Salian church robbery
In 985, Duke Otto , who came from the Salier family, acquired possession of the Weißenburg monastery in various places on the Upper and Middle Rhine . This process went down in history under the title Salian church robbery, even if it was actually less a "robbery" than a reallocation of property approved by the emperor and the ruling elite of the empire .
Historical context
In the background of the so-called Salian church robbery, Duke Otto had to cede the Duchy of Carinthia in 985 in favor of Heinrich Luitpolding (but kept the dux title as "Duke of Worms"). In exchange for this, he received various possessions in his ancestral home, in Wormsgau , as well as on the Middle and Upper Rhine in general. Above all, the Weissenburg Imperial Monastery had to pay for it (although it was by no means involved in the disputes of the imperial politics of the time). This process probably took place in such a way that the monastery was forced to give part of its property to Otto I as a fief . What, from the point of view of the high nobility, was only a redistribution of imperial property and in any case happened with the consent or even by order of the imperial guardianship government (Emperor Otto III was still a child at the time), from the perspective of the monastery understandably appeared as a robbery.
The annals of the Weißenburg monastery record for the year 985 that Duke Otto I invaded Weißenburg by force and had "distributed villages": "Otto dux, filius Cuonradis ducis, istud cenobium, id est Wicenburg, vi invasit, loca distribuit" . At the end of the 13th century, when the Weißenburg monastery had already lost a large part of its possessions, the then incumbent abbot Edelin had a list of the remaining possessions created (called “ Codex Edelini ” or “Liber possessionum Wizenburgensis”; today stored in the Speyer State Archives ). It also lists the property lost in 985, apparently in the expectation of regaining it (in the preface to that Codex, Abbot Edelin expressed the expectation: “If outsiders have knowledge of our properties, they will no longer dare to give them without great conscience occupy and those who have such against all law and justice can now use this directory to make sure that they are finally going to think about their salvation and recognize the property rights of our monastery ” ). This wish of the abbot was of course not fulfilled - the property, which had been alienated from the monastery in 985, never returned as property to the Weissenburg monks.
The process, which can actually be dated to the year 985, is incorrectly referred to the year 991 in the Codex Edelini and is literally referred to as "oppressio" (suppression, coercion). The full text of this note reads:
Scope of the "church robbery"
|
Imperatore Ottone II nature inexcusabile ius solvente filius eius Otto adhuc infantulus propter virium inpotentiam a multis negligebatur et a regno privari dicitabatur. Qua fiducia plures illegi partes regni sibi quisque pro viribus usurpabant; inter quos etiam Otto dux, filius Cuonradis ducis, Wizenburgensem abbatiam dominio suo subiungavit hostili oppressione; et beneficia militum eiusdem loci fratrumque deputata necessariis fautoribus suis distribuit, illicita praesumptione, que notata sunt in hac subscriptione: |
After Emperor Otto II died, his son Otto, who was still a small child, was despised by many because of his weakness and was supposed to be robbed of the empire. In this belief, many parts of the empire were seized, including Duke Otto, the son of Duke Conrad, who subjugated Weissenburg Abbey to his rule through hostile suppression. The fiefs of the monastery servants and what was intended for the maintenance of the monks, he distributed to his followers with illegitimately assumed authority. These goods are as follows: |
Several of the places mentioned here refer to this list written down in the 13th century as the oldest documentary evidence of their existence.
Kaspar Brusch stated in 1551 that Duke Otto had conquered, destroyed and burned the monastery in 985 and that Abbot Sanderadus had been forcibly expelled and replaced by Abbot Gisillarius: “ Accidit sub huius (sc. Sanderadi) gubernatione ut Dux quidam Otho, Conradi Ducis filius, coenobium Weissenburgense invaderet, diriperet & exureret anno 985 & Abbate Sanderado expulso Gisillarium quendam Monasterio tandem præficeret “ . Johann Friedrich Schannat also reported in 1723: " sub ipso (sc. Sanderado) quidam Dux Otto Monasterium Weissenburgense incendio delevit Anno DCCCCLXXXV ". Whether it really came to such violent incidents in the monastery, however, seems to be questionable, possibly these are exaggerations from later times.
literature
- Hermann Graf: Was the Salian Count Otto von Worms, Duke of Carinthia, taking advantage of the weakness of the imperial government, a ripper of imperial land and a robber of church property? In: Blätter für Pfalzische Kirchengeschichte 28 (1961), pp. 45–60.
- Jean Rheinwald: L'abbaye et la ville de Wissembourg. Avec quelques châteaux-forts de la basse Alsace et du Palatinat. Monograph historique . Wentzel, Wissembourg 1863 (reprint: Res Universis, Paris 1992).
- Hansmartin Schwarzmaier : Duke Otto von Worms, the "church robber" . In: ders .: From Speyer to Rome: Stations on the way and traces of life of the Salians. Sigmaringen, 1991, pp. 28-37.
supporting documents
- ^ Annales Weissenburgenses . In: Georg Heinrich Pertz u. a. (Ed.): Scriptores (in Folio) 3: Annales, chronica et historiae aevi Saxonici. Hanover 1839, pp. 33–72 ( Monumenta Germaniae Historica , digitalisat ), here p. 70. Also in: Oswald Holder-Egger (ed.): Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi 38: Lamperti monachi Hersfeldensis Opera. Appendix: Annales Weissenburgenses. Hannover 1894, pp. 9–57 ( Monumenta Germaniae Historica , digitized version ), here p. 47.
- ↑ Kaspar Brusch : Monasteriorum Germaniae praecipuorum ac maxime illustrium centuria prima , Ingolstadt 1551, fol. 6a, Google Books
- ^ Johann Friedrich Schannat : Vindemiae literariae , Fulda and Leipzig 1723, p. 8, Google Books