Imperial Villages: Cultures of Political Freedom in the German Lands c. 1300-1800 9789004396609, 9004396608

Citation preview

Imperial Villages

Studies in Central European Histories Founding Editors Thomas A. Brady and Roger Chickering Edited by David M. Luebke (University of Oregon) Celia Applegate (Vanderbilt University) Editorial Board Steven Beller (Washington, D.C.) Marc R. Forster (Connecticut College) Atina Grossmann (Columbia University) Peter Hayes (Northwestern University) Susan Karant-Nunn (University of Arizona) Mary Lindemann (University of Miami) H.C. Erik Midelfort (University of Virginia) David Sabean (University of California, Los Angeles) Jonathan Sperber (University of Missouri) Jan de Vries (University of California, Berkeley)

VOLUME 65

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/sceh

Imperial Villages Cultures of Political Freedom in the German Lands c. 1300–1800 By

Beat Kümin

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Coat of arms featuring an eagle and crenellated wall granted to the imperial village of Gochsheim in a charter of 1568. Gemeindearchiv, GO-ZM25002-UI/1-(021). Reproduced with kind permission of the communal archivist. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Kümin, Beat A., author. Title: Imperial villages : cultures of political freedom in the German lands,  c. 1300–1800 / by Beat Kümin. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2019] | Series: Studies in Central  European histories, ISSN 1547-1217 ; volume 65 | Includes bibliographical  references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019003839 (print) | LCCN 2019012878 (ebook) |  ISBN 9789004396609 (E-book) | ISBN 9789004345065 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Holy Roman Empire—Administrative and political divisions. |  Holy Roman Empire—Politics and government. | Central-local government  relations—Holy Roman Empmire. | Decentralization in government—  Holy Roman Empire. | Political culture—Holy Roman Empire. |  Country life—Holy Roman Empire. Classification: LCC JN3249 (ebook) | LCC JN3249 .K95 2019 (print) |  DDC 320.80943—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019003839

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1547-1217 ISBN 978-90-04-34506-5 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-39660-9 (e-book) Copyright 2019 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Dedicated to the Memory of Peter Blickle

∵

Contents Preface ix Notes on the Text x List of Figures and Acknowledgements xi Abbreviations xV

Part 1 Approaches 1 Polities without a Prince: an Introduction 3 2 Origins, Evolutions and Settings 17

Part 2 Regimes 3 Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict 49 4 External Relations: Protectors and Predators 83 5 Religious Life: Heaven and Earth 119

Part 3 Perspectives 6 Representations and Perceptions 157 7 Conclusions 199 Appendix 1: Communities Possessing, Claiming or Attributed Imperial Village Status (Pre-1803) 209 Appendix 2: Senior Officials and Clergymen in Five Imperial Villages c. 1300–1800 223 Bibliography 237 Index 266

Preface Looking for micro-laboratories of popular political and religious agency in premodern Europe, the parish republic of Gersau on Lake Lucerne soon emerged as an ideal starting-point. Archival work on its records was facilitated by a Small Research Grant from the British Academy (2011–13). A Senior Fellowship at the Alfried Krupp Wissenschaftskolleg in Greifswald (2012–13) then allowed a broadening of horizons to “free” villages throughout the Holy Roman Empire, while an invitation to serve as Guest Professor at the University of Konstanz in 2015 provided a congenial environment for conceptual reflection, a process also greatly advanced by the participants in two dedicated workshops at Gersau (in 2012 and 2014) as well as the audiences of conference/seminar presentations at Aberdeen, Bielefeld, Göttingen, Greifswald, Konstanz, London, Los Angeles, Manchester, Odense, Oxford, Tübingen, Växjö and Vienna. I am indebted to all funding bodies, academic hosts, the University of Warwick (for a period of study leave to complete the typescript) and the copyright holders (for granting permission to reproduce items from their holdings in this book). Particular thanks go to the District Council of Gersau (headed by Bezirksammann Adrian Nigg-Arnold) for its enthusiastic backing of numerous project-related initiatives – especially the year-long commemorative celebrations of “Gersau 1814–2014” – and several exceptionally helpful archivists: Marzell Camenzind (Gersau), Dr  Roman Fischer/Corinna Herrmann (Frankfurt), Dr Elmar Geus/Walfried Hein (Gochsheim), Marc Nördinger (Bad Soden am Taunus) as well as the staff at the state archives of Lucerne, Schwyz, Wiesbaden, Würzburg and the research libraries of Greifswald, Konstanz and Oxford. Alongside, I would like to acknowledge the help of Michael Geisler (Schwalbach), Albert Müller (Zug) and Klaus Belzer/Joachim Siebenhaar (Geschichtsverein Reichsdorf Sulzbach) at various points during my research. Lukas Kümin ably assisted with the indexing. Finally, I am grateful to the coeditors of ‘Studies in Central European Histories’ for accepting the proposal and Wendel Scholma / Kim Fiona Plas at Brill Publishers for seeing it through to publication. This book is dedicated to the memory of Peter Blickle†, the inspiring academic teacher and researcher who transformed local community studies.

Notes on the Text Unless otherwise stated, dates are given in the New Style. First and place names appear (as far as possible) in Anglicized versions with standardized spelling. German quotes from primary and secondary sources have been translated into modern English by the author. All world wide web addresses were last accessed on 30 January 2019.

Figures and Acknowledgements Unless otherwise stated, photographs have been taken by the author. 1

2

3

4

5 6

7

8

9

Map of the Schweinfurt region from Johann Kaspar Bundschuh, Beschreibung der Reichsstadt Schweinfurt. Ulm: Stettische Buchhandlung, 1802, appendix. Reproduced with kind permission from www. schweinfurtfuehrer.de 7 Location of case studies within the wider topography of rural autonomy in the Holy Roman Empire, superimposed on a public domain map of early modern Central Europe from the Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd at the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection, University of Texas 20 Emperor conveying a charter; woodcut in Ulrich Tengler, Layen Spiegel, Von rechtmässigen ordnungen in Burgerlichen vnd peinlichen regimenten. Augsburg, 1509, J iii, f. 73r, taken from the VD16 digital library of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/ bsb00002001/image_151, available under Creative Commons 24 Depiction of an avoyer and juror in Reinhard Wegelin, GründlichHistorischer Bericht von der kayserlichen und Reichs Landvogtey in Schwaben, 2 parts. Ulm, 1755, title page. Reproduced from the electronic copy of the Münchner Digitalisierungszentrum under Europeana user guidelines 25 Gochsheim village center 35 a–b: Village gate and Frankfurter Hof from GRS, Ackerbuch über des Hochlöbl: Kornambts = Geländ zu Sultzbach (1721), f. 199v and 64r. Reproduced with kind permission of the Geschichtsverein Reichsdorf Sulzbach 1979 e.V 38 Confirmation of Gersau’s privileges by emperor Sigismund (1433). BAG, Urkunden, no. 8. Reproduced with kind permission of Gersau District Council 40 a: Sign of Agnes Petermann, sentenced to life banishment at Sulzbach in 1701. Frankfurt, Institut für Stadtgeschichte, Criminalia, 2.285; b: Depiction of Veronica Müller murdering her husband in Johann Leopold Cysat, Beschreibung dess berühmbten Lucerner- oder 4. Waldstaetten Sees. Lucerne: David Hautten, 1661, illustration “P” between pp. 110–11. Reproduced from ETH-Bibliothek Zürich, Rar 2994, http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/ e-rara-16695; Public Domain 44 a–d: Summary diagrams of communal constitutions in five imperial villages 50–51

xii 10 11 12

13

14 15

16 17

18

19 20 21

22

23

Figures and Acknowledgements Key constitutional features in five imperial villages 56 a–b: Summary diagrams of contrasting constitutional developments in three imperial villages at the end of the Ancien Régime 57 Copies of imperial privileges in the work book of Soden carpenter Johann Heinrich Reiff (1703–). Extract from SABS, VI, 1, 59, unpaginated. Reproduced with kind permission of the Stadtarchiv Bad Soden am Taunus 69 Gersau village officials and family crests from BAG, RB 4: Ratserkanntnusbuch (1780–94), frontispiece. Reproduced with kind permission of Gersau District Council 71 a–b: Haus Fontana and Schlosserhaus at Gersau 73 Standard bearer of the Gersau militia from BAG, LB 6: Kleines Landbuch (1605–), 15. Colored drawing reproduced with kind permission of Gersau District Council 98 Glass panel donated to Gersau’s St Mary Helper chapel by the boatmen association of Uri (1709) 100 Die Reichsfreyheit der Gerichte und Gemeinen Sultzbach und Soden gegen die neuerliche Chur-Mayntz- und Franckfurtische Vogtey und Schutz-Herrliche Eingriffe erwiesen und vertheidigt. [No place], 1753, title page: SUB Göttingen: 2 DEDUCT S 433/a; reproduced with kind permission 108 a: Chapel of Soden from GRS, Ackerbuch (1721), f. 171r. Reproduced with kind permission of the Geschichtsverein Reichsdorf Sulzbach 1979 e.V; b: Prospect of the parish church of Sulzbach from HHStAW, Abt. 4, Nr. 487, f. 1r. Reproduced with kind permission of the Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Wiesbaden 124 a–b: Parish church pulpit and oriel window of the Apostelhaus at Gochsheim 126 Panel paintings by Konrad Jäger in the parish church of Sulzbach 127 a: St Joseph’s chapel on Gersau’s Käppeliberg; b: Kindlimord depicted in Johann Leopold Cysat, Beschreibung dess berühmbten Lucerner- oder 4. Waldstaetten Sees. Lucerne: David Hautten, 1661, illustration “q” between pp. 110–11. Reproduced from ETH-Bibliothek Zürich, Rar 2994, http://dx.doi .org/10.3931/e-rara-16695; Public Domain 134 Portrait painting of Marzell Alois Nigg (d. 1812), parson of Gersau, in the Rathaus. Oil painting in the village hall reproduced with kind permission of Gersau District Council 142 a: Extract from a petition of Sennfeld to the Prince-Bishop of Würzburg (1609): StAW, Hochstift Würzburg, Geistliche Sachen, no. 2308. Reproduced with kind permission of the Staatsarchiv Würzburg; b: The parsonage at Gochsheim erected in 1711 152

Figures and Acknowledgements

xiii

24

a: The first words of Gersau’s tower ball document of 1655: PAG, TurmkugelDokumente. Reproduced with kind permission of Gersau District Council; b: Signature of Johann Adam Löschhorn: GRS, Löschhorn Tagebuch (1738–), title-page. Reproduced with kind permission of the Geschichtsverein Reichsdorf Sulzbach 1979 e.V 165 25 a: St Marcellus seal affixed to BAG, Urkunden, no. 9 (1436). Reproduced with kind permission by Gersau District Council; b: Seal of the free court of Sulzbach: ISF, Holzhausen-Archiv, Urkunden II Nr. 145 (1512). Reproduced with kind permission by Institut für Stadtgeschichte, Frankfurt; c: Charter of Frederick III granting Gochsheim a coat of arms in 1568: GAG. GOZM25002-UI/1-(021). Reproduced with kind permission of the communal archivist 170 26 Village center of (Burg-)Holzhausen in Hesse 172 27 a: Martin Obersteg, “Judgement of Solomon” (1794): oil painting in the Rathaus of Gersau. Photograph by Roger Bürgler reproduced with kind permission of Gersau District Council; b: Martin Obersteg, “Purchase of Political Freedom” (1794): oil painting in the Rathaus of Gersau. Reproduced with kind permission of Gersau District Council 174 28 a: Ratskrug of Gochsheim from 1713. Faience jug with tin lid: Schweinfurt, Museum Altes Gymnasium, inventory no. 305 A. Reproduced with kind permission; b: Schwebheimer gate at Gochsheim 177 29 a: Gersau’s first coat of arms in the small landbook of 1605: BAG, LB 6, 13. Reproduced with kind permission of Gersau District Council; b: Gersau’s revised coat of arms in the great land book of 1792: BAG, LB 5, title-page. Reproduced with kind permission of Gersau District Council 191 30 Slogan sprayed on a wall at Bad Soden train station (2013) 196 31 Damian Rigert, “Prospect of Gersau” (watercolor drawing, 1813). Reproduced with kind permission of Gersau District Council 207



Appendix 2

a

Oil painting of Johann Caspar Camenzind (d. 1831) in BAG. Reproduced with kind permission of Gersau District Council 226 Signature of Alois Nigg on a Helvetic Republic questionnaire (1799): StAS, Archiv 1, Akten 1, 582.019, no. 180v. Reproduced with kind permission of the Staatsarchiv Schwyz 226 Portrait painting of Maria Anna Camenzind (d. 1835) in the Rathaus of Gersau. Reproduced with kind permission of Gersau District Council 226

b

c

xiv d–e f

g

Figures and Acknowledgements Stone inscriptions at Gochsheim parish church 228 Stone inscription on Sennfeld’s churchyard wall. Reproduced with kind permission of Longin Mößlein (Gerolzhofen) and the digital collection of monuments on http://geodaten.bayern.de/denkmal_static_data/externe_ denkmalliste/html/678_lk.html 230 Signature of Sulzbach’s Oberschultheiß Simplicius Benedictus Erstenberger in GRS, Ackerbuch (1721), f. 219v. Reproduced with kind permission of the Geschichtsverein Reichsdorf Sulzbach 1979 e.V 236

Abbreviations BAG Bezirksarchiv Gersau EAF Erzbischöfliches Archiv, Freiburg i. Br. f. florins/Gulden GAG Gemeindearchiv Gochsheim GRS Geschichtsverein Reichsdorf Sulzbach HHStAW Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Wiesbaden ISF Institut für Stadtgeschichte, Frankfurt am Main MR Friedrich Carl von Moser. Die Reichsfreyheit der Gerichte und Gemeinen Sultzbach und Soden gegen die neuerliche Chur-Mayntz- und Franckfurtische Vogtey und Schutz-Herrliche Eingriffe erwiesen und vertheidigt. [No place], 1753 (with appendices) n.p. no publisher PAG Pfarreiarchiv Gersau RI  Regesta Imperii Online. Compiled by the Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz. http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/lang_en/ s. shillings SABS Stadtarchiv Bad Soden am Taunus StAL Staatsarchiv Luzern StAS Staatsarchiv Schwyz StAW Bayerisches Staatsarchiv, Würzburg VG [Johann Heinrich Heunisch.] Vera et genuina facti species in Sachen Gochsheim und Sennfeld, Reichs-Dorfschaften in Francken, contra Johann Philipp, Bisch. zu Würtzburg … Worinnen … allein die wahre Beschaffenheit und der eigentliche Verfolg des von [Gochsheim & Sennfeld] in puncto ihrer an obigbeyden Orthen privativè besitzenden Geistlichen Jurium hactenus bey einem Höchstpreißlichen Kayserlichen und reichs Cammer=Gericht wider Höchstgedachte Seine hochfürstliche Gnaden und Consorten geführten importanten Processus mit gründlicher Deutlichkeit vorgestellet. Wetzlar: Georg Ernst Winckler, 1716

PART 1 Approaches

∵

Chapter 1

Polities without a Prince: an Introduction Modern societies like to “think big”. Companies plot mergers, states forge unions, lobbyists launch global campaigns. In historical research, world wars merit greater attention than local conflicts, as do macro-economic processes compared to petty trading. The same applies to political studies: given larger sizes and better documentation, working on empires, states or cities appears more relevant than looking at villages. And yet, it has been argued that the most significant early modern developments occurred outside the big centers.1 Until the onset of industrialization, the vast majority of Europeans lived in the countryside, where aims and agendas differed from those pursued at courts, universities and town halls. While the “village of indomitable Gauls”, frustrating all attempts at Roman occupation, belongs to the world of artistic imagination, a remote polity like Andorra has managed to retain substantial autonomy right up to the present. Numerous historic landscapes, furthermore, harbor independence movements of considerable strength, not to mention self-declared micro-nations vying for recognition today.2 In the context of Brexit, decentralization is firmly back on the agenda. This is a study of self-government on the pre-modern periphery. At that time, the default position for Europeans was subordination to a prince, a territorial lord seeking to control ever larger proportions of public affairs. From about the fifteenth century, most areas underwent a process of state formation, usually accompanied by increasing legislation, taxation and ­bureaucratization.3 Monarchs proactively expanded their sphere of influence, marginalizing rivalling powers like the nobility, representative institutions and the Church. In the classic terminology of early modern history, they embarked on the road to “absolutism”. As recent research has confirmed, however, the journey was never completed. Rulers lacked the personnel and resources to take full control. 1  Henry Kamen, Early Modern European Society (London: Routledge, 2000), 9. 2  René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo, Asterix and the Banquet, trans. Anthea Bell and Derek Hockridge (London: Oriel Books, 2004), 3; one current pretender to statehood on the border between Serbia and Croatia, complete with its own flag, coat of arms and constitution, is portrayed in Jamie Campbell, “Welcome to [the Free Republic of] Liberland.” In: The Independent (April 14th, 2015), 32–33. 3  Wim Blockmans and Jean-Philippe Genet, eds., The Origins of the Modern State in Europe, 13th to 18th Centuries, 7 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995–2000); specifically on this region: Peter H. Wilson, Absolutism in Central Europe (London: Routledge, 2000).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004396609_002

