CHAPTER ONE

LAY OF THE LAND

Although the prince-bishop and the cathedral chapter were Catholic and favored the Catholic cause, the Prince-Bishopric of was also an aristocratic republic. Families of nobles monopolized the most important ecclesiastical and secular offi ces. Th e nobility from which the canons and the regional governors came was the master of this ecclesiastical principality. Nobles tied their advocacy for the Catholic Church to their own interests, with patronage as a top priority. Together, the prince-bishop and the cathedral chapter appointed their relatives to secular administrative positions, even if they were Protestant. Centuries before the Reformation, nobles did not control Bamberg, and it was not an aristocratic republic. Aristocratic control developed slowly from Bamberg’s origins as a center of royal power beginning in 1007 and then through its close association with the ducal lineage of the Andechs-Meranier from 1177 through 1248. Th ereaft er, Bamberg lost its status as a seat of royal and princely power to become domi- nated by a group of nobles. Th e cathedral chapter is important for understanding the preeminence of the nobles over Bamberg. It elected the prince-bishops and decided whom to coopt into its ranks. Th e chapter’s selection of its own members and increasingly strict lineage requirements for offi ce helped the nobles maintain their dominance in Bamberg. By excluding outsiders, the cathedral chapter provided opportunity for relatives of members. Th us, admittance into the chap- ter was not an indication of a religious calling but of family connec- tions, and from 1399 to 1556 twenty-two local families dominated Bamberg. Aft er 1522, no titled nobles were elected prince-bishop, and as the sixteenth century progressed only imperial knights were accepted into the cathedral chapter. Patronage also dominated the selection of offi ceholders in the prince-bishopric. Nobles wanted to serve as offi cials because these positions brought with them fi nancial compensation, entrance into an elite circle, and prestige. Nepotism was a positive thing in Bamberg where relatives were seen as dependable helpers: they provided many 20 chapter one useful services to the prince-bishopric, such as money lending, skill in government, and fi ghting ability. In turn, these relatives jealously guarded their prerogatives in Bamberg. Th e nobles who ran Bamberg also participated in the larger movement of imperial knighthood, which made them clients of the emperor, enhancing their dominance of the prince-bishopric and allowing them to exclude princes from its rule.

In 1007, Emperor Henry II founded Bamberg as a center of royal power in Upper at the crossroads of the empire between , , and the Rhine- region. With this foundation, Henry sought to create a centrally located royal residence in his realm that, in the words of the contemporary poet Gerhard von Seon, was to be similar to Rome.1 Henry II chose Bamberg to be the seat of his new bishopric, which at that time was not much more than a castle, granting it territories as far southeast as Carinthia in Austria.2 In an eff ort to make Bamberg a new Rome, the emperor undertook a massive building project, beginning construction on the cathedral and the churches of Saint Stephan and Saint Michael. Unfortunately for Bamberg, Henry II died in 1024, the last of the Ottonians. With his death, power passed to the next royal dynasty, the Salians, leaving Henry’s plans for Bamberg unfulfi lled. Although no longer a center of royal power, Bamberg remained an important ecclesiastical principality in Franconia, which was dominated from 1135 to 1248 by the Andechs-Meranier.3 Because very few real nobles existed in the Holy Roman Empire dur- ing the High Middle Ages, what few nobles there were, including the Andechs-Meranier, needed dependents. Th us, they took people into their households to serve them who were willing to take on an unfree status.4 Th e servile status of these servants, known as ministerials, is illustrated most clearly by the fact that they could not marry without the permission of their lord. Th eir lord also had a voice in the fates of

1 Weinfurter, “Zentralisierung der Herrschaft sgewalt,” 278, 286. For Gerhard von Seon’s poem, see Jaff e, Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum, 5: 482–83. 2 Störmer, “Heinrichs II.” 3 Meyer, Oberfranken im Hochmittelalter, 136–69. More recently, see Pfl efk a, Das Bistum Bamberg. 4 Th e historian Karl Bosl attempted to describe such unfree status with the term “noble unfreedom.” Bosl, “Noble Unfreedom.”