The depiction and practice of kingship in England and Germany in the Twelfth Century

Kingship was the central political idea of western societies in the High Middle Ages. At the core of the workings of justice, law, administrative and military affairs, it was a defining element in the construction of nationhood and a prism for understanding divine order. The great majority of scholarship on medieval kingship, however, has been undertaken primarily within a national framework, reflecting an older historiographical tradition concerned with tracing the emergence of nation states and their institutions. Only recently has the potential of comparative studies been appreciated, but as yet these remain limited. This research project will examine the depiction and function of kingship across England and Germany during the twelfth century. By looking at how writers in both countries thought about kingship and individual kings, it asks how the relationship between kingship and ideas of community was perceived, and how such ideas were transmitted across different works and applied by both these authors and by kings themselves. How porous was the flow of political ideas across Western Christendom? How were ideas about rulership transmitted across geographical and textual boundaries? What was the practical impact of such ideas, and what influence did they have on political narratives?
The historiographical traditions of Germany and England, and the nature of the sources, have worked against comparison. Despite the work of Karl Leyser and Timothy Reuter, the assumption persists that Germany and England were fundamentally different. The amount and variety of evidence the twelfth century brings, makes it especially easy for our analysis to remain within national boundaries. German historians traditionally focused more on narratives, their English counterparts looking to their own copious diplomatic evidence. Comparative methods, common for the Early Middle Ages, have rarely been applied to the twelfth century. Whilst English historians have traced the development of the Common Law, Parliament and English identity, German historians have asked instead why such unity did not emerge in Germany. This project will test my hypothesis that German and English kingship were more similar than they now appear in the secondary literature, this being a consequence of how different historiographical traditions have exaggerated, and applied value-judgements to the differences in the source material.
My approach draws upon Sverre Bagge's work and my previous research on the Brut tradition, a series of narratives describing the history of Britain begun by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Bagge's approach examined how narratives express their author's perceptions of political behaviour. To address criticisms that such authors may not be representative, I will adopt a comparative method similar to my previous research which examined how depictions of King Arthur varied within one textual tradition. If ideas about kingship can be analysed across different types of documents from a variety of authors, this informs us about their prevalence across a wider society. This research project will consider more widely how far authors thought a sense of community underpinned the practice of kingship and how far kings were required to embody the identity of their subjects. It will question both how far individual kings were aware of such perceptions, and whether cultivating these contributed towards their success. Contrasting perceptions across different genres will be crucial. Building on my current research on Otto of Freising, I will contrast his perspective with that of his continuator, Rahewin, and that of less favourable Italian chroniclers. When turning to England, I will draw upon my experience with the historical and Romance material. My previous research engaged with variants of the Brut tradition, where the various texts and the modifications across their manuscript traditions offer an excellent foundation for a comparative project.