4

Chapter 1

Key areas like local government, policy enforcement and the management of unrest required the support of courtiers, regional intermediaries and corporate institutions – all parts of an intricate matrix of patronage relations. Overall, developments are perhaps best described as a gradual shift of emphasis towards the center, moderated by extensive negotiation between princes and a range of stakeholders reaching all the way down to parish level.4 In this sense, every village exercised some influence and retained a say over its own affairs. Yet, particularly in the heavily compartmentalized political landscape of German-speaking Europe, there were areas of more extensive self-determination. The best-known examples can be found on the North Sea coast and in the Alps, where the peasant communities of medieval Frisia, Dithmarschen and Central Switzerland bolstered their position through association, forging rural confederations of remarkable durability.5 Some devised several layers of organizational structure – occasionally, as in the Swiss Confederation, involving towns – and all limited the central organs to tightly circumscribed powers.6 But here we seek to reduce the scale even further. This book attempts a microhistory of politics by zooming in on the smallest entities of the Holy Roman Empire, itself a highly fragmented conglomerate where centralization never proceeded very far.7 “Imperial villages” – a phrase juxtaposing the universal 4  Nicholas Henshall, The Myth of Absolutism: Change and Continuity in Early Modern European Monarchy (London: Longman, 1992); on the negotiated quality of the process see esp. Michael Braddick, State Formation in Early Modern England, c. 1550–1700 (Cambridge: University Press, 2000); Ronald Asch and Dagmar Freist, eds., Staatsbildung als kultureller Prozess: Strukturwandel und Legitimation von Herrschaft in der Frühen Neuzeit (Cologne: Böhlau, 2005); and Wim Blockmans, André Holenstein and Jon Mathieu, eds., Empowering Interactions: Political Cultures and the Emergence of the State in Europe (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009). 5  David Luebke, “Of liberty and the Upstalboom: Urban-rural alliances and symbols of freedom in early modern East Frisia,” in Politics and Reformations: Communities, Polities, Nations, and Empires, ed. Christopher Ocker et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 259–82; William L. Urban, Dithmarschen: A Medieval Peasant Republic (Lewiston: E. Mellen Press, 1991); Peter Blickle, “Friede und Verfassung: Voraussetzungen und Folgen der Eidgenossenschaft von 1291,” in Innerschweiz und frühe Eidgenossenschaft, ed. Historischer Verein der V Orte (2 vols, Olten: Walter, 1990), vol. 1, 13–202. 6  An early modern comparative perspective in Johannes von Müller, Vierundzwanzig Bücher Allgemeiner Geschichten besonders der europäischen Menschheit (Stuttgart/Tübingen: Cotta, 1840), 324–5; for modern scholarship cf. Hermann Aubin, “Das Schiksal der schweizerischen und der friesischen Freiheit,” in Grundlagen und Perspektiven geschichtlicher Kulturraumforschung und Kulturmorphologie, ed. Ludwig and Franz Petri (Bonn: Roehrscheid, 1965), 349–68; Heide Wunder, Die bäuerliche Gemeinde in Deutschland (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), ch. 6; and see Chapter 2 below. 7  Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire 1495–1806, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011); Joachim Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, 2 vols (Oxford: University Press,

Polities without a Prince: an Introduction

5

and local, just as in the German Reichsdörfer – can be defined as single-unit rural (jurisdictional/political) communities immediately subject to the emperor. Being reichsfrei/reichsunmittelbar, they had no intermediary territorial overlord (or “prince”) but a Reichsvogt (“bailiff”) representing the Roman König or Kaiser as their protector. Within the constitutional hierarchy – although not in size or prestige – these polities, like immediate knights, were thus on a par with electorates, duchies, counties and imperial cities/abbeys. The latter’s only additional privileges were membership of the Diet and imperial circles; in other words, compared to them, Reichsdörfer lacked Reichsstandschaft.8 All in all, over three hundred villages fit this description over shorter or longer periods of their history, giving the phenomenon a “critical mass”.9 In what follows, the primary focus of exploration will be the extent of their “collective” or “political freedom”, measured by the relative strength of external constraints. This “corporate” aspiration to rule has to be distinguished from the inhabitants’ own status (as free men or subjects of a personal lord/Leibherr), the legal status of their land (held as freehold or under some form of feudal grant by a manorial lord/Grundherr) and the modern concept of “human rights” associated with every individual.10 It was a “negative” concept defined by the 2012). In 1655, one imperial village referred to itself as the “meanest and least prosperous [member] of the empire:” MR, appendices, 52; in a fourteenth-century document recording the size of thirteen others near Hagenau in the Alsace, none had more than 40 hearths: E. Eyer, “Die Grösse einiger Reichsdörfer im 14. Jahrhundert,” in: Elsaß-Land, Lothringer Heimat: Illustrierte Monatsschrift für Heimatkunde und Touristik 19 (1939): 150. 8   “[Reichsdörfer sind] dem Reich unmittelbar unterworffene, auch mit … Gerechten und allen andern der Unmittelbarkeit anklebenden Rechten und Gerechtsammen begabte Dorff = Gemeinden:” G. A. Jenichen, Abhandlung von denen Reichs-Dörffern und Reichs-freyen Leuten (no place/publisher, 1768), 9; the latest handbook survey places the emphasis on their jurisdictional character, but – rather problematically – subsumes multi-unit Swiss Länder like Uri or Appenzell under the term “village:” Bernd Marquardt, “Reichsdorf,” in: Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit Online, ed. Friedrich Jaeger, 16 vols (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 2005–12), vol. 10 (2009), col. 899–901, esp. 899. The appointment of bailiffs emerges e.g. from imperial letters of protection: Wolfgang Sellert, ed., Die Akten des kaiserlichen Reichshofrats, Series 1: Alte Prager Akten, vol. 5: S-Z (Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 2014), 215–16 (sixteenth-century Schutzbrief referring to the bailiwick of Schweinfurt). 9   L. Hugo, “Verzeichnis der freien Reichsdörfer in Deutschland,” Zeitschrift für Archivkunde, Diplomatik und Geschichte 2 (1836): 446–76, the standard register published in the nineteenth century, lists around 120 cases, but many further examples have emerged in the course of this research. By way of comparison, there were some 65 imperial cities in the early sixteenth century and a little over 100 can be traced across the whole of the Middle Ages: Götz Landwehr, Die Verpfändung der deutschen Reichsstädte im Mittelalter (Cologne: Böhlau, 1967), 90. 10  Georg Schmidt, Martin van Gelderen and Christopher Snigula, eds., Kollektive Freiheitsvorstellungen im frühneuzeitlichen Europa (1400–1850) (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006); Peter

6

Chapter 1

absence of arbitrary interference or tyranny, as opposed to a “positive” propensity towards social responsibilities and virtuous public service.11 Removing the intermediate layers of higher authorities and elite interpreters which usually filter historians’ understanding of village life should facilitate access to popular political culture. Adducing a scientific analogy, the approach pursued in this study involves the isolation of single cells, putting them under a microscope and then examining how they function both on their own and within their wider environment. Chronologically, the scope of the investigation extends from the High Middle Ages, the time of our earliest documentary evidence for rural autonomy, to the fundamental reordering of Europe at the dawn of modernity around 1800. Throughout, three principal research questions shall be addressed: – How “free” and distinctive were the political and religious regimes in the empire’s smallest constituent parts? – To which extent did early modern territorialization, socio-economic polarization and confessional fragmentation erode the scope for self-government? – Can a study of imperial villages illuminate the elusive world of popular politics more generally? Within a wider examination of the phenomenon, five case studies receive particular attention. To enable long-term assessments, they represent communes which retained their status from the Middle Ages right to the end of the Ancien Régime: Gochsheim and Sennfeld near Schweinfurt in present-day Bavaria; Sulzbach and (Bad) Soden am Taunus near Frankfurt a.M. in Hesse; and Gersau near Lucerne in central Switzerland, all with parishes or chapels of their own. As will become apparent in Chapter 2, this sample covers a wide regional, institutional and confessional spectrum. For specific aspects and purposes of comparison, further types of autonomous communities will also be drawn upon. The available evidence is uneven and heterogeneous in nature, but usually spread across three main categories. First and foremost, information surviving in the localities themselves: charters, council minutes, court protocols, accounts and chronicles in communal archives on the one hand, material culture and artifacts in churches, museums and village halls on the other; second, records preserved in regional, central and ecclesiastical repositories associated Blickle, Von der Leibeigenschaft zu den Menschenrechten: Eine Geschichte der Freiheit in Deutschland, 2nd edn (Munich: Beck, 2006); Tom Scott, Society and Economy in Germany, 1300–1600 (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003), esp. ch. “Lordship and Dependence”. 11  “Free states … are … defined by their capacity for self-government”: Quentin Skinner, Liberty before Liberalism, e-edn (Cambridge: University Press, 2014), 26.

Polities without a Prince: an Introduction

FIGURE 1

7

On this map depicting the Schweinfurt region shortly before the end of the Holy Roman Empire, the villages of Gochsheim and Sennfeld appear clearly labelled as Reichsdörfer within their own boundaries (underlined, immediately to the south-east of the city). Johann Kaspar Bundschuh, Beschreibung der Reichsstadt Schweinfurt (Ulm: Stettische Buchhandlung, 1802), appendix.

with erstwhile imperial bailiffs (or their successor states) and diocesan authorities, including diplomatic treaties, territorial/imperial mandates, petitions, proceedings in higher law courts, fiscal evidence and documents relating to spiritual matters.12 Third, we can draw on early modern printed genres like police ordinances, political treatises, maps, encyclopedias, travel reports and pamphlets of various kinds.13

State of Research

The literature on rural societies, economies and politics is very extensive. In the German lands, which included areas of arable husbandry centered on 12  Apart from the communal repositories in the case studies, the bulk of the unpublished evidence derives from the State Archives at Wiesbaden/Würzburg in Germany (here­ after: HHStAW/StAW) and Lucerne/Schwyz in Switzerland (StAL/StAS), the Institute for the History of Frankfurt (ISF) and the Diocesan Archive of Constance (at Freiburg im Breisgau; EAF). 13  Full details of all sources appear in the “Bibliography” at the end of this volume.

8

Chapter 1

nucleated villages alongside pastoral areas with scattered settlement and specialized Alpine/coastal economies as well as mixed agricultural/artisan/ (proto-)industrial landscapes, scholars have to account for highly differentiated settings. In the last decades, four complementary works have surveyed the picture: Karl-Siegfried Bader from a legal perspective, Günther Franz in a social approach, Heide Wunder with an emphasis on political relations and Tom Scott in terms of socio-economic regimes. These prepared the ground for a general history of the German village from its origins to the present day, published in 2006.14 Far from the stereotypically static premodern countryside, they all found major change over time, particularly at the interface of the medieval and early modern periods. Wunder, for example, differentiates between a “government with peasants” before 1500 and a “government over peasants” in later centuries. At that juncture, transformation processes included state formation, the resurgence of serfdom (in certain areas), growing integration into market exchange and the fragmentation of religious allegiances. A lively subfield has long been the study of peasant “liberty”, above all its personal and economic dimensions. The notion of an original, ethnic “Germanic” freedom has now been discarded, but – given the scarcity of early sources – debates on the respective roles of royal, feudal/tenurial, jurisdictional and topographical factors continue.15 By the later Middle Ages, certainly, most peasants operated in conditions of more or less severe dependency on personal and/or manorial lords, paying dues, performing labor services and facing restrictions on their mobility, choice of marriage partners and inheritance strategies. A minority, however, enjoyed personal liberty and/or held land as freehold (the two did not necessarily go together). The situation on the ground can be extremely complex, with the traditional regional distinction between a peasant-friendly west and a more “servile” east of the Empire challenged in recent research.16 14  Karl Siegfried Bader, Studien zur Rechtsgeschichte des mittelalterlichen Dorfes (3 vols, Cologne: Böhlau, 1957–81); Günther Franz, Geschichte des deutschen Bauernstandes (Stuttgart: Ulmer, 1970); Heide Wunder, Die bäuerliche Gemeinde in Deutschland (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986); Scott, Society and Economy (note 10); Werner Troßbach und Clemens Zimmermann, Die Geschichte des Dorfes: Von den Anfängen im Frankenreich zur bundesdeutschen Gegenwart (Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer, 2006). 15  In this study, “liberty/liberties” is used for individual/specific privileges, while “freedom” carries a more abstract/collective meaning, but period discourses often used the terms interchangeably: cf. Skinner, Liberty (note 11), 17 n. 53. 16  See e.g. Tom Scott, “South-west German serfdom in comparative perspective,” in his Town, Country and Regions in Reformation Germany (Leiden: Brill, 2005), ch. 12, and – for a more upbeat assessment of peasant agency – Blickle, Freiheit (note 10).

Polities without a Prince: an Introduction

9

Compared to such socio-economic approaches, the political phenomenon of free villages has received less attention. Some specialized treatises appeared in the eighteenth century, as part of period reflection on the structure and institutions of the empire as a whole (Reichspublizistik). Legal in orientation, they addressed questions such as origins, rights and obligations, usually with reference to peculiar cases and comparative glances at imperial cities and knights.17 In modern times, we find a sprinkling of handbook entries, studies of regions with a disproportionately large concentration and a first attempt to list all known cases.18 Then there are case studies, combining explanations of political rights with wider accounts of demographic, socio-economic and cultural developments. Here, depth of documentation and analysis vary in line with the respective target audiences.19 Most relevant for present purposes are four works examining closely related contexts in great depth; two dealing with personal associations of free peasants subject to their own courts in Upper Swabia (so-called Gerichtsfreie, whose privileges gradually eroded over the course of the early modern period), the other two with rural communities whose Reichsunmitelbarkeit was self-declared rather than officially acknowledged.20 17  Jenichen, Abhandlung (1768, note 8); Ernst Ludwig Wilhelm von Dacheröden, Versuch eines Staatsrechts, Geschichte und Statistik der freyen Reichsdörfer in Teutschland (Leipzig: Crusius, 1785). 18  Franz, Geschichte (note 14), ch. 5c; Ekkehard Kaufmann, “Reichsdörfer,” in: Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 4 (Berlin: Schmidt, 1990), col. 561–4; Marquardt, “Reichsdorf” (note 8); Georg Ludwig von Maurer, Geschichte der Dorfverfassung in Deutschland (2 vols, reprint Aalen: Scientia, 1961), 2:364–412; Josef Becker, “Die Reichsdörfer der Landvogtei und Pflege Hagenau,” in: Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins, NF 14 (1899): 207–47; Johann Weiß, “Gruppen fränkischer Reichsdörfer,” in: Jahrbuch des historischen Vereins für Mittelfranken 77 (1957): 56–62; Hans Sigrist, “Reichsdörfer am Blauen,” in: Jahrbuch für Solothurnische Geschichte 26 (1953): 182–6; Hugo, “Verzeichnis” (note 9). 19  Particularly relevant for this study: Simon Friedrich Segnitz, “Beytrag zur Geschichte und statistischen Topographie der beyden Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld in einem kurzen Entwurf,” in: Journal von und für Franken 4 (1792): 529–628; Friedrich Weber, Geschichte der fränkischen Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld (Schweinfurt: Ernst Stoer, 1913); Ekkehard Kaufmann, Geschichte und Verfassung der Reichsdörfer Soden und Sulzbach 1035–1806, Ph.D., Frankfurt (Bad Soden: Gögelein, 1951; reprint Flörsheim a.M.: Lauck, 1981); Sigi Fay, Sulzbach am Taunus (3 vols, Sulzbach, 1983–89); Joachim Kromer, Bad Soden am Taunus. Stadtgeschichte (2 vols, Frankfurt a.M.: Waldemar Kramer, 1990– 91); Walfried Hein, Reichsschultheiß und ein Ehrbares Gericht: Bürgerliches Leben im freien Reichsdorf Gochsheim (Gochsheim: Gemeinde, 1994); Doris Badel, Sennfeld: Geschichte eines ehemals freien Reichsdorfes in Franken (Sennfeld: Gemeinde, 1997); Albert Müller, Gersau – Unikum der Schweizer Geschichte (Baden: hier+jetzt, 2013). 20  Peter Kissling, Freie Bauern und bäuerliche Bürger. Eglofs im Spätmittelalter und in der Frühneuzeit (Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2006); Catherine De Kegel Schorer,

10

Chapter 1

The most recent contributions discuss specific aspects: the modern crests of several dozen imperial villages, with brief notes on their historical evolution, a densely contextualized infanticide case culminating in the execution of a maidservant, jurisdictional organization and the history of a chapel.21 Overall, however, it is fair to say that immediate villages have as yet left few traces in the historiography of the empire, not to speak of early modern Europe as a whole. None of the standard surveys affords them more than a few sentences; if mentioned at all, Reichsdörfer appear almost as an afterthought, a curiosity of the political landscape which we know little about.22 The same holds true for the study of collective freedom of premodern polities more generally, which stands very much “at the beginning”.23 Added to the fact that these case studies are not exactly household names, their social, political and religious conditions – as well as “human resources” – will thus have to be reconstructed in some detail in order to provide a sufficient basis for further analysis. Several conceptual resources help to interpret the evidence. Given its social locale, popular politics provides an obvious starting point. This should not be reduced to mere protest; much rather, in line with the “new” political agenda, as concerned with all practices, values and representations relating to the government of communities. Cultural symbols and performative elements like rituals require consideration alongside written norms, protagonists and Die Freien auf Leutkircher Heide: Ursprung, Ausformung und Erosion einer oberdeutschen Freibauerngenossenschaft (Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2007); Bernhard Diestelkamp, Ein Kampf um Freiheit und Recht. Die prozessualen Auseinandersetzungen der Gemeinde Freienseen mit den Grafen zu Solms-Laubach (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2012); Matthias Bähr, Die Sprache der Zeugen: Argumentationsstrategien bäuerlicher Gemeinden vor dem Reichskammergericht (1693–1806) (Constance: UVK, 2012), 85–144 (referring to Berkach). 21  Erhard Nietzschmann, Die Freien auf dem Lande: Ehemalige deutsche Reichsdörfer und ihre Wappen (Wolfenbüttel: Melchior Verlag, 2013); Michael Geisler, Leben und Tod der Anna Katharina Duß: Die Geschichte einer Dienstmagd aus Soden (Wiesbaden: Waldemar Kramer, 2015); Krey, Alexander. Die Praxis der spätmittelalterlichen Laiengerichtsbarkeit (Cologne: Böhlau, 2015), 222–9 (upper court of Sulzbach); Evangelische Kirchengemeinde, ed., 300 Jahre Evangelische Kirche Bad Soden (Flörsheim: Lauck, 2016). 22  Kaufmann, “Reichsdörfer” (note 18), col. 561–3, speaks of a “convoluted” issue in need of a general study; Wunder, Gemeinde (note 14), 77 (cursory mention of special rights and self-awareness); Helmut Neuhaus, Das Reich in der Frühen Neuzeit, 2nd edn, (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2003), 38 (a half-page summary); Wilson, Holy Roman Empire (note 7), 29 (Dithmarschen appears as the sole example of rural autonomy); Whaley, Germany (note 7), 1:44 (brief reference to the existence of imperial villages). 23  Schmidt et al., Freiheitsvorstellungen (note 10), 7; one important exception, examining ideals and practice of political freedom in the Bernese Oberland, is Peter Bierbrauer, Freiheit und Gemeinde im Berner Oberland 1300–1700 (Bern: Historischer Verein des Kantons Bern, 1991), see esp. 365.

