to A.D. 1760 (Cambridge, 1986), 1–33.Google Scholar