Polities without a Prince: an Introduction

11

factual events. For premodern societies, distinctive features include unequal political rights, face-to-face exchange, the high regard for custom and blurred boundaries between the legislative, executive and jurisdictional spheres. As at higher levels of the hierarchy, decisions or initiatives reflected negotiation processes involving different interest groups, specific power relations and everevolving contexts.24 Communalism, developed by Peter Blickle with particular reference to Upper Germany, offers a yet more focused model. From the high Middle Ages, villages – just like towns – afforded the “common man” influence through association with neighbors, involvement in governing bodies exercising quasi-state functions and the provision of an organizational framework for resistance. In pioneering fashion, the concept put the spotlight on rural communities as active agents in the historical process. While feudal subordination remained pronounced in most parts of the empire (especially after the defeat of the peasantry’s revolutionary vision in the great war of 1524–26), the example of the Swiss Forest Cantons – which managed to extract themselves from external lordship, to develop collective organs of self-government and to move towards effective sovereignty – demonstrated just how much could be achieved.25 Learned commentators like Niccolò Machiavelli perceived such participatory systems, distinguished by the political engagement, military prowess and moral virtue of all citizens, as viable alternatives to monarchical regimes.26 Historical manifestations and theoretical reflections of republicanism thus provide a third point of reference for this book. Imperial villages, as single-unit polities involving large proportions of (male) inhabitants in civic affairs, share features with the Ancient Greek polis as well as the quasi-independent cities 24  On the new political history see Ute Frevert and Heinz-Gerhard Haupt, eds., Neue Politikgeschichte: Perspektiven einer historischen Politikforschung (Frankfurt a.M.: Campus, 2005); an overview of popular agency in Wayne Te Brake, Shaping History: Ordinary People in European Politics 1500–1700 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998); specifically on collective organization: Beat Kümin, The Communal Age in Western Europe c. 1100–1800: Towns, Villages and Parishes in Pre-Modern Society (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2013); a case study of village tensions and inner divisions in David M. Luebke, His Majesty’s Rebels: Communities, Factions and Rural Revolt in the Black Forest 1725–45 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997). 25  Peter Blickle, “Communalism as an Organizational Principle between Medieval and Modern Times,” in his From the Communal Reformation to the Revolution of the Common Man, trans. Beat Kümin (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1–15, and fully elaborated in Kommunalismus: Skizzen einer gesellschaftlichen Organisationsform (2 vols, Munich: Oldenbourg, 2000); for a critical review highlighting inner-communal divisions see R. W. Scribner, “Communalism: universal category or ideological construct? A debate in the historiography of Germany and Switzerland,” in: Historical Journal 37 (1994): 199–207. 26  Discourses, ed. Leslie J. Walker (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), e.g. 1:402, 416.

12

Chapter 1

of pre-modern Europe. Modern scholarship long concentrated on medieval Italian communes and seventeenth-century Anglophone thought as influences on the Atlantic Revolutions, but recent research has widened the perspective to the Holy Roman Empire in general and the Dutch/Swiss federations in particular.27 A recent contribution – centering on Amsterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg – highlights a distinct type of “merchant republic”, where the quest for profit was not perceived as a threat to the common weal, quite in contrast to the classical (and Machiavellian) tradition. There we find “a mentality that celebrated trade”, with commercial elites serving “as the pillars of the polity and the vessels of republican virtues”. Moving to diametrically opposed contexts, namely small agricultural communities, and considering potential synergies with the religious (parochial organization) rather than economic sphere (gilds/ big trading companies) promises to shed further light on the social depth of republicanism in Ancien Régime Europe, a phenomenon which many contemporaries – living in different constitutional settings – viewed with “some mystification”.28 In what follows, the term shall be understood as referring to any political system involving institutionalized government by the many rather than just those with an explicitly anti-monarchical stance. Given the heterogeneous and fragmentary nature of most sources, the approach has to be predominantly qualitative. Adapting the model of micro­ history, a fourth major source of inspiration, it is hoped that the investigation of the peculiar (in this case, extensive local self-determination) at the tiniest of scales can help to illuminate the general (popular notions of pre-modern government). In contrast to some of the classic works in that genre, the envisaged outcome is not a histoire totale of individual communities and their inhabitants, but a reconstruction of grass-roots political and religious culture in the premodern world.29 In line with recent spatial and communication theories, 27  J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton: University Press, 1973); Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner, eds., Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, 2 vols (Cambridge: University Press, 2002); André Holenstein, Thomas Maissen and Maarten Prak, eds., The Republican Alternative: The Netherlands and Switzerland Compared (Amsterdam: University Press, 2008); Gaby Mahlberg and Dirk Wiemann, eds., European Contexts for English Republicanism (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013). 28  Mary Lindemann, The Merchant Republics: Amsterdam, Antwerp, and Hamburg, 1648–1790 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 310 and 317 (quotes). In many ways, Lindemann’s metropolitan ports and the imperial villages examined here represent extreme points on the spectrum of republican communes. 29  Giovanni Levi, “On Microhistory,” in New Perspectives on Historical Writing, ed. Peter Burke (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), 93–113; for examples relating to the Holy Roman Empire, see esp. the cycle of studies on Neckarhausen in Württemberg, starting with

Polities without a Prince: an Introduction

13

finally, villages will not be treated as fixed physical entities with immutable boundaries, but as relationally constituted “places” representing mental syntheses of interactions between material, human and situational variables.30 How, if at all, do they reflect the gradual evolution from a “presence society” (in which decision-making required the physical attendance of all enfranchised members) towards a political system allowing substantial input by absentees? The latter, as Rudolf Schlögl has argued, rested not just on the invention of new technologies, but the routinized use of script and print; in other words, the instrumentalization of distance media for the generation of extended social networks (like the Humanist republic of letters), more complex institutions (such as state bureaucracies) and critical reflection (nurturing a nascent political public sphere).31 Given that oral and ritual communication must have remained crucial for largely illiterate village societies, did the structural reorganization of government increase tensions within the localities and widen the chasm between center and periphery or could rural communities put the new opportunities to their advantage? Which early modern historiographies does this comparative microhistory of village political culture hope to contribute to? Apart from the conceptual frameworks just mentioned, above all the ongoing reinterpretation of the Holy Roman Empire. Previously dismissed as a “failed state” and chastised for its inability to reform, current scholarly views are much more differentiated and positive. Decentralized government structures and institutionalized representation of all stakeholders now appear as remarkably “modern” features. Compared to the kingdoms of France and England, the Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation offered a subsidiary rather than hegemonistic model of statehood and accommodated plenty of heterogeneous components within its fold. Far from declining, centrally provided services – especially those of the highest law-courts – were appreciated by subjects at all levels of the hierarchy, from princes right down to peasants. In line with a more general tendency of “juridification” of conflicts, countless parties turned to the Reichskammergericht David Sabean, Power in the Blood: Popular Culture and Village Discourse in Early Modern Germany (Cambridge: University Press, 1984). 30  Martina Löw, Raumsoziologie (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 2001); Paul Stock, ed., The Uses of Space in Early Modern History (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2015); specifically on political sites see Beat Kümin, ed., Political Space in Pre-industrial Europe (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), Part I. 31  Rudolf Schlögl, Anwesende und Abwesende. Grundriss für eine Gesellschaftsgeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit (Constance: University Press, 2014); for diverging views on the impact of new technology see the debate between Elizabeth Eisenstein and Adrian Johns: “How revolutionary was the print revolution?,” American Historical Review, 107 (2002): 84–128.

14

Chapter 1

or Reichshofrat for redress of their grievances, despite notoriously lengthy and expensive proceedings.32 Emperors may have had to accept the growing stature of territorial estates, the formation of rivalling political/confessional leagues and perennially inadequate revenues, but they remained much more than mere figureheads. Acknowledged as guarantors of the imperial constitution, incumbents of this office enjoyed high diplomatic prestige abroad and undisputed preeminence at home. No-one had a better claim to defend the integrity of imperial borders, promote internal coherence, protect all subjects and preserve the rule of law; no-one commanded greater respect in mediations. Nowadays, in the wake of the “cultural” turn, such findings are bolstered less by “traditional” indicators like legislative activity, financial resources or military strength, but signals emitted in visual, ritual and symbolic communication at, say, royal audiences, diets and international peace congresses.33 But did all this scale down to the empire’s smallest units: were immediate villages familiar with all the jurisdictional options, attuned to shifts in the political balance and astute in the use of imperial imagery? Did the attachment to their highest overlord survive the pressures of territorialization and confessionalization? Widening the perspective, a closer look at the micro-politics of self-­governing communities may be of interest beyond the historical disciplines. Departing from Aristotle’s theory of the “good life”, for example, American philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum developed an ethic of virtue involving more than just an equitable division of basic resources. For her, individual fulfillment and social coherence depend not least on shared values, space for conviviality and concern for the environment, with governments expected to allow citizens to play 32  Details of these cases are becoming more accessible thanks to the publication series “Inventar der Akten des Reichskammergerichts” (inventory of Imperial Cameral Court records) and the “Akten des kaiserlichen Reichshofrates” (records of the Imperial Aulic Council), two separate cataloguing projects now progressively combined in the “Datenbank Höchstgerichtsbarkeit” (last accessed – as all other weblinks featured in this book – on 30 January 2019), at http://www.jura.uni-wuerzburg.de/lehrstuehle/ amend_traut/forschungsprojekt_datenbank_hoechstgerichtsbarkeit/; the evidence suggests active Justiznutzung (recourse to jurisdiction) by subjects rather than oppressive utilization of the law “from above”. The notion of “juridification” goes back to Winfried Schulze, “Die veränderte Bedeutung sozialer Konflikte im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert,” in Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg, ed. Hans-Ulrich Wehler (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 277–302. 33  For general surveys see note 7 above. Numerous aspects of this theme are explored in three recent essay collections: Jason Philip Coy, Benjamin Marschke and David Warren Sabean, eds., The Holy Roman Empire, Reconsidered (New York: Berghahn Books, 2010); Robert J. W. Evans, Michael Schaich and Peter H. Wilson, eds., The Holy Roman Empire 1495–1806 (Oxford: University Press, 2011); Robert J. W. Evans and Peter H. Wilson, eds., The Holy Roman Empire 1495–1806: A European Perspective (Leiden: Brill, 2012).

Polities without a Prince: an Introduction

15

a full part in these spheres. Crucially for our context, one key prerequisite is people’s ability to make decisions and judgements, in other words exercising rights of political participation. A second involves adequate consideration of local peculiarities, i.e. room for solutions which suit each individual community. On both counts, imperial villages seem to fit the bill.34 The same could be said with regard to a radically different, but equally suggestive theory from evolutionary psychology. Given the apparent quantitative relationship between social-group size and neocortex volume in different species, Robin Dunbar’s “Social Brain Hypothesis” relates the development of human intelligence to the challenges of surviving and reproducing in large groups. While other primates interact closely with around 50 individuals, social circles of humans typically number about 150 people. There is evidence that this size, striking a balance between the minimum needed for functionality and the maximum allowing community cohesion, proves most effective and successful.35 Do such anthropological and psychological, as well as philosophical, considerations imply that small polities like imperial villages are best suited for political exchange? These themes and issues shall be addressed in several stages. The second introductory chapter traces the origins, legal status and evolution of imperial villages from the High Middle Ages up to the eve of modernity, followed by a portrait of the five case studies and their social structures. In Part 2, attention turns to the theory and practice of local government models, including patterns of inclusion/exclusion and the balance between internal harmony/ conflicts. Chapter 4 addresses “foreign affairs”, i.e. the villagers’ political, legal and economic ties with regional and more distant powers, most notably their imperial bailiffs, as well as the often protracted attempts to prevent integration into other territories. In a next step, the argument moves to religious cultures and the spiritual sphere, examining collective worship and parish organization alongside “popular” beliefs and universal moves to forge a “Communal Christianity”. Part 3 opens with a consideration of self-perceptions and external representations of rural autonomy. How was this articulated in political language, visual communication and material culture? What role did collective freedom play for individual identities and communal self-fashioning? To which extent were neighbors, princes, imperial bodies and period commentators engaging with the phenomenon? The book concludes with a recapitulation 34  Martha C. Nussbaum, “Der aristotelische Sozialdemokratismus – Kein Bürger darf an Lebensunterhalt Mangel leiden,” in her Gerechtigkeit oder Das gute Leben (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1999), 24–85, esp. 40–1, 75. 35  Robin I. M. Dunbar, “The Social Brain: Psychological Underpinnings and Implications for the Structure of Organizations,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 23 (2/2014): 109–114.

16

Chapter 1

of its main findings and a look beyond the case studies. How (un)usual were self-governing rural communities within and beyond the German lands? Does their existence hold wider clues about European early modernity? Can we detect an “after-life”? A first priority, however, is to take a closer look at the emergence and evolution of politically free villages in the Holy Roman Empire.

Chapter 2

Origins, Evolutions and Settings The structure of the Holy Roman Empire was complex. Its several hundred units varied greatly in size and belonged to different categories. Apart from secular principalities (like the electorate of Brandenburg, the duchy of Württemberg or the county of Montfort), ecclesiastical lands (such as those of the Archbishop of Cologne or the Abbot of Ochsenhausen) and imperial knights (like notorious warlords Götz von Berlichingen or Franz von Sickingen), components included dozens of cities (from mighty Nuremberg in Franconia to tiny Zell am Harmersbach in the Black Forest). Urban communities represented republican elements within a system dominated by princes, prelates and nobles. Together, they made up the German “nation” whose estates jealously guarded ancient liberties and kept centralizing ambitions of emperors at bay.1 Yet pockets of political freedom existed outside their circle, away from the grand stage of the imperial diet and on the periphery. The Empire’s intricate matrix of often overlapping rights, regional customs, immunities, conflicting ownership claims and dynastic accidents afforded space for special cases, “dark corners” sheltered from external interference and windows for local emancipation.2 Let us take a closer look at the landscape of rural autonomy. Starting with the better-known examples, from the late twelfth century, personally free Frisian peasants developed systems of self-government on the North Sea coast. Remote from counts and monastic lords, they elected representatives at parish and quarter level, staged annual assemblies of delegates for jurisdiction and regional co-ordination at the so-called Upstalsboom (repeatedly documented around 1300) and appointed a “governing body” of Radjeven (councilors with responsibility for “international relations”). In the late Middle Ages, however, a new elite of chieftains re-orientated the Frisian

1  For a list of estates contributing to imperial taxation see the Reichsmatrikel of 1521, online at https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Reichsmatrikel_von_1521; grievances of the German nation presented at the Diet of Worms in the same year can be found in Gerald Strauss, ed., Manifestations of Discontent in Germany on the Eve of the Reformation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971), 52–63. 2  The complexity of the Empire’s constitution produced “exceptions and special cases” in all areas: Karl Siegfried Bader, Dorfgenossenschaft und Dorfgemeinde (Weimar: Böhlau, 1962), 114.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004396609_003

18

Chapter 2

lands into a monarchical direction, most notably under the Cirksena dynasty.3 In nearby Dithmarschen north of Hamburg, a federation of parishes clocked up over three centuries of effective independence between 1227 (when a key contribution to the battle of Bornhöved won them enhanced status) and 1559 (the date of a joint invasion by neighboring Denmark and Holstein). Under nominal subordination to the Archbishop of Bremen, the communes chose their own representatives, passed their own laws, administered their own resources and attended a common assembly, held originally at Meldorf and later at Heide. From the fifteenth century, a codified land law served as the general framework and the Forty-Eight emerged as the land’s regents.4 Moving south towards the Alps, the Swiss Confederation comprised not only city-states. The rural Forest Cantons around Lake Lucerne, clusters of communes and valleys which acquired immediate status from the thirteenth century, represented founding members of the alliance, while leagues of peasant/small town communes in the Grisons and the Valais, who emancipated themselves from episcopal control from the sixteenth century, became associates. The process was fiercely contested and often violent, but eventually all managed to marginalize their territorial lords (the Habsburg dynasty and the Bishops of Sion/ Chur respectively), replacing political subordination with layered systems of communal and regional assemblies made up of elected delegates. While not immune to oligarchization and inner conflicts, these representative systems formed the clearest and most durable republican alternatives to conventional rule in the European countryside. Remodeled in the Napoleonic wars and the liberal Revolution of 1848, they have survived as constituent parts of modern Switzerland until the present.5 Compared to these larger polities, the tiny and widely scattered imperial villages have been less conspicuous, both in period perceptions and historical scholarship. This is not for lack of numbers. A great multitude of places – from Achalm near Reutlingen in Swabia to Wolferborn near Büdingen in Hesse – feature in a list of communities associated with Reichsdorf status in 3  Hajo van Lengen, ed., Die Friesische Freiheit des Mittelalters: Leben und Legende (Aurich: Verlag Ostfriesische Landschaft, 2003). 4  William L. Urban, Dithmarschen: A Medieval Peasant Republic (Lewiston: E. Mellen Press, 1991); Beat Kümin, “Kirchgenossen an der Macht: Vormoderne politische Kultur in den ‘Pfarreirepubliken’ von Gersau und Dithmarschen,” in: Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, 41 (2/2014): 187–230. 5   Tom Scott, “Liberty and Community in Medieval Switzerland,” in his Town, Country, and Regions in Reformation Germany (Leiden: Brill, 2005), ch. 14; Randolph Head, Early Modern Democracy in the Grisons: Social Order and Political Language in a Swiss Mountain Canton, 1470–1620 (Cambridge: University Press, 1995); Carolyne Schnyder, Reformation und Demokratie im Wallis (1524–1613) (Mainz: P. von Zabern, 2002).

Origins, Evolutions and Settings

19

Appendix 1.6 The current total exceeds 300, but a definitive survey will prove elusive: in some cases, the documentation is vague, ambivalent or conflicting, in others the topographical location can no longer be ascertained. The latter applies e.g. to Dornhennebach somewhere in the Nuremberg region or the mysterious Unegcze, possibly situated south of Lake Constance. Then there is the question of whether imperial farmsteads, hamlets and valleys (Reichshöfe, -weiler, -valleys) should be included (they have been here, although a systematic search might well produce further examples). A particularly complex case is that of Eglofs in Upper Swabia, where closer scrutiny reveals two separate, if interlinked entities: a territorialized “lordship” around the eponymous town with a collective body known as “burghers” (Bürger) on the one hand; and a union of freemen entitled “peasants” (Bauern) scattered over a wider area on the other.7 The boundary between rural and urban entities was not razor-sharp either: before their aspirations were thwarted by repeated mortgaging from the fourteenth century, the villagers of Heidingsfeld just south of Würzburg had edged very close to town-status, while political life in small imperial free cities like Isny – with little more than 1000 inhabitants and no subject territory – may well have resembled that in major rural counterparts, apart from the right of representation in the Diet.8 All considered, it is fair to say that hundreds of peasant communities in the German lands tasted political freedom for longer or shorter periods of time, particularly in the Middle Ages. Mindful of the caveats, what more can be said about spatial distribution? As Figure 2 illustrates, imperial villages were concentrated in the heartlands of the Empire, especially the historic regions of Alsace, Franconia, Upper Germany and the central area around the confluence of the Rhine/Main rivers.9 Starting 6  This compilation builds – and substantially expands – upon L. Hugo, “Verzeichnis der ­freien Reichsdörfer in Deutschland,” in: Zeitschrift für Archivkunde, Diplomatik und Geschichte, 2 (1836): 446–76; Erhard Nietzschmann, Die Freien auf dem Lande: Ehemalige deutsche Reichsdörfer und ihre Wappen (Wolfenbüttel: Melchior Verlag, 2013) and Gerhard Köbler, “Das Reichsdorf in der deutschen Landesgeschichte,” in: Zeitschrift integrativer europäischer Rechtsgeschichte 5 (2015), http://www.koeblergerhard.de/ZIER-startseite.htm. 7  Peter Kissling, Freie Bauern und bäuerliche Bürger. Eglofs im Spätmittelalter und in der Frühneuzeit (Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2006), 56. 8  Ludwig Schnurrer, “‘Verhinderte’ Reichsstädte in Franken,” in Reichsstädte in Franken, ed. Rainer A. Müller (Munich: Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte, 1987), 1:357–67, esp. 363–4; further “borderline” cases in Nietzschmann, Reichsdörfer (note 6), 12, 27, 37, 46, 52; CarlHans Hauptmeyer, Verfassung und Herrschaft in Isny. Untersuchungen zur reichsstädtischen Rechts-, Verfassungs- und Sozialgeschichte, vornehmlich in der Frühen Neuzeit (Göppingen: Alfred Kümmerle, 1976), ch. 1. 9  This broadly corresponds to the south-western parts Peter Moraw termed königsnah, i.e. having particularly close links to the king or emperor: “Franken als königsnahe Landschaft im späten Mittelalter,” in: Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte 112 (1976): 123–38. In present-day administrative terms, the bulk fall into the French départments of Bas/Haut Rhin and the

20

Chapter 2

FIGURE 2

Approximate locations of case studies (in CAPITALS) within the wider topography of rural autonomy in the Holy Roman Empire, superimposed on a public domain map of early modern Central Europe from the Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd at the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection, University of Texas. Full circles surround regions where the extent of political freedom tended to erode from a high point in the Middle Ages, dotted lines the Alpine clusters where territorial lords lost influence over time. Federal “peasant republics” flourished on the northern/southern periphery, imperial villages mainly in more central areas.

with the latter, the case studies of Sulzbach and Soden am Taunus found themselves surrounded not only by powerful estates like the Elector of Mainz, the Landgrave of Hesse and the coronation city of Frankfurt a.M., but also fellow imperial villages like (Burg-)Holzhausen or Ginsheim and those belonging to two conglomerates known as the Ingelheimer Grund, nestled around a Pfalz (royal palace) dating back to the Carolingian period (Bubenheim, Daxweiler, Elsheim, Frei-Weinheim, Groß-Winternheim, Nieder-/Ober-Ingelheim, SauerSchwabenheim, Wackernheim) and – somewhat further away – the Kröver three German Länder Bavaria (albeit all outside the erstwhile duchy/electorate), RheinlandPfalz and Baden-Württemberg. Smaller numbers can be found in Hesse and present-day Switzerland, a mere sprinkling in Nordrhein-Westfalen and modern Austria. To the author’s knowledge, no cases have as yet surfaced for northern and eastern regions of the Empire, but further discoveries might well be made, especially in the German northwest and the Netherlands.

Origins, Evolutions and Settings

21

Reich (Bengel, Erden, Kinheim, Kinderbeuren, Kröv, Reitzel). Proceeding clockwise, the next major cluster appears in Franconia with several groups of immediate communities, most in the orbit of the powerful Prince-Bishop of Würzburg: the Reichsvogtei (Bailiwick) of Schweinfurt (which – apart from the eponymous city and the case studies of Gochsheim and Sennfeld – included Forst, Geltersheim, Grettstadt, Hilgersdorf, Oberrheinfeld, Pussenhaim and Rottershausen) plus the villages “under the mountains” (Hernsheim, Iffigheim, Weigenheim, Seinsheim), “on the Main” (Lindelbach, Lützelfeld, Sommer-/ Winterhausen) and “in the Rangau” (Dachstetten, Külsheim, Ober-/UnterNesselbach, Tottenheim, Urfersheim, Westheim).10 Moving southwards to “Upper Germany”, we find the free peasants of Eglofs and on Leutkircher Heide in Upper Swabia (the present-day Allgäu), Appenzell and – under the watchful eyes of a host of Reichsstädte as well as secular/ecclesiastical principalities – numerous imperial villages like Mittel-/Ober-/Unterschefflenz in Baden and the Reichstal of Harmersbach.11 The last major cluster emerged just across the Rhine, encompassing the southern part of the Palatinate (around Landau and Bergzabern) and above all the Alsace between Basel and Wissembourg. Within a historic landscape punctuated by immediate rural communities, well over forty were situated in the imperial bailiwick of Hagenau alone.12 The case study of Gersau, finally, nestled alongside the rural powerhouse of the Forest Cantons Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden on Lake Lucerne in the Central Alps. Across the centuries, therefore, substantial pockets of rural autonomy emerged in central and southern parts of the Holy Roman Empire, albeit to different extents and with varying chronologies.13 Documentary traces are rare before the thirteenth century, increase in volume in the late Middle Ages and remain fairly common until the end of the Ancien Régime. Judging from 10   On the complex situation at Ingelheim see the Historischer Verein’s exemplary “Ingelheimer Geschichte” website: http://www.ingelheimer-geschichte.de; on the other groups: Johannes Weiß, “Gruppen fränkischer Reichsdörfer,” in: Jahrbuch des historischen Vereins für Mittelfranken 77 (1957): 56–62. 11  Edwin Roedder, Das südwestdeutsche Reichsdorf in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, dargestellt auf Grund der Geschichte von Oberschefflenz im badischen Bauland (Lahr: Moritz Schauenburg, 1928); Eugen Hillenbrand, “Das freie Reichstal Harmersbach: Über die schwierige Wahrnehmung von Geschichte,” in: Die Ortenau 83 (2003): 47–60. 12  Josef Becker, “Die Reichsdörfer der Landvogtei und Pflege Hagenau,” in: Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins, NF 14 (1899): 207–47. 13  Since villages hardly ever possessed all conceivable powers, the range of their respective rights can serve as a yardstick for communal autonomy: Heidrun Ochs, “Kommunale Autonomie und Siegelführung: Das Beispiel des Rheingaus,” in: Dorf und Gemeinde. Grundstrukturen der ländlichen Gesellschaft in Spätmittelalter und Frühneuzeit, eds. Kurt Andermann and Oliver Auge (Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2012), 87–112, esp. 89.

22

Chapter 2

this material, three principal roots of immediate status can be distinguished: location on ancient royal demesnes, special privileges linked to colonization and disappearance of intermediate lords. The last option, relatively rare, resulted from the extinction of ruling dynasties (causing their territories to revert to the Empire), emancipation campaigns backed by military means (as pursued by the Forest Cantons) or the acquisition of political rights through purchase. A classic example of a monetary transaction dates from 1390, when villagers Ruedi Truchseler, Heinz Jenni, Heini Camenzindt and Jenni Megger bought the respective legal powers from patricians Johann, Peter and Agnes von Moos “on their own behalf and in the name of the others from Gersau” at a cost of £690 (cf. Figure 27b).14 A link to settler privileges ensuing from high medieval forest clearances has been claimed for Schlierbach in Hesse and the free people on Leutkircher Heide, although the evidence is tenuous.15 By far the most common explanation for the Reichsdörfer’s special status, therefore, is location on royal land. Around the first millennium, the density must have been relatively high. From the Merowingian and Carolingian periods, the Roman kings had accumulated substantial estates which they held ex officio, as Reichsgut, rather than on behalf of particular noble dynasties (although the two types of holdings proved notoriously difficult to keep apart). In 1020, Henry passed legislation to clarify the distinction and further lands accrued to the crown under the Ottonian and Salian rulers. In order to secure these resources for the longer term, the principle of non-alienation became widely accepted, at least in theory. It is the reflection of such “royal landscapes”, especially in Franconia and along the Rhine between Basel and Mainz, which emerges in Figure 2.16 14  BAG, Urkunden, no. 6 (3 June 1390), reproduced in Albert Müller, Gersau – Unikum der Schweizer Geschichte (Baden: Hier+Jetzt, 2013), fig. 7. One and a half centuries earlier, in 1234, the villagers of Eglofs had contributed a substantial 1,000 Marks to help Emperor Frederick II reclaim possession of their land from Count Hartmann I. of Grüningen: Kissling, Eglofs (note 7), 12, 38. Hergiswil (Nidwalden) bought out all Habsburg rights in 1378, perhaps providing inspiration for nearby Gersau: P. Iso Müller, “Die Entstehung der Pfarreien an den Ufern des Vierwaldstättersees,” in: Der Geschichtsfreund 117 (1964): 5–59, esp. 43. The demise of dynasties as a cause of immediate status is documented in D. Anton Friedrich Büsching, Neue Erdbeschreibung, part 3, vol. 3: Niedersächsischer Kreis, 4th edn (Hamburg: Carl Bohn, 1765), 3036. 15  Günther Franz, Geschichte des deutschen Bauernstandes vom frühen Mittelalter bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer, 1970), 77; Catherine De Kegel Schorer, Die Freien auf Leutkircher Heide: Ursprung, Ausformung und Erosion einer oberdeutschen Freibauerngenossenschaft (Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2007), 18. 16  Strong emphasis on royal demesne land – dating as far back as the Frankish period – in Bader, Dorfgenossenschaft (note 2), 103; Franz, Geschichte (note 15), 77; and Joachim Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, vol. 1 (Oxford: University Press, 2012), 44. Examples given in Hugo, “Verzeichnis” (note 6), 446, 451–61, include Aufkirchen, Harburg,

Origins, Evolutions and Settings

23

When portions had to be ceded for financial necessity, the normal pattern was temporary pawning rather than outright sale. To be mortgaged to a powerful prince or neighboring city, however, posed a serious threat to the political freedom of a community. Given the chronic impecuniousness of emperors, redemption at the end of the term was far from assured. If the debt could not be repaid or if places were pawned again and again, they risked slipping into subjection to the creditor.17 From the late Middle Ages, furthermore, the significance of Reichsgut declined more generally. The Roman kings increasingly relied on their own – now almost invariably Habsburg – Hausmacht and alternative revenues from regal rights and urban taxes. From that point, imperial villages must have become less of an active concern for their overlord and thus more vulnerable to external threats.18 In such a situation, it was crucial to renew ties on a regular basis. Time and again throughout our period, representatives of immediate estates flocked to the – originally peripatetic – imperial court to acquire or confirm privileges. On 10  September 1422 at Nuremberg, for example, Alsatian imperial villages prompted King Sigismund to remind the city of Hagenau to shield their “poor people” from unjustified tax demands; on 17 August 1442 at Frankfurt, Frederick  III placed Groß- and Klein-Karben, Rodheim/Burggräfenrode and Kaichen – apparently victims of frequent seigneurial encroachments – under the special protection of the Empire, instructing named princes, counts, knights and magistrates to fine any offenders the sum of 20 marks; and on 10 July 1498 at Freiburg i.B., Maximilian obliged the imperial village of Sufflenheim by confirming a charter issued by his predecessor Sigismund in 1418.19

Kirchheim and Kröv; Hohenstaufen nestled around the castle of the Staufer dynasty near Göppingen: Nietzschmann, Reichsdörfer (note 6), 44; no royal possessions though can be traced in the case study of Sennfeld: Gerhard Köbler, “Sennfeld”, in his Historisches Lexikon der deutschen Länder (6th edn, Munich: Beck, 1999), 607–8. 17  The freemen on Leutkircher Heide saw their autonomy eroded first by Verpfändungen to the Counts of Montfort in the late Middle Ages and then the territorialization campaign of the powerful Habsburg dynasty: De Kegel, Freien (note 15), passim; similarly, the burghers and peasants in and around Eglofs were continuously mortgaged from the late thirteenth century: Kissling, Eglofs (note 7), 12. Because of their limited individual resources, imperial villages in Franconia were often pawned out in groups: Weiß, “Reichsdörfer” (note 10), 56. 18  Dieter Hägermann, “Reichsgut,” in: Lexikon des Mittelalters, ed. Robert-Henri Bautier, vol. 7 (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1995), col. 620–622. 19  RI, vol. XI/1, no. 5177 (Sigismund); ibid., vol. XIII, issue 8 n. 53 (Frederick III); vol. XIV/2, no. 6381 (Maximilian). For the imperial charters obtained by the case studies see Chapter 4 below.

24

FIGURE 3

Chapter 2

The emperor conveys a sealed charter to a kneeling recipient. Woodcut in Ulrich Tengler, Layen Spiegel, Von rechtmässigen ordnungen in Burgerlichen vnd peinlichen regimenten. Augsburg, 1509, J iii, f. 73r.

Contemporaries were well aware of the phenomenon. An early compilation of the rights of “imperial farmsteads” appeared in a fourteenth-century German lawbook. In 1738, Germany’s principal early modern encyclopedia featured an entry on “freye Reichs-Dörffer”, which put the emphasis on their extensive jurisdictional rights and the fact that “they are subject only to his imperial majesty, without intermediaries”.20 Legal treatises within the Reichspublizistik genre added a little more detail. In the mid-eighteenth century, Gottlieb August Jenichen’s Abhandlung offered a succinct definition (see Chapter  1), noted that Swabia and Franconia had once been “full” of such communities, 20  On Das kleine Kaiserrecht of c. 1350 see Ulrich-Dieter Oppitz, “Reichsdörfer,” in Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, 2nd edn (forthcoming); Johann Heinrich Zedler, Grosses Universal=Lexicon aller Wissenschaften und Künste, vol. 9 (Leipzig: Zedler, 1735), col. 1865; cf. Chapter 6 below.

Origins, Evolutions and Settings

25

FIGURE 4 A period depiction of a scultetus (left; avoyer) and scabinus (right; juror) with their coats acting in an imperial court in Reinhard Wegelin, Gründlich-Historischer Bericht von der kayserlichen und Reichs Landvogtey in Schwaben, 2 parts (Ulm, 1755), title page.

explained their political organization (featuring an external Reichsvogt, i.e. a “bailiff” drawn from among the imperial estates, and a Schultheiß or “avoyer” as the most senior village official), acknowledged the survival of places like Althausen and commended them to the Empire’s special protection.21 Johann Reinhard Wegelin, in turn, touched on the phenomenon in the course of his denouncement of Habsburg encroachments on the imperial bailiwick of Swabia. Among the victims were the “Curtes ac Villae Regiae oder so genandten Reichs Dörffer, Reichs Fleckhen und Reichs Höff”, once numbering “well over one hundred” across many parts of Germany, but now reduced to a handful like Gochsheim, Sennfeld and the free people of Leutkircher Heide.22 A particularly authoritative voice, the eminent jurist Johann Jacob Moser, highlighted imperial villages in a discussion of minor polities without intermediate lords (besides imperial knights/abbeys and others). Confirming their resilience, he stressed that the Imperial Aulic Council had upheld the political status of Gochsheim and Sennfeld “only a few years ago” and that public law also guaranteed Reichsdörfer the exercise of their religion as practiced

21  Abhandlung von denen Reichs-Dörffern und Reichs-freyen Leuten (no place/publisher, 1768), 4, 9, 31 [first published 1747]. In German, a Schult-heiß is someone who can demand the rendering of dues or obligations. 22  Gründlich-Historischer Bericht von der kayserlichen und Reichs Landvogtey in Schwaben wie auch dem Frey Kayserlichen Landtgericht auf Leutkircher Haid und in der Pirß, 2 parts (Ulm, 1755), part 1, 37–8.

26

Chapter 2

in 1624 (the year adopted as the general “norm” in the Peace of Westphalia).23 In one of the few scholarly works dedicated entirely to the subject, Ernst Ludwig Wilhelm von Dacheröden – who went on to become a government minister in the Electorate of Mainz and member of the Academy of Sciences at Erfurt – described them as “pagi imperii immediati [immediate rural districts]  …, enjoying all the [respective] rights  … Even though most of them stand under the protection of an imperial estate, this does not convey territorial lordship over them”; much rather, as separate “states”, the villages exercised it themselves.24 Like in immediate cities and principalities, therefore, domestic powers included legislation, Policey (measures to promote the good order of a commonwealth), church/school government, election of key officials, taxraising competences and a separate court system, at least for lower jurisdiction – whether it could stretch to the Blutbann, i.e. the right to deal with matters of life and limb, was disputed among observers.25 In return, the villages had to contribute to imperial (military) levies and pay a fee to their bailiff, but were exempt from any dues imposed on the latter’s “regular” subjects. Given the lack of real power, Reichsdörfer needed much ingenuity to preserve their freedom in the longer term. As we will see in Chapter 4, local communities deployed a remarkable range of strategies, mobilizing all political, legal and even militia resources in pursuit of that goal.26 Over the course of the early modern period, however, several factors led to a steep decrease in numbers. First, the precarious financial situation of emperors never allowed a 23  Grund=Riß der heutigen Staats=Verfassung des Teutschen Reichs, 7th edn (Tübingen: Johann Georg Cotta, 1774), 532–3; for the villages’ ius religionis/reformandi, i.e. the right to regulate religious affairs and adopt the Reformation, see also Franz, Geschichte (note 15), 78. 24  Ernst Ludwig Wilhelm von Dacheröden, Versuch eines Staatsrechts, Geschichte und Statistik der freyen Reichsdörfer in Teutschland (Leipzig: Crusius, 1785), 1–2, 38–42; similar attribution of Landesherrschaft to the villages in Simon Friederich Segnitz, Staatsrecht, Geschichte und Statistik der beyden Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld als ein Anhang zu des Herrn von Dacheröden Versuch eines Staatsrechts (Schweinfurt: Heinrich Wilhelm Volkhart, 1802), 55, 100–4. 25  Dacheröden, Reichsdörfer (note 24), 88, thought it did; Georg Ludwig von Maurer, Geschichte der Dorfverfassung in Deutschland (Erlangen: Enke, 1865–66; reprint Aalen: Scientia, 1961), 382, disagreed. On the use of the term “state” for imperial villages in the eighteenth century see also Ekkehard Kaufmann, “Reichsdörfer,” in: Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, ed. Adalbert Erler et al., 5 vols (Berlin: Schmidt, 1971–98), vol. 4, col. 563. 26  Chances were best in complex constitutional settings or where villages straddled political boundaries: Fritz Zeilein, “Das freie Reichsdorf Gochsheim – Einführung,” in Reichsstädte in Franken, ed. R. A. Müller, vol. 1: Verfassung und Verwaltung (Munich, 1987), 379–87, esp. 379; similar assessments in Bader, Dorfgenossenschaft (note 2), 112; and Franz, Geschichte (note 15), 77.

Origins, Evolutions and Settings

27

whole-scale redemption of mortgaged lands – and – as Wegelin deplored with reference to Swabia – the Habsburgs quite clearly pursued dynastic interests of their own. Once family members (or their clients) had laid hands on imperial resources, there was little incentive to hand them back – a constellation which conspired, for example, against the associations of free peasants in Upper Swabia. Second, and more importantly, the pull of territorialization proved too strong for most rural communities. Be it through encroachments of imperial bailiffs, purchase, sheer force or – in a few cases – voluntary integration, princes and cities eroded the liberties of immediate communities within their sphere of influence. Normally, this was a fiercely contested process accompanied by local protests, endless lawsuits and diplomatic wrangling, but historians agree that the Zeitgeist favored centralization and rationalization. In such a climate, micropolities with special privileges appeared awkward and anachronistic. By the eighteenth century, the “period of communalism and freedom in the Empire had come to an end.”27 This general trajectory is undisputed, but – as always in the Empire – the pattern on the ground remained complex. In spite of all obstacles, rural political freedom retained its appeal and continued in various guises. Some imperial villages bucked the trend by gaining their greatest autonomy only towards the end of the early modern period. The first time Gams near St Gall surfaced in this category was in the seventeenth century and – following centuries as a mortgaged holding – the Harmersbach valley only acquired final confirmation of its immediate status (distinct from the territory of the city of Zell) in 1718.28 Even where direct links to the Empire were cut, customary practices and privileges could endure. At Ingelheim near Mainz, for example, the Count Palatine assumed effective territorial control from 1375, but villagers retained a presence alongside nobles as jurors on local courts (as well as the Oberhof, a regional appeal tribunal) and representation on local governing councils well into the early modern period.29 The end of the road 27  Kissling, Eglofs (note 7), 429; similar Maurer, Dorfverfassung (note 25), 407–12 (stressing that early modern imperial law declared mortgaging permanent); examples of voluntary adoption of a territorial lord: ibid., 406. 28  Melchior Goldast, Reichshandlung Tractaten/Keyserliche/Königliche vnd Fürstliche Mandaten/So dem Gemeinen Nutz zu gutem/vnd Politischen Personen zu sonderm Gefallen (Hanau: Johann Halbeyen, 1609), f. 19 (Gams); on Harmersbach: Hermann Conrad, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, Vol. 2: Neuzeit bis 1806 (Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller, 1966), 205; and Wilfried Beutter, “Harmersbach,” in Lexikon der deutschen Geschichte. Personen – Ereignisse – Institutionen, ed. Gerhard Taddey, 2nd edn (Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner, 1983), 505. 29  Franz, Geschichte (note 15), 67; on the complex jurisdictional landscape see Franz J. Felten et al. eds., Die Ingelheimer Haderbücher (Ingelheim: Historischer Verein, 2010) and, from a comparative regional perspective, Alexander Krey, Die Praxis der spätmittelalterlichen

28

Chapter 2

for Reichsdörfer eventually came in 1803, three years before the formal dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire as a whole. In the context of the French revolutionary wars, the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss assigned each surviving village to a principality in compensation for lands lost elsewhere, a transfer known as Mediatisierung.30 It is often claimed that, by that point, a mere five (Gochsheim, Sennfeld, Sulzbach, Soden, Leutkircher Heide) remained to be allocated,31 but this somewhat overdramatizes the decline. For a start, the “Reichsdorf” (Burg-)Holzhausen also features in the document and at least a handful of other communities – Altshausen, Gersau, Harmersbach, Ockstadt, Ringingen – had managed to retain their immediate status until shortly before 1800.32 Still, in contrast to the Middle Ages, the relevance of the phenomenon derives less from absolute numbers than the remarkable resilience and resourcefulness of early modern villagers who felt motivated enough to defy – and sometimes stem – the tide of territorialization. The point about surprisingly widespread exposure to (elements of) political freedom gains further currency when we widen the perspective beyond imperial villages and peasant federations to commoners living under a territorial ruler. From the fourteenth century, several hundred rural communities – mainly near the French-German border along the Rhine – received grants of law codes normally reserved for urban corporations (Stadtrechte), turning them into “peasant cities” and reinforcing the impression of blurred borderlines between town and country.33 Other routes to autonomy were taken in the Rheingau (immediately across the Rhine from the Ingelheimer Grund in Laiengerichtsbarkeit: Gerichts- und Rechtslandschaften des Rhein-Main-Gebietes im 15. Jahrhundert im Vergleich (Cologne: Böhlau, 2015). An edition of the surviving Ingelheim records is in progress. 30  Hauptschluss (main resolution) of the extraordinary imperial deputation of 25 February 1803, accessible at: https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Hauptschlu%C3%9F_der_au%C3%9 Ferordentlichen_Reichsdeputation_vom_25._Februar_1803, esp. §2, 7, 12. 31  See e.g. Hugo, “Verzeichnis” (note 6), 446; and Helmut Neuhaus, Das Reich in der Frühen Neuzeit, 2nd edn (München: Oldenbourg, 2003), 38. 32  Hauptschluss (note 30), §7 (Holzhausen); Albert Müller, “Gersau,” in: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz (2006), http://www.hls-dhs-dss.ch/textes/d/D711.php; Datenbank Höchstgerichtsbarkeit (Ockstadt case 1798); Nietzschmann, Reichsdörfer (note 6), 11 (Altshausen); Beutter, “Harmersbach” (note 28), 506; Franz, Geschichte (note 15), 77 (Ringingen). 33  For example, 68 received permission to adopt the laws of the imperial free city of Frankfurt a.M., which included the right to elect their own court jurors: Franz, Geschichte (note 15), 71. This needs to be distinguished from the extension of citizenship rights and legal protection by cities to individuals living outside their boundaries: Peter Blickle, “‘Doppelpass’ im Mittelalter: Ausbürger in oberdeutschen und schweizerischen Städten und der Verfall der feudalen Herrschaft,” in: Die Stadt als Kommunikationsraum: Beiträge

Origins, Evolutions and Settings

29

Hesse) and the Bregenzerwald (adjacent to the rural republics of Appenzell and the Grisons in the Austrian region of Vorarlberg). The former, made up of urban and rural remnants of a former royal county surrounded by a natural boundary, formally belonged to the Chancellor of the Empire (Mainz) but ran its legal and communal affairs pretty independently; the latter had Habsburg overlords, but developed a distinct identity and substantial rights of self-government through involvement in the district’s court of high jurisdiction.34 Entirely the result of bottom-up emancipation, in contrast, was the successive accumulation of local powers in Saanen (Bernese Oberland) from the early fourteenth century. Exploiting monetary difficulties of the Counts of Greyerz, the peasants first redeemed a tax marking their servile status and the obligation to pay death duties, then acquired custom rights and finally – in 1448, at the exorbitant cost of £24,733 – bought all remaining seigneurial privileges. A common seal proudly signaled the valley’s distinct identity, although the Saanenland never aspired to formal Reichsfreiheit and eventually became an autonomous region within the city-state of Bern.35 Elsewhere, both absence of serfdom and/or manorial constraints could foster self-government, particularly in socio-economic affairs. Somewhat confusingly, these kinds of communes also came to be referred to as “free villages” in the period.36 Yet even a full assortment of dues and labor services did not preclude the emergence of political rights; in “normal” villages, peasants typically obtained a say in the passing of agricultural by-laws, a share in the administration of parish property, a voice in the appointment of local office-holders and customary representation through jurors in petty jurisdiction – in other words, they exercised legislative, administrative and jurisdictional “state functions”.37 If lords zur Stadtgeschichte vom Mittelalter bis ins 20. Jahrhundert, ed. Helmut Bräuer et al. (Leipzig: Universitätsverlag, 2001), 37–48. 34  Ochs, “Autonomie” (note 13); Mathias Moosbrugger, Der Hintere Bregenzerwald – eine Bauernrepublik? Neue Untersuchungen zu seiner Verfassungs- und Strukturgeschichte im Spätmittelalter (Constance: UVK, 2009). 35  Peter Bierbrauer, Freiheit und Gemeinde im Berner Oberland 1300–1700 (Bern: Historischer Verein, 1991), 168 (transfer to Bern in 1555). 36  Heide Wunder, Die bäuerliche Gemeinde in Deutschland (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 77; the issue is compounded by the fact that, in early modern Germany, the phrase “free villages” could stretch to rural communes with merely one specific privilege, e.g. permission for inhabitants to sell wine (Bader, Dorfgenossenschaft [note 2], 103– 4). These, however, fall outside the scope of this study. 37  Peter Blickle, Deutsche Untertanen – Ein Widerspruch (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1981), 35; for case studies and conceptualization, see his Kommunalismus: Skizzen einer gesellschaftlichen Organisationsform, vol. 1 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2000), ch. 1, esp. the Carthusian manor of Buxheim, and Beat Kümin, The Communal Age in Western Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2013), ch. 2: “The Village in the Holy Roman Empire”.

30

Chapter 2

challenged such customary arrangements, villagers did not hesitate to resist, be it by humble petitions, force of arms or – increasingly – by taking offenders to court, if necessary at the highest levels and sparing no costs. Over the course of the early modern period, hundreds of Untertanenprozesse clogged up the imperial justice system.38 Constellations of conflicting seigneurial interests could also work in the localities’ favor, as reflected by the growth of communal powers e.g. at Frankenhofen, Gräfensteinberg, Nordstetten, Obermögersheim, Trochtelfingen und Windsfeld in Swabia.39 An extreme case was Oberehrenbach in Franconia. Its twenty-two holdings were divided among seven different lords who effectively neutralized each other. The Prince-Bishop of Bamberg claimed a certain pre-eminence, but when his district officials attempted to audit the communal accounts in 1745, the villagers reacted furiously and brought their complaint before the Imperial Aulic Council. To the horror of the prelate’s lawyers (and against the above-mentioned Zeitgeist), Oberehrenbach’s case was upheld by the Viennese judges. A stronghold of (socio-economic) manorialism was thus (politically) an imperial village, proudly termed “freely owned” (freieigen) by its inhabitants. Similarly at Achalm in present-day Baden-Württemberg, the peasants owed rents and dues to several nobles, but the existence of an imperial bailiff testifies to their constitutionally immediate status.40 This brings us full circle and back to our main objects of investigation, which – in many ways – just represented the tip of the iceberg of local autonomy. In a reflection of the affinity between imperial and other more or less “free” villages, the sources sometimes use the term Flecken for both. Documented e.g. for Eglofs, Ergersheim, Gersau, Holzhausen, Ringingen, Soden and Sulzbach, this evocative expression – literally meaning a “spot” in the landscape 38  For examples see the “Datenbank Höchstgerichtsbarkeit”. A case study of peasant unrest and litigation can be found in Johannes Schmitt, Die Republicaner an der Prims: Untersuchungen zur Reichsherrschaft Hüttersdorf-Buprich im 18. Jahrhundert (Saarbrücken: universaar, 2012); sixteenth-century evidence for quasi-constitutional settlements in the peasants’ favor in Peter Blickle and André Holenstein, eds., Agrarverfassungsverträge (Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 1996). Cf. Chapter 4 below. 39  Maurer, Dorfverfassung (note 25), 365. 40  Fritz Zimmermann, “Das ‘freie’ Dorf Oberehrenbach, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Gemeinderechts,” in: Bamberger Blätter für fränkische Kunst und Geschichte 12 (5/1935): 18–19; Maurer, Dorfverfassung (note 25), 369 (Achalm). Whatever their position, villages stored and remembered privileges carefully, enabling them to challenge any encroachments: Steffen Krieb, “Das Gedächtnis der Herrschaft. Schriftlichkeit, Tradition und Legitimitätsglauben im Stift Kempten im 15. Jahrhundert,” in: Tradition und Erinnerung in Adelsherrschaft und bäuerlicher Gesellschaft, ed. Werner Rösener (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 23–42.

Origins, Evolutions and Settings

31

– conveyed the idea of a commune’s comparatively distinctive, privileged position in terms of rights and/or infrastructure, not necessarily markets (normally associated with urban status), but churches, lawcourts and political institutions. On period maps like Hans Konrad Gyger’s depiction of the Swiss Confederation in 1657, symbols denoting such pockets of greater autonomy thus tended to be ranked somewhere between major towns and regular villages.41 The five case studies chosen for this survey cover a broad regional and contextual spectrum. As apparent from Figure 2, four are located in the central parts of present-day Germany (two each in the Länder of Hesse and Bavaria) and one in inner Switzerland (today’s Canton of Schwyz). All have impeccable evidence of immediate status, were recognized as politically “free” communities by contemporaries, and resisted subjection under a territorial lord from the late Middle Ages until the end of the Ancien Régime (respectively the establishment of the French-imposed Helvetic Republic in 1798 and the Mediatisierung of 1803). The four German communities adopted the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Alpine village remained Catholic throughout; the former existed in close proximity to both imperial free cities and powerful princes; the latter was embedded in a landscape of rural and urban republics. Gochsheim and Sennfeld, two adjacent Reichsdörfer with closely intertwined fortunes, were situated just south-east of the imperial free city of Schweinfurt.42 Royal possessions at Gochsheim are recorded e.g. in a charter of Henry VII in 1234 and both villages appear – alongside the eponymous city – as parts of the Reichsvogtei Schweinfurt in 1282. Explicit reference to a “court of the 41  See e.g. Kissling, Eglofs (note 7), 12; Franz, Geschichte (note 15), 77 (Ergersheim, Ringingen); Johann Jacob Leu, Allgemeines Helvetisches, Eydgenössisches, Oder Schweitzerisches Lexicon, 20 vols (Zürich, 1747–65), vol. 8, 448 (Gersau); Wilhelm A. Eckhardt, „Das Reichsdorf Holzhausen,” in: Zeitschrift für hessische Geschichte und Landeskunde 92 (987): 155–70, esp. 164; SABS, I, 1, 4: Petition to Mainz against violation of privileges (Sulzbach and Soden; 1715); GRS, Ackerbuch über des Hochlöbl: Kornambts=Geländ zu Sultzbach (1721), f. 179v; Georges Grosjean and Madlena Cavelti, eds., 500 Jahre Schweizer Landkarten (Zurich: Orell Füssli, 1971), no. 16 (Flecken symbol). 42  Gottlieb August Jenichen, Abhandlung von denen Reichs-Dörffern und Reichs-freyen Leuten (no place/publisher, 1768), 18–19; Johann Jacob Moser, Grund=Riß der heutigen Staats=Verfassung des Teutschen Reichs. Zum Gebrauch Academischer Lectionen entworffen, 7th edn (Tübingen: Cotta, 1774), 532 (and related documentation); Anton Büsching, Erdbeschreibung (note 14), 3039; Simon Friedrich Segnitz, “Beytrag zur Geschichte und statistischen Topographie der beyden Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld in einem kurzen Entwurf,” in: Journal von und für Franken 4 (1792): 529–628; Friedrich Weber, Geschichte der fränkischen Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld. (Schweinfurt: Ernst Stoer, 1913); Zeilein, “Gochsheim” (note 26), 380–6 (applicable with some modifications to Sennfeld).

32

Chapter 2

empire” in a house of the commune at Sennfeld dates from a register of lands compiled in 1317. For most of the late Middle Ages, the Counts of Henneberg served as imperial bailiffs, followed in 1542 by the Landgrave of Hesse and 1548 by the Elector Palatine, represented locally by a junior deputy (Untervogt). In 1568 Elector Frederick III granted Gochsheim a Wappenbrief, i.e. a charter conveying a communal seal and coat of arms, which – abstracting from some “usurpers” – appears to be the sole such document surviving for an imperial village (cf. Chapter 6 and Figure 25c).43 The year after, Emperor Maximilian II transferred bailiff duties to the city council of Schweinfurt, which – following protests against encroachments by the close neighbor – ceded it to the Diocese of Würzburg in 1572. This new relationship was formalized in a treaty of 1575, when the inhabitants recognized Bishop Julius Echter as “our eternal and irrevocable imperial bailiff, protector and defender” in return for his confirmation of the villages’ “ancient liberties” and Lutheran religion, adopted in 1540.44 In practice, however, the prelate and his successors steered an aggressive Counter-Reformation course and started to meddle in local government, triggering decades of severe tensions (see Chapter 4 below). As in many other respects, the Thirty Years’ War led to further disruptions, this time on an international scale. After the role of bailiff had reverted to the City of Schweinfurt in 1632 at Sweden’s insistence, the Bishop brought Emperor Ferdinand III to accept the villages’ integration into Würzburg territory just five years later. Eventually, following the conclusion of the Treaty of Westphalia and communal requests backed up by Swedish pressure, a “restitution commission” restored Gochsheim and Sennfeld as Reichsdörfer on 14 August 1649, a decision recorded among many others in the Peace’s more detailed implementation agreement (known as the Friedens-Exekutions-Haupt-Rezess) published the year after.45 Multiple pieces of evidence confirm the villages’ status subsequently, e.g. a 1663 tax register listing immediate estates of the Empire, protection letters issued by the Imperial Cameral Court and Charles VI in 1702/1716, a survey on imperial bailiwicks (1755) and a regional map of 1802, where their 43  GAG, GO-ZM25002-UI/1-(021); see also Günter Mattern‚ “Siegel und Wappen der Reichsdörfer. Aufnahmearbeit für die Internationale Akademie für Heraldik,” in: Archivum Heraldicum 90 (1976), H. 3/4: 12; on communities claiming immediate status somewhat speculatively see Chapter 4. 44  Original sealed copy in GAG, 04.08.2006 031; text printed in Friedrich Stein, ed., Monumenta Suinfurtensia historica (Schweinfurt: E. Stoer, 1875), 560. 45   The case “Gochsheimb und Senfeld cont. Wu(e)rtzburg” appears in Designatio Restituendorum in tribus Terminis, Vermög deß praeliminr: und HauptRecess, mit Lit. A. bezeichnet (Nürnberg, 1650), A3. Full text of the restitution commission’s recess dated 4/14 August 1649, in GAG, 04.08.2006 034 A (2).

Origins, Evolutions and Settings

33

lands are clearly demarcated from those of both the City of Schweinfurt and other Franconian estates (cf. Figure 1).46 The same year saw a temporary annexation by Bavaria (confirmed in the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss 1803), followed from 1806 by a return to the (secularized) Grand Duchy of Würzburg and eventually permanent integration into Bavaria in 1814. Socio-economically, Gochsheim contained around 300 households with up to 1500 inhabitants in the late eighteenth century.47 Discounting the Freiherren von Erthal, tithe lords with their own “castle” exempt from village control, the local elite consisted of a pool of prosperous yeomen occupying free holdings as well as the most prominent positions in pews and assemblies.48 Most of the householders, in contrast, were manorial tenants, around a third owing rents and services to the Cistercian Abbey of Ebrach, others to the Schweinfurt hospital (both represented on the court by their own avoyer49), the Würzburg cathedral chapter and up to seven further lords. This complex constellation prompted frequent disagreements on the respective extent of their feudal and communal obligations, since all inhabitants within the boundary were subject to the imperial bailiwick/avoyer in political and jurisdictional terms.50 Agricultural products included fruit, vegetables and wine, which the inhabitants sold on nearby markets (lacking one of their own). Some neighbors practiced trades, e.g. as bakers, smiths, potters, and many availed themselves of the privilege to run domestic taverns.51 Lower down the hierarchy, we find 46  Verzeichnuß/Deß Heyl: Römischen Reichs/Teutscher Nation/Hochlöblichster: Hoch: und Wol-löblicher Stände/nach den Zehen Reichs-Craissen (1663), 19; Hugo, “Reichsdörfer” (note 6), 457 (imperial courts); Reinhard Wegelin, Gründlich-Historischer Bericht von der kayserlichen und Reichs Landvogtey in Schwaben, 2 parts (Ulm, 1755), pt. 1, 38; cf. the map “Das Bisthum Wurtzburg” by J. Schollenberger (1676), where the two villages are also shown outside the city’s territory, accessible in Franconia Online, section “Historische Karten” at http://franconica.uni-wuerzburg.de/ub/topographia-franconiae/maps.html. 47  This paragraph is based on Walfried Hein, Reichsschultheiß und ein Ehrbares Gericht: Bürgerliches Leben im freien Reichsdorf Gochsheim (Gochsheim: Gemeinde, 1994); Weber, Gochsheim und Sennfeld (note 42); and Doris Badel, Sennfeld: Geschichte eines ehemals freien Reichsdorfes in Franken (Sennfeld: Gemeinde, 1997). 48  Weber, Gochsheim (note 42), 7, 86. 49  In 1713, according to inscriptions on an ornamental court jug, Martin Bernhardt acted as avoyer for the empire, Hans Meder for the Abbey of Ebrach and Sebald Schmit for the hospital: Stadtgeschichtliches Museum im Alten Gymnasium, Schweinfurt, Inv. no. 3o5A (cf. Figure 28a). 50  See e.g. Stein, ed., Monumenta (note 44), 70, 281, 306 and – most startingly – a mandate of excommunication imposed on Gochsheim officials (including avoyer and jurors) for encroachments on alleged rights of the abbey: StAW, Ebrach, Zisterzienser, Urkunden, 3 December 1456. 51  VG, e.g. appendices pp. 14, 17.

34

Chapter 2

residents (Häusler, paying an annual fee of 5 f. for lesser participation/property rights), some landless laborers and a sustained presence of Jews (traditionally under the emperor’s special protection), living first within the Erthal compound and later in a separate building complex.52 No lesser figure than their imperial commander, Josl of Rosheim, contacted Gochsheim and its then bailiff, the Elector Palatine, to complain against violations of rights in 1548, prompting the latter as well as Charles  V to confirm all customary arrangements. The emperor’s 1551 mandate explicitly named Baruch Mair, Mosche Hafenkeß and widow Kollein as living in the village. Following the Bishop of Würzburg’s succession to the position of protector, his religious policies included an ejection of all Jews from the territory in the late 1570s, but subsequent correspondence suggests that Christoph Heinrich von Erthal allowed his small community to stay, clearly against the will of the commune. Further frictions about protection money and contributions to parish funds are documented in the eighteenth century.53 Complementing the representative communal buildings in the center (village hall, church and defensive ring; Figure 5; cf. Chapter 6), local features included a school (built in 1588 by the Lutheran parish), the Erthal “castle” and a prison. A village plan drawn by peasant chronicler Johann Ludwig in 1798 reveals the street pattern, subdivisions into different wards, the existence of several prominent landmarks (such as the parsonage or cemetery) and the location of five gates which punctuated the “wall” surrounding the nuclear settlement (the “Schwebheimer Tor” survives; cf. Figure 28b).54 Two outbreaks of plague in 1564 and 1584 cost the lives of 405 and 300 souls respectively, which must have been devastating blows for local society. Due to the paucity of archival survival, much less is known about neighboring Sennfeld. No Reichsgut at all is documented here, but the village had its own church, parsonage, hall and communal institutions catering for – what appears to have been – a socioeconomically more homogeneous body of inhabitants, some of whom claiming fishing rights in a local pond of repeatedly contested ownership.55 Nearly the entire pre-modern material heritage fell victim to two military catastrophes, 52  Hein, Reichsschultheiß (note 47), 18. 53  StAW, Reichsstadt Schweinfurt, no. 14/1 (1551) and Lehensachen, no. 4939, f. 158 (1575–81); GAG, GO-AK21007-LI/36-: Johannes Ludwig, Collectanea sive Manuale, section “Chronicle,” 1744/47. 54  GAG, GO-AK21007-LI/41a-: Johannes Ludwig, Topographische Vorstellung von Gochsheim (1798). 55  Stein, ed., Monumenta (note 44), 127 (mortgaging of the pond in 1377); StAW, Reichsstadt Schweinfurt, Urkunden, January 21st, 1556 (the pond – today’s “Sennfelder See” – named as part of the possessions of the imperial bailiwick of Schweinfurt).

Origins, Evolutions and Settings

FIGURE 5

35

The center of Gochsheim, featuring village hall, parish church, inn and a walled ring around the old cemetery, gives it a quasi-urban appearance, an impression reinforced by the existence of five gates and a rich communal infrastructure. And yet, there was no market, with the main square used for ceremonial and festive occasions.

one during the Thirty Years’ War (when all but three houses were damaged in a Swedish operation in 1648) and the other in World War Two (where an air raid of 1944 caused widespread destruction). The situation at Sulzbach and Soden in present-day Hesse, another coterminous pair of villages, was similarly complex, partly because of the influence of monastic (and later noble) lords over an extensive group of servile inhabitants within an overlapping area known as the Vogtei. The distinct, free universitas of Sulzbach (which had managed to build independent jurisdictional institutions) seems to have lacked a protector until the city of Frankfurt assumed this role in 1282. A charter by Charles IV in 1339 mortgaged it to Philipp von Falkenstein, while stressing that it remained “our and the Empire’s village”.56 56  Information based on general surveys of the two communes in Karl Roßbach, Geschichte der freien Reichsdörfer Sulzbach und Soden (Bad Soden i.T., 1924; reprint Flörsheim, 1981); Ekkehard Kaufmann, Geschichte und Verfassung der Reichsdörfer Soden und Sulzbach

36

Chapter 2

Sulzbach and Soden managed to avoid the fate of many other pawned localities, thanks to Frankfurt’s support of litigation during the early fifteenth ­century. However, in a case of hero turned villain, the city then worked on integrating the communes into its own territory, a situation not really clarified in a charter issued by Sigismund in 1434 which confirmed their ties to the Empire “and how they follow the customs of our city of Frankfurt”.57 Originally under the overview of a noble official charged with the defense of urban possessions in the area, financial obligations following a feud forced Sulzbach and Soden to mortgage their communes to Frankfurt in 1450, ushering in a period of perennial conflicts only partially resolved by the repayment of the debt in 1613. Within this period, new religious ideas seem to have fallen on fertile ground, with the first Lutheran parson of Sulzbach documented in 1546.58 In 1645, Ferdinand III had to remind Frankfurt not to abuse its position and, from 1650, the constellation was complicated further by the succession of the Prince-Elector of Mainz to local rights once owned by the Abbey of Limburg. In spite of a formal division of power between the city and prelate, who declared themselves joint overlords over Sulzbach and Soden in an agreement of 1656, the tripartite relationship remained fraught, with the inhabitants protesting strongly against any violation of their customary rights. The eighteenth century brought repeated appeals to the highest imperial courts and, in 1753, a richly documented reassertion of the villages’ immediate status by the jurist Friedrich Carl von Moser, a case promptly refuted by a Mainz official, all without settling the

1035–1806, Ph.D., Frankfurt (Bad Soden: Gögelein, 1951; reprint Flörsheim a.M.: Lauck, 1981); Sigi Fay, Sulzbach am Taunus, 3 vols (Sulzbach: Gemeindevorstand, 1983–89); Joachim Kromer, Bad Soden am Taunus. Stadtgeschichte, 2 vols (Frankfurt a.M.: Waldemar Kramer, 1990–91), esp. vol. 2, 50–4 (1339), and Hildegard von Nolting, ed., Aus der Sodener Gerichtslade (Bad Soden: Arbeitskreis für Bad Sodener Geschichte, 1996). Frankfurt’s 1282 protection charter for the “avoyer, jurors and universitas” of Sulzbach, given in return for military support, appears in Friedrich Lau, ed., Urkundenbuch der Reichsstadt Frankfurt (Frankfurt a.M.: Joseph Baer & Co., 1901), vol. 1, 225. 57  Specifically on relations to Frankfurt see the collation of relevant documents in the city archive (ISF, Dörfer, 527); Johann Heinrich Faber, Topagraphische, politische und historische Beschreibung der Reichs= Wahl= und Handelsstadt Frankfurt am Mayn, 2 vols (Frankfurt: Jäger, 1788), vol. 2, 553–66; Friedrich Bothe, Geschichte der Stadt Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt a.M.: Moritz Diesterweg, 1913), 222; and Chapter 4 below. The ambivalent formulation of 1434 in RI, XI/2, Nr. 10203, p. 284. 58  Letters of service for the Frankfurt Amtmann looking after several villages survive in ISF, Dienstbriefe, e.g. no. 1.203 (Gilbrecht Weise von Fuerbach, 1381), 1.223–4 (Endris Sleyffris, 1418) etc. Martin Eckhardt, “Sulzbach und seine Kirche: Ein geschichtlicher Überblick von 1035–1724,” in: Sulzbach und seine evangelische Kirche 1724–1974, ed. Evangelische Kirchengemeinde (Sulzbach: Kirchengemeinde, 1974), esp. 14–17.

Origins, Evolutions and Settings

37

matter conclusively.59 Eventually, in 1803, the emperor assigned the two ancient Reichsdörfer to the principality of Nassau. Sulzbach’s society did not match the stereotype of a free peasantry either. In 1495, during the village’s mortgaging to Frankfurt, nearly all of the 205 inhabitants appear to have been of servile status.60 External lords exercised strong manorial power over at least two thirds of agricultural holdings, particularly noble incumbents of the Vogtei originally in the possession of the Abbey of Limburg (who operated a separate court for its tenants and controlled many local resources). Frankfurt, too, exercised extensive socio-economic rights, as seventeenth-century petitions for manumission and a register of landed properties from 1721 testify.61 In an official document of 1657, some neighbors signed with their names, others asked the notary to do this for them. Given the intensity of legal proceedings and local government involvement, however, literacy rates may have been relatively high. Indeed, starting in 1738, peasant Johann Adam Löschhorn (himself holding offices on several occasions) kept a family and village chronicle updated over several decades. Reflecting the wider agricultural profile of the community, his entries show special interests in weather patterns, fruit/vegetable prices and annual variations in the volume and quality of wine.62 Communal property shared by the villagers included commons (not least forests and a brook used for fishing), the right to convey an inn to the highest bidder, a fountain and baking house. On the social margins, finally, we find the poor, who received an annual new year’s gift, “strangers” (expelled by the upper court in 1742 with reference to decreasing village resources) and Jews, recorded both in special regulations and occasional court proceedings.63 59  MR; the counter argument was made in HHStAW, Abt. 4/186: [Veit Gottlieb Straub], Aktenmäßige Deduktion und rechtsgründliche Widerlegung auf das von beyden Gerichten und Gemeinden Sulzbach und Soden als von einem Untertan gegen sein höchste und hohe Landesherrschaft so respektvergessen als pflichtwidrig in das Publikum ausgestreute … Impressum (Manuscript, 1754). 60  A startling 204 out of 205 according to Fay, Sulzbach (note 56), vol. 1, 164–8. 61  A map of the extensive Vogtei appears in Kaufmann, Soden und Sulzbach (note 56), 98; the manorial and ‘free’ court of Sulzbach assembled separately under two facing linden trees near the church: ISF, Holzhausen-Archiv, Urkunden II.533 (1427). Petitions to Frankfurt e.g. in ISF, Ratssupplikationen 1.618, vol. i; 1.626, vol. iii.; the register appears in GRS, Ackerbuch (note 41) of 1721 (cf. Figure 6a/b). 62  GRS, Tagebuch des Johann Adam Löschhorn (MS, 1738–); several vineyards appear in ibid., Ackerbuch (note 41), e.g. f. 124r–v, and on a 1764 map of adjacent Neuenhain: HHStAW, Abt. 3011/980. 63  MR, 48 (inn); appendices, pp. 148 (strangers), 151 (baker, fountain); 152–3 (poor, fishing) and nos. XXXV, LXXXI, LXXXIII, CVI (Jews); the minutes of Soden’s lower court open with a 1665 case of magic involving a Jew: Hildegard von Nolting, ed., Protokollbuch des freien

38

FIGURES 6A–B

Chapter 2

The imperial village of Sulzbach was accessible through two gates and surrounded by a defensive ditch/hedge (see the Unter Thor and adjacent Hayngraben on the image to the left). As one of the two bailiffs, the nearby city had a local base in the Frankfurter Hof (the house, stable, yard, barn and orchard highlighted within the boundary in the other picture), with the seat of the joint senior avoyer (gemeinschaftl. Oberschultheißen Wohnung) immediately to its right. Mainz owned a similar property, the Fronhof, on the opposite side of the church. Extracts from an illustrated register of landed holdings: GRS, Ackerbuch über des Hochlöbl: Kornambts=Geländ zu Sultzbach (1721), f. 199v and 64r.

Soden, likely to have been smaller than Sulzbach, numbered 104 households (90  headed by male burghers, including 4–5 Jewish families, 10 by widows, 4 by mere residents) in 1726.64 While subordinate in ecclesiastical terms, it had a rather more notable economic profile than its sister village, thanks to salt works first mentioned in the Middle Ages and the emergence of a spa in the eighteenth century. The former – a substantial industrial complex just outside the village – represented a considerable asset, although it seems to have been beset by controversies about exploitation strategies and financial ­responsibilities.65 The latter owed its existence to a treatise extolling the medical benefits of Soden’s spring (defunct but still visible today) at the beginning Untergerichts zu Soden 1665–1726 (Bad Soden: Arbeitskreis für Bad Sodener Geschichte, 1995), 15. 64  Nolting, ed., Protokollbuch (note 63), 7. 65  Frankfurt arbitrated in a related dispute between the two villages in 1433 and building works are documented in 1486 and 1605; the early modern period saw various attempts at expansion, but also major disputes, including a bitter feud with Major Malapert (whose family had leased the plant, embarked on unauthorised improvement works and pressed the communes to repay a loan) in the 1750s: HHStAW, Abt. 4/436, 545; Kaufmann, Sulzbach und Soden (note 56), 88–90; for a 1615 drawing of the large plant linked to the saltwater spring in the village by a pipe see HHStAW, Abt. 3011/1131, reproduced in Kromer, Bad Soden (note 56), vol. 2, plate V.

Origins, Evolutions and Settings

39

of the eighteenth century. An upmarket bathing house built in 1722 became the hub for a range of health and leisure attractions, including a cuisine fit for polite society. In April 1739, for example, a party of officers from Cologne ran up an enormous bill (which they expected the villages to take care of), while Sulzbach’s pastor entertained a distinguished company of bathing guests on 26 July 1753.66 Gersau on Lake Lucerne has not so far been considered from a Reichsdorf perspective, even though it qualified from the moment local representatives acquired all feudal and political rights in 1390.67 The required funds seem to have accrued through careful planning, including the sale of collective possessions in the preceding decades.68 As at Dithmarschen, the parish served as the organizational basis for emancipation. Originally a manor (Hof) of the monastery of Muri and answerable to a series of noble Vögte, this Flecken pushed rural autonomy to extremes. At a time when the emperor needed all the help he could get (against the Hussites and Habsburg opponents), Sigismund of Luxemburg bestowed many favors on supporters in the Alpine region. Among the beneficiaries were the mayor and parishioners of Gersau, receiving a grant of high jurisdiction in 1418 and confirmation of all their privileges in 1433 (Figure 7). Regional consolidation had already been assured by means of treaties with the neighboring Forest Cantons – comprising the rural lands of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden alongside the City of Lucerne – in 1332/1359.69 The 66  Johann Bernhard Gladbach, Neue Untersuchung des, vor 300 Jahren käyserl. herrlich-privilegirten, von vielen Jahren verdeckten, nun wieder auffgesuchten Soder-warmen GesundBrunnens, wie derselbe in vielen Kranckheiten heyl so befunden worden, und noch zu vielen andern Gebrechen trincken und baden mit Nutzen könne gebrauch werden untersuchet (Frankfurt: Walther, 1701), and Kromer, Bad Soden (note 56), vol. 1, 9, 48–54 (spa); GRS, Löschhorn Tagebuch (note 62), 1739 (party costs); Michael Geisler, Leben und Tod der Anna Katharina Duß: Die Geschichte einer Dienstmagd aus Soden (Wiesbaden: Waldemar Kramer, 2015), 50 (1753). 67  The most detailed study of Gersau is Josef Maria Mathä Camenzind, Die Geschichte von Gersau, ed. Hans Georg Wirz, 3 vols (Gersau: Robert Müller, 1953–59); a concise outline now in Müller, Gersau (note 14). For a nineteenth-century English account see William August Brevort Coolidge, “The Republic of Gersau,” in: English Historical Review 4 (July/1889): 481–515; for a survey in French: Adolphe Gautier, La République de Gersau (Genève: H. Georg, 1868). All these works focus on the local/regional context and treat Gersau as a “special case”. 68  Twenty-six named inhabitants, including mayor Rudolf an der Würzen and “Johans Kambenzinde” (the first recorded representative of the prominent Camenzind family), sold the Planggenalp to the Abbey of Engelberg in 1345: Allgemeine Geschichtsforschende Gesellschaft der Schweiz, ed., Quellenwerk zur Entstehung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, Part 1: Urkunden, vol. 1 (Aarau: Sauerländer, 1933), no. 582. 69  BAG, Urkunden, nos 3 (1359 alliance) and 6 (1390 purchase), reproduced in Müller, Gersau (note 14), fig. 10–11; for the relations with Sigismund and the Swiss cf. Chapter 4 below.

40

FIGURE 7

Chapter 2

At the request of the “mayor and parishioners of Gersau, faithful to us and the Empire” (l. 2–3), who had appeared before him, Emperor Sigismund confirmed all their privileges on 31 October 1433. Extract from a sealed charter originally kept in BAG, Urkunden, no. 8, and now on display in the Bundesbriefarchiv Schwyz.

expansion of communal rights then continued, politically, with the adoption of their own, emphatically “bottom-up” constitution in 1436 (the Hofrecht examined more closely in Chapter 3) and culminated, ecclesiastically, in the purchase of the right of advowson for their St Marcellus church from Hermann von Büttikon in 1483.70 In terms of relations to the Empire, the tiny polity shared the Forest Cantons’ general trajectory, characterized by a gradual weakening of ties between the Swabian War of 1499 and the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, after which many cantons effectively became sovereign republics. Equally like Central Switzerland, Gersau stayed Catholic throughout the period. Centuries of self-government only ended in 1798, when French revolutionary troops forced the whole Confederation to transform its loose union into the centralized Helvetic Republic.71 After a brief restoration of the land’s independence 70  BAG, Urkunden, nos 9, 12. 71  The complex evolution towards full sovereignty of the Swiss Cantons is traced in Thomas Maissen, Die Geburt der Republic: Staatsverständnis und Repräsentation in der frühneuzeitlichen Eidgenossenschaft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006); specifically on Gersau see Beat Kümin, “Vom Reichsdorf zur Republic. Grundlagen und Entwicklung der politischen Freiheit in Gersau,” in: Politische Freiheit und republikanische Kultur im Alten Europa, ed. idem (Vitznau: Bucher, 2015), 93–98; Gersau appears as a separate unit (small Flecken) with its own gallows on maps like Zentralbibliothek Bern, MUE Kart 408 SZ 2: Pagus Helvetiae Suitensis, cum adjacentibus terrarum tractibus (Augsburg: Matthäus Seutter, 1740).

Origins, Evolutions and Settings

41

following the collapse of the Napoleonic order in 1814, the Swiss Diet reallocated it to the Canton of Schwyz just three years later.72 Outside of the immediate surroundings, few people knew much about Gersau. This reflects the fact that – well into the nineteenth century – the village could only be reached by boat.73 Even today, the residents have a reputation of being distinct and living in a world of their own; not always with flattering undertones. Gersau forms a single-unit district within Schwyz, the neighboring canton it reluctantly became a part of in 1818.74 Located within a mountainous region focused on cattle-rearing, local political and socioeconomic organization used to be identical. Full burghers all belonged to the Genossame, the association co-ordinating the system of scattered farmsteads, pastoral husbandry and Alpine resources (meadows and woodlands stretching from the banks of Lake Lucerne up to the Rigi-Scheidegg; cf. Figure 31).75 Alongside, probably due to its general self-reliance, the polity accommodated “a peculiarly diversified cosmos of arts and crafts” featuring boat-/fishermen, nail-smiths, glass-/rope-/shoe-/tile-makers, tanners, carpenters and tailors alongside the usual butchers, bakers and publicans (many of whom trading at the village’s annual fair as well as regular markets in the region), culminating in the establishment of a masters’ guild in 1730.76 From the same year, furthermore, an early silk industry expanded the spectrum further, concentrating on the niche market of importing and processing waste materials discarded by major manufacturers elsewhere (Seidenfäulen). Soon there were several plants owned by proto-capitalist entrepreneurs from the leading Camenzind and Küttel families, something not exactly to be expected in a rural Catholic community of the period; their Baroque mansions came to dominate the village 72  For the “after-life” of the republic see esp. Chapter 6 below. 73  For early modern prospects see Kümin, Communal Age (note 37), Fig. 2 (from Merian’s 1654 view of Schwyz) and Nicolas Pérignon, “Vue du Bourg de Gersau” (c. 1780), http:// purl.org/viatimages/it/image/680. 74  A detailed account of the dramatic events of 1817, when Schwyz cajoled the other cantons to approve Gersau’s appropriation (against its fierce resistance), in Müller, Gersau (note 14), 94–107; on the villagers’ peculiar reputation, subsumed in the dialect term gersauern (to do something odd or silly), see ibid., 17–18. 75  Gersau, Genossame Archiv, UK I: Marchenbuch (1726), compiled by communal officials, lists all the holdings and boundaries belonging to the association. 76  Thomas Meier, “Handwerk, Handel und Gewerbe im 18. Jahrhundert,” in: Geschichte des Kantons Schwyz, ed. Andreas Meyerhans, 7 vols (Zürich: Chronos, 2012), vol. 5, 71–95, esp. 82. For examples of artefacts surviving from the Ancien Régime, see e.g. the church benches carved by Marzell Müller, now at Lauerz (Chapter 5) or the stove in the village hall’s council chamber produced and painted by Johann Jost Nigg in 1788. Reference to an annual fair on Monday after St Martin’s in Leu, Lexicon (note 41), 448.

42

Chapter 2

center.77 Repercussions included a steady population growth, from “more than 40 hearths” (over 200 inhabitants, probably a rather low estimate in the late sixteenth century) via 550 souls (in a 1655 document) to over 1000 by the end of the Ancien Régime.78 Compared to political constellations and socio-economic settings, gender relations form a relatively dark area in the history of imperial villages. In line with pre-modern Europe more generally, patriarchy prevailed, but community life was naturally shaped by contributions from both sexes. At Gersau, three women figured among the representatives who sold land to the abbey of Engelberg in 1345 and, alongside government structures, marriage emerged as the second big priority when the newly immediate commune passed its fundamental legislation in 1436.79 While the lion’s share of unions involved two burgher families, considerable numbers of men looked for prospective wives abroad. Most came from neighboring places like Brunnen, Arth, Vitznau and Weggis in Schwyz and Lucerne, some from further afield in the Forest Cantons (e.g. Altdorf and Urseren in Uri, Stans in Unterwalden, Wattwil in Zug) and one 1758 bride even from French-speaking lands. In the second quarter of the eighteenth century, there were thirty-seven such cases, i.e. on average between one and two “foreign” marriages per year. This broadened the genetic pool, but permission to bring such a partner into the community depended on a 200 f. surety deposited in the chancellery and – regardless of whether the couple went on to live at Gersau or elsewhere – the husband had to formally renew his citizenship at a charge of 1  f. 10  s. These conditions helped the polity to monitor access rights to communal resources.80 By no means all women lived under male control, however. According to a 1810 church tax assessment, no 77  Rudolf Faßbind, Die Schappe-Industrie in der Innerschweiz. Ein Beitrag zur schweizerischen Wirtschaftsgeschichte des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts (Stans: Geschichtsfreund, 1955); Camenzind and Co., 250 Jahre Seiden-Industrie in Gersau (Gersau: Camenzind & Co., 1980). In Gersau’s church tax assessment of 1810, 47 out of 236 householders appear with a specific profession (four each were glass-/ropemakers and nailsmiths; three each worked as tailors, shoemakers and publicans); the others must have made their livings from agriculture and/or the silk industry: BAG, KST: Kirchensteuer (1810); cf. Figures 14a–b below. 78  Josias Simmler, Regiment gemeiner loblicher Eydgnoschafft/beschriben und in zwey Bücher gestellet, 2 vols (Zürich: Christoph Froschauer d.J., 1576), vol. 2, 514; Josef Wiget, ed., “Die Turmkugel-Dokumente der Pfarrkirche Gersau,” in: Mitteilungen des Historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz 76 (1984): 161–175, esp. nos 1 (1655) and 5 (1774). 79  Allgemeine Geschichtsforschende Gesellschaft, ed., Quellenwerk (note 68), no. 582; BAG, Urkunden, no. 10: Eherecht (1436), where the emphasis lies on property arrangements between husbands and wives. 80  In 1777, the figure was as high as five; calculations based on treasurers’ records in BAG, UKP: Stiftsurkundenbuch, 510–21.

Origins, Evolutions and Settings

43

fewer than twenty-three per cent of all household units were headed by widows, spinsters and heiresses, suggesting that many made independent contributions to the communal economy and pointing to a female sub-culture which the surviving sources struggle to capture.81 As in European society more generally, women played a prominent role in local religious and spiritual life, where church attendance and involvement in other pious activities afforded them an unusually high public profile.82 Politically, too, there was some participation, despite the universal lack of formal enfranchisement. Four “female persons” from Sulzbach and one from Soden, presumably all widows, appeared at a 1657 oath ceremony in front of representatives of their imperial bailiffs, even though – like male minors – they were not actually required to swear themselves.83 Minor communal posts could be assigned to female holders.84 In the medical sphere, furthermore, midwives – like Agnes Petermann née Weidmann at Sulzbach 1697 or Katharina Raschert at Sennfeld in 1794 – provided essential services which conveyed considerable social capital and the status of “experts” (e.g. in fornication or infanticide cases), while wise women such as the elderly spinster Gertraud Sinai of Soden (who offered advice on “love potions” as well as abortions in the 1750s) treaded on dangerous legal ground.85 Moving to the spiritual domain, female influence ranged from the religious education of children via orthodox pious activities to challenges of period norms, as in the case of Agnes Petermann at Sulzbach whose blasphemous words led to permanent banishment from the community (Figure 8a). At Sennfeld, the only case study where persecutions of suspicious behavior were taken to such extremes, five women fell victim to a witchhunt conducted by the Würzburg authorities, four of which – Anna Hauck, Margaretha Schilling (referred to as the “penniless 81  BAG, KST: Kirchensteuer (1810); see Chapter 3 for a detailed analysis of this wealth survey. 82  On festive occasions, Sennfeld and Gochsheim women may have worn elements of the “traditional” costumes depicted in a nineteenth-century folkloric collection: Leofrid Adelmann, ed., Bayerische Trachten: Unterfranken (Würzburg: Polytechnischer Verein, 1856), plates 2 and 11, http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0006/bsb00061406/ images/index.html. At Sulzbach, a seating plan of 1729 reveals that many women’s places were in the front part of the church: Evangelische Kirchengemeinde, Kirche Sulzbach (note 58), 28–9. 83  MR, appendix XXX. 84  At Sennfeld, Dorothea Lauringer looked after the comune’s geese in 1785: Badel, Sennfeld (note 47), 172. 85  Geisler, Soden (note 66), 9 (Petermann) and 42 (Sinai); Badel, Sennfeld (note 47), 175 (Raschert). In 1665, Soden’s lower court heard a plaintiff accuse a Jewish woman of brewing up a milk-based concoction to engage in “develish work”: Nolting, ed., Protokollbuch (note 63), 15.

44

Chapter 2

FIGURES 8A–B  Above: a. Widow Agnes Petermann drew a sign to acknowledge her life banishment by the Sulzbach court in 1701, with senior avoyer Sartorius explaining that she lacked writing experience. Frankfurt, Institut für Stadtgeschichte, Criminalia, 2.285: Schreiben vom 29. November 1701. Reproduced with kind permission of ISF. Below: Veronica Müller drowning her husband right in front of Gersau’s gallows, with the village visible in the background: Johann Leopold Cysat, Beschreibung dess berühmbten Lucerner- oder 4. Waldstaetten Sees. Lucerne: David Hautten, 1661, illustration “P” between pp. 110–11.

maid”), Margaretha Hoffman and Else Büttner – in 1627 alone.86 Court records thus shed rare light on female experience, albeit from a disproportionately negative perspective. One Gersau case caused such a scandal that it was featured in Cysat’s Description of the Famous Lake of the Forest Cantons, complete with a rare illustration (Figure  8b). Veronica Müller, originally from Baar in Zug and married to local resident Andreas Stübi, embarked on an adulterous relationship with burgher Kaspar Baggenstoss. During a boat trip, she pushed 86  ISF, Criminalia, 2.285 (Petermann file, 1701); Badel, Sennfeld (note 47), 36 (Sennfeld witches); Hauck’s family was ordered to pay for the wood burnt on the scaffold.

Origins, Evolutions and Settings

45

her husband overboard and knocked him unconscious with a rowing blade, not realizing that an observer looked on from the shore. Regardless of pleas for extradition by her home canton, Veronica was sentenced to death in the summer of 1642, decapitated and buried straight on the execution site.87 In summary, the complex framework of the Holy Roman Empire allowed a remarkable extent of rural autonomy, above all in the Middle Ages, with regional clusters emerging in central parts as well as on the northern and southern periphery. Sharing elements of quasi-independent peasant federations at one end of the spectrum, and “normal” localities subject to various forms of lordship on the other, hundreds of immediate villages provided inhabitants with tastes of micro self-government and neighboring communities with tangible evidence of polities without a prince. Roots, chronologies and trajectories varied a great deal, requiring a comparative approach involving case studies to arrive at a differentiated picture. Having surveyed socio-economic settings and gender roles, their inner structures, external relations and ecclesiastical dimensions now need to be considered in greater detail.

87  Johann Leopold Cysat, Beschreibung des Berühmbten Lucerner- oder Vierwaldstätten-Sees (Lucerne, 1661), 234–5; the case also features in Gersau’s own records: BAG, UKP (note 80), 291 (according to which Veronica had previously tried to poison her spouse).

PART 2 Regimes

∵

Chapter 3

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict All rural communities had certain mechanisms for co-ordination and collective decision-making. As immediate units exempt from territorial administration, however, imperial villages allow particularly direct insights into local government structures. This chapter takes a closer look at the political constitutions of the case studies. The sources reveal numerous institutions, officials and terminologies, suggesting both major differences between regimes and – in some cases – fundamental change over time. Only two elements were universally present: a collectivity of enfranchised inhabitants (known as neighbors, burghers, Landleute etc.) at the base of the pyramid and the Roman king or emperor at the top. Rather than on detailed examinations of each community (as in the local historiographies introduced above), the emphasis here will be on typologies and comparative perspectives. Inclusion of further villages would no doubt refine the picture and modify some conclusions, but for the moment the objective is to illustrate how rural self-government could be organized in the German lands. In a second step, the argument moves from theory to practice, i.e. the ways in which the respective systems operated and shaped political experience in everyday life. Last but not least, attention turns to moments of crisis and conflict, particularly with regard to constitutional disputes but also incidents of crime pointing to underlying tensions within the communities. The diagrams in Figures 9a–d attempt to capture the principal features at one glance. A preliminary observation concerns spatial settings: while Gersau, surrounded by much larger rural and urban republics, existed on its own, the other case studies involved adjacent and closely intertwined pairs sharing the same relationship with the empire. Domestically, Gochsheim and Sennfeld ran two separate regimes of essentially equal standing (even though the former carried greater weight in terms of population and resources); Soden and Sulzbach, in contrast, formed part of an integrated system which gave the latter a certain precedence. In addition to a lower court for petty matters documented in both villages, presided over by a (junior) “avoyer” at Soden, there was an upper (appeal) tribunal – headed by Sulzbach’s “senior avoyer”. From there, in turn, the most serious cases could be brought before the superior Oberhof at Frankfurt (fifteenth and sixteenth centuries), the villages’ bailiffs

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004396609_004

50

Chapter 3

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

FIGURES 9A–D

51

Summary diagrams of communal constitutions in five imperial villages

(a position the city came to share with Mainz from the 1650s) or directly to the highest imperial courts.1 Expressed in classic Aristotelian terms, all systems were “monarchical” in the sense that they derived their origins, particular rights and general legitimization from the Roman kings. We have seen how royal influence affected individual villages through e.g. the granting of privileges or the mortgaging of possessions and will discuss the empire’s enormous symbolic significance in Chapter  6. Abstracting from these distant and rarely active figureheads, represented on the ground (almost) invariably by imperial bailiffs drawn from among immediate princes and cities in the region, the case studies can be broadly grouped into “aristocratic” and “democratic” regimes. The use of inverted commas is essential to signal approximations rather than exact matches. Local manifestations are probably best described as “mixed” constitutions combining contrasting elements, a blend associated most notably and enduringly with the premodern Republic of Venice.2 Yet, proceeding pragmatically, systems where power was concentrated in the hands of closely circumscribed groups or bodies will be classed as “aristocratic”, those where communities of neighbors formed the decisive source of authority as “democratic”. It goes 1  Information on Sulzbach and Soden derives primarily from MR and Ekkehard Kaufmann, Geschichte und Verfassung der Reichsdörfer Soden und Sulzbach 1035–1806 (reprint Flörsheim a.M.: Lauck, 1981); specifically on jurisdictional relations with the Frankfurt Oberhof see Alexander Krey, Die Praxis der spätmittelalterlichen Laiengerichtsbarkeit (Cologne: Böhlau, 2015), 222–9. 2  James M. Blythe, Ideal Government and the Mixed Constitution in the Middle Ages (Princeton: Legacy, 2014).

52

Chapter 3

without saying that the latter needs to be understood in a relative sense appropriate for the period, i.e. not as equivalent to modern ideas of universal human rights and gender equality.3 Gochsheim provides the clearest example of an aristocracy in this sample. The position of imperial bailiffs and their local deputies was strong, as evident from the right to convene the court and the village ordinances issued by a succession of incumbents including Count von Henneberg (who held the post in 1500) and Hermann Hartlaub (acting as junior bailiff in 1569).4 Otherwise, everything reverberated around the village court, originally perhaps appointed by the neighbors, but soon practicing co-option, with the imperial avoyer also selected from within (for listings of senior officials see Appendix 2).5 It met every fortnight as the communal government, safeguarded by the junior bailiff (acting for the empire in such routine matters), but presided over by Gochsheim’s avoyer and complemented by seven jurors, three of which represented the villages’ main manorial lords.6 As a kind of counterpoint to this ruling body (albeit of inferior standing), we find the stool (Stuhl), charged above all with overseeing financial affairs. Election rights reflected the respective constitutional positions, with the court selecting the senior mayor (OberBauermeister) and churchwarden (Ober-Heiligenmeister), the stool choosing their junior partners and all neighbors appointing to a range of minor offices (such as smiths, shepherds, fieldwardens) as well as deciding on the admission of new community members or residents. A democratic element was the 3  The term would have been familiar to contemporaries; Johannes Müller labelled Gersau’s regime a “democracy”: Der Geschichten schweizerischer Eidgenossenschaft Anderes Buch. Von dem Aufblu(e)hen der ewigen Bu(e)nde. Part 2 (Leipzig: M. G. Weidmanns Erben und Reich, 1786), 258; and a 1802 account of Harmersbach described the imperial valley’s constitution as “democratic”: Eugen Hillenbrand, “Das freie Reichstal Harmersbach: Über die schwierige Wahrnehmung von Geschichte,” in: Die Ortenau 83 (2003): 47–60, esp. 58. 4  1500: StAW, Lib. div. form. 20, f. 831–836, edited in Friedrich Weber, Geschichte der fränkischen Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld (Schweinfurt: Ernst Stoer, 1913), appendix; 1561: Günter Mattern, “Siegel und Wappen der Reichsdörfer. Aufnahmearbeit für die Internationale Akademie für Heraldik,” in: Archivum Heraldicum 90 (1976), H.  1/2: 44–53; H.  3/4: 12–19, esp. 13. 5  This section is based on the publications of former communal archivist Walfried Hein and discussions with his successor Elmar Geus. The right to convene the court at a fortnight’s notice constituted the chief bailiff right in the village according to Gochsheim’s jurors in 1465: Friedrich Stein, ed., Monumenta Suinfurtensia historica (Schweinfurt: E. Stoer, 1875), 284. 6  A court consisting of imperial avoyer Hans Dentzer, seven jurors (Hans Hutzelman, Wolf Gering, Hans Christe, Hans Hemmerich, Simon Meisch, Gilg Greusing, Merte Hagel) and communal scribe Michael Stintzing is inscribed on a window frame of the village hall built in 1561; another with Johann Meder (avoyer), Sebald Schmidt, Martin Ludwig, Johann Jacob Beyer, Hanß Heß, Johann Egidius Krug, Mattheß Vogel and Hans Melchior Bernhardt (jurors), and Johann Vogel (schoolmaster and scribe), appears on the title page of GAG, GO-AK01002-BII/2b-2-(020): Gerichtsprotokolle, 4 October 1720.

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

53

“common meal”, an assembly with mandatory attendance convened by the sounding of church bells used also for the auditing of accounts, accompanied by the consumption of victuals obtained through court fines.7 Many of the Gochsheim features, though with less pronounced aristocratic slants, re-appear at Sulzbach and Soden. A comparable assembly of neighbors, summoned by the church bells, admitted new members and appointed lower officials (here up to the jurors). The key body was the upper court at Sulzbach. Made up of seven members from each commune and meeting twice-yearly under the presiding senior avoyer (originally under the linden tree and later at the village hall near the parish church), it not only dealt with appeals from the two lower village institutions and general government affairs but also matters of life and limb albeit, for the latter, with added representatives from the villages’ bailiffs.8 In a characteristically mixed procedure, the neighbors selected the senior mayor (as the leading village official for financial and administrative affairs) from among the members of the upper court, who in turn appointed a junior mayor out of the commune.9 The imperial bailiffs took a very active role, just like at Gochsheim, supervising court affairs, additionally appointing the two village avoyers and interfering in constitutional structures without much consultation, most notably in 1656 (when Mainz and Frankfurt struck a deal to share the respective rights over the villages) and then in 1753 (when a new court ordinance attempted to introduce an entirely different system).10 A yet greater, if still limited, degree of “bottom-up” influence characterized political life at Sennfeld. Adverse source survival prevents a full reconstruction, but – unlike at Gochsheim and Sulzbach – the assembly of neighbors (meeting Am Plan, on the main village square outside the church) retained 7  Instructions on how to hold a “common meal” are recorded in GAG, GO-LT21000F III/43-(322): Johann Matthäus Kirchner, Manual (1747–), appendix, 8. 8   Communal election of jurors according to Kaufmann, Soden and Sulzbach (note 1), 33; detailed procedural information for blood courts in Michael Geisler, Leben und Tod der Anna Katharina Duß: Die Geschichte einer Dienstmagd aus Soden (Wiesbaden: Waldemar Kramer, 2015); at Gochsheim/Sennfeld, in contrast, high jurisdiction was exercised by the Zentgericht of their Würzburg bailiff: Doris Badel, Sennfeld: Geschichte eines ehemals freien Reichsdorfes in Franken (Sennfeld: Gemeinde, 1997), 135–7. 9   Annual election results appear in GRS, Tagebuch des Johann Adam Löschhorn (1738–). 10  For the 1656 charter see ISF, Privilegien, 449; the impact of the contested 1753 ordinance will be discussed below. Around 1500, during the villages’ mortgaging to Frankfurt, avoyers with military experience (reisige Knechte; mounted pages) appear to have been preferred (e.g. Kaspar Reiff in 1522: HHStA Abt.4:U73; Appendix 2). On some occasions, several candidates petitioned Frankfurt to become Oberschultheiss; see e.g. ISF, Ratssupplikationen, 1.633, vol. 3 (when Hans Ulrich Neuhaus secured the post by stressing his burgher status and war experience); a request for the post of Soden avoyer ibid., 1.625, vol. 2 (supplication by Nicolaus Anders); the city made its selection by Kugelung, a casting of votes by balls: ibid., 1.753, vol. 1 (J. W. Stolle).

54

Chapter 3

the right to appoint their own imperial avoyer as well as lower officials, making them more directly answerable to the commune than in places with fewer or shared election rights. On the other hand, imperial bailiffs took an active role in legislation, as the Landgrave of Hesse with a village ordinance in 1543.11 The most pronouncedly democratic regime emerged at Gersau. It rested on a written constitution which – according to the mayor and parishioners – “we have set upon ourselves” in 1436, a generation or so after the acquisition of immediate status in 1390. Arrangements mirrored those in the surrounding rural republics.12 The inclusivity of the latter’s regimes is sometimes questioned, because of regionally uneven franchises in “composite” cantons like Schwyz, but tiny Gersau really did come close to universal (male) participation in its sovereign assembly.13 All “associates older than fourteen years of age” were required to attend, on pain of a fine of 5 s. Those chosen as mayor and “jurors” (i.e. members of what came to be known as the council or Rat) had to serve their turns (or pay appropriate compensation) and everyone was expected to take part in warfare, as and when the need arose. Numbers involved were impressive. As late as 1789, according to a travel report, no fewer than 300 inhabitants appeared at the Landsgemeinde (out of a total population of 800 souls). Writing at the time of the French revolution, François Robert called it an Assemblée Nationale and concluded that the “government of this small republic constitutes a democracy” of the “purest and fullest” kind.14 Indeed, fundamental decisions on war and peace, constitutional change and major legislation, alongside elections of officials (like church-, fabric-, orphan- and poorwardens) and admissions of new burghers, were all matters reserved for meetings of the whole commune occurring in May (with an autumn assembly of the same people dedicated to the economic affairs of the Genossame). Day-to-day government though lay in the hands of the Rat, consisting of the 11  See Weber, Reichsdörfer (note 4), esp. 298; and Badel, Sennfeld (note 8), esp.  102 (1543 ordinance). 12  All quotes from the constitution or Hofrecht in BAG, Urkunden, no. 9 (28 June 1436). 13  Benjamin Adler, Die Entstehung der direkten Demokratie. Das Beispiel der Landsgemeinde Schwyz 1780–1866 (Zürich: Chronos, 2006), esp. 207, 212. “La souveraineté appartient à tous les citoiens assemblés chaque année:” Mélanges Helvétiques des années 1787 [etc] (Basle: Charles Auguste Serini, 1791), 227 (Gersau). 14   Voyage dans les XIII Cantons Suisses , les Grisons, le Vallais, et autres pays et etats alliés, ou sujets des Suisses (Paris: Hôtel d’Aubeterre, 1789), vol. 2, 172–3 (“Le Gouvernement de cette petite République est la Démocratie, & la Démocratie la plus pure & la plus entiere”). Similar numbers/proportions in Johann Conrad Fäsi, Genaue und vollständige Staats  = und Erd = Beschreibung der ganzen helvetischen Eidgenoßschaft, Vol.  2 (Zurich: Orell, Geßner & Co., 1766), 351; allowing for the presence of women and children, there cannot have been many more than 300 adult men in the village.

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

55

land mayor (Landammann), his deputy and seven councilors. By the time of the first surviving minutes, it deliberated a range of executive business on a monthly basis. For weighty issues, appeals or cases of high jurisdiction (granted to Gersau in 1418), each member co-opted one or two burghers (from other families) to double or triple the size of the council to eighteen or twenty-seven men.15 In stark contrast to the other villages examined here, no imperial bailiff ever oversaw this system, a position which most of the Swiss Confederates managed to bring “in-house” by the late Middle Ages anyway. Instead, military aid and recourse to mediation derived from an alliance struck with the Forest Cantons in the early fourteenth century, even before Gersau became an immediate polity in the first place. The confirmation of privileges by Sigismund in 1433 was in fact the last recorded contact with the empire. Adopting a comparative perspective produces a blend of similarities and differences (Figure 10). The villages’ mixed constitutions combined monarchical, aristocratic and democratic elements, with Gochsheim/Sulzbach/Soden leaning towards a “top-down” and Sennfeld/Gersau towards a “bottom-up” system. Lower jurisdiction was invariably administered by a village court (simultaneously acting as a ruling body with legislative and executive competences), communal assemblies elected a range of lesser officials and external powers acted as protectors and (more or less interfering) supervisors, albeit at Gersau – which had its own militia – on the basis of an alliance rather than imperial commission.16 Two villages additionally judged matters of life and death, at Sulzbach with the participation of representatives from Frankfurt and Mainz, at Gersau independently through an extended council. Ordinances issued by bailiffs and – as for all other immediate estates – diets affected all regimes with the exception of Gersau, where the empire’s influence waned just like in the surrounding Swiss cantons. Finally, as we will see below, our case studies acquired extensive tax raising powers. 15  Minutes of council proceedings in BAG, Ratserkanntnusbuch, vols 1–5 (1756–1809); reasons for tripling membership included e.g. an acrimonious dispute with the parish priest (BAG, Briefe 1700–1800, no. 35; 1721) and blood jurisdiction cases leading to corporal punishment (BAG, Gerichtsakten, no. 1; 1641) and even executions (ibid., no. 7; 1752); occasionally, the assembly itself appointed ad-hoc tribunals. There is no local evidence for Simmler’s claim that high jurisdiction involved representatives of the Forest Cantons: Regiment gemeiner loblicher Eydgnoschafft (Zürich: Christoph Froschauer d.J., 1576), vol. 2, 241. 16  For the range of communal powers see also Georg Ludwig von Maurer, Geschichte der Dorfverfassung in Deutschland (Erlangen: Enke, 1865–66; reprint Aalen: Scientia, 1961), 390. At Gersau, apart from minting (hardly practicable for such a small polity), the commune exercised a full set of “princely” prerogatives.

56

Chapter 3 Gochsheim

Sulzbach

Mid 13thC (?) to 1803

13thC (?) to 1803 13thC (?) to Mid 13thC (?) (contested from 1803 (contested to 1803 1753) from 1753)

1390 to mid18thC, then quasisovereign republic

Representatives Imperial bailiff of the empire / & junior bailiff protectors

Imperial bailiff(s) Imperial bailiffs Imperial bailiff & their regional & their regional & junior bailiff officials officials

Alliance with Forest Cantons

Leading officials

Imperial & manorial avoyers Senior & junior mayors Jurors Senior & junior churchwardens

Senior avoyer

Churchwardens

Councillors / Jurors Church- & Churchwardens Churchwardens other wardens

Legislation & administration

(Junior) bailiff & court

Imperial bailiffs & courts

Imperial bailiffs (Junior) bailiff & lower court & court

Financial powers

Direct & indirect taxation

Direct & indirect Direct & indirect Direct & indirect Direct & indirect taxation taxation taxation taxation

Period of immediate status

Low jurisdiction Village court & appeal court Bailiff Higher Jurisdiction Military affairs

Court & communal mayors Jurors

Lower court Upper court

Soden

Avoyer Court & communal mayors Jurors

Lower court Sulzbach upper court

Sennfeld

Gersau

Imperial avoyer Land mayor Deputy mayor Mayor(s) Jurors

Village court Bailiff

NO; a prerogative YES; jointly with NO; but access to NO; (see sub of bailiff, but access bailiffs & access Sulzbach upper / Gochsheim) to imperial courts to imperial courts imperial courts Financial and material contributions to imperial war levies

Assembly & council

Council 2–3× council Assembly YES, 2–3× Council & Swiss mediation Independent militia

FIGURE 10 Key constitutional features in five imperial villages

All regimes evolved over time, usually in small steps which left their overall character unaffected but some changes had dramatic consequences. Two contrasting “revolutions” occurred in the middle of the eighteenth century. At Sulzbach and Soden, the externally imposed 1753 court ordinance triggered a fundamental constitutional conflict which remained virulent until the end of the empire. The inhabitants knew exactly what was at stake when the document referred not to protectors but Landes = Herrschafften, i.e. territorial lords, and proceeded to waive customary privileges like exemption from customs /

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

FIGURES 11A–B

57

Summary diagrams of contrasting constitutional developments in three imperial villages at the end of the Ancien Régime

market tolls, independent admission of new neighbors and the upper court’s share in high jurisdiction. In response, the villagers appealed to the Imperial Aulic Court at Vienna and commissioned Friedrich Carl von Moser to defend their immediate status in a voluminous treatise.17 Reflecting on events at the time, peasant chronicler Johann Adam Löschhorn accused Mainz and Frankfurt of overstepping their powers as mere bailiffs, deplored the forced replacement of Sulzbach’s senior avoyer Johann Paul Gabler with a more compliant successor, classed 1753 as “not a good year” for his community and hoped that the legal skills of the “famous doctor  … Mooßer” would convince the 17  The document is in HHStAW, Abt. 4/542: Oberschultheissen Instruktion und Gerichtsordnung zu Soden und Sulzbach (1752–53), and edited in MR, appendix XLV; for further details see ibid., 25, 30, 44, 47 and Chapter 4 below.

58

Chapter 3

Viennese judges to restore proper order.18 Decades later, the Reichshofrat did confirm the previous regime established by the Frankfurt/Mainz agreement of 1653, but – in a sign of the times – forbade the plaintiffs to use the title “immediate free imperial villages” in the future and asked their representatives not to bother his majesty’s courts any more.19 At Gersau, developments moved in exactly the opposite direction. Once the Peace of Westphalia had granted the Swiss a permanent exemption from imperial membership (often loosely described as gaining independence), the leading cities started to fashion themselves as sovereign republics. Since they wanted to play a full part in the emerging state system and negotiate on a par with monarchs like the French king, any remnants of subordination under another polity such as the Holy Roman Empire had to be erased.20 This trend was less pronounced among the rural Forest Cantons but – remarkably – reverberated among their allies at Gersau, albeit a few decades later than in Bern or Zurich. While the memory of past imperial favours persisted, the polity’s self-perception changed. In a 1752 chronicle, instead of familiar terminology like “parish,” “commune”, Land or Flecken, parson Jost Rudolf Tanner used “free republic” for the first time and, four years later, the land mayor and councilors advised their Lucerne colleagues that – unless the city requested the extradition of its burgher Johann Galli Zimmermann – he would be tried for serial theft by the court of “our free republic”.21 By the 1770s, the phrase appeared in addresses from external dignitaries such as Marian Müller, Prince-Abbot of Einsiedeln – who sent thanks for good wishes on his appointment to “the right noble, circumspect and wise … Mr Land Mayor and Council of the venerable Republic of Gersau” – and Maximilian Christoph, Bishop of Constance – who responded to a request for a reduction in feast days with “greetings to his Christ-Catholic flock  … in the venerable Free Republic of Gersau”.22 The respective entry in the French Encyclopédie, surely the most renowned authority on the Enlightenment world, adds evidence from beyond the German 18   G RS, Löschhorn (note 9), 1753. On the Gabler case see Chapter 4 below. 19  Joachim Kromer, Bad Soden am Taunus. Stadtgeschichte (2 vols, Frankfurt a.M.: Waldemar Kramer, 1990–91), vol. 2, 192 (verdicts of 1784 and 1787). 20  Thomas Maissen, Die Geburt der Republic: Staatsverständnis und Repräsentation in der frühneuzeitlichen Eidgenossenschaft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006). 21  Josef Wiget, ed., “Die Turmkugel-Dokumente der Pfarrkirche Gersau,” in: Mitteilungen des Historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz 76 (1984): 161–175, no. 4 (chronicle of 1752); StAL, Akt 11/290 (letter of 1756); cf. the parallel shift in symbolic communication discussed in Chapter 6. 22   B AG, Briefe 1700–1800, no. 131 (30 August 1773); EAF, A 16/91: Bitte um Dispens einiger Feiertage, no. 3 (27 October 1779).

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

59

lands: “GERSAW, a Swiss township near Lake Lucerne, located between the eponymous canton and that of Schwyz. It is a kind of small sovereign republic, independent since time immemorial, a privilege too singular not to note the name of the place which so happily enjoys it here.”23 By the end of the Ancien Régime, therefore, the trajectories of our case studies could not have differed more strongly (Figures 11a–b): from a shared position of Reichsfreiheit, Sulzbach and Soden faced ever stronger pressures of territorialization, while Gersau repositioned itself as a sovereign micropolity. Moving from constitutions to political practice, let us look a little more closely at civic engagement, the swearing of oaths, decision-making, communication structures, financial affairs and social differentiation. A first striking observation is the vast degree of popular participation; not only in terms of attending assemblies, but also public service. Considering the small size of the communities, local government required an – at least implicitly republican – sense of civic virtue. In eighteenth-century Gersau, as we have seen, there was a pool of 300 enfranchised men. From among them, between nine and twentyseven could be called to sit on the council, many of whom simultaneously with a particular portfolio: as land mayor (the chief officer of the commune, with roots in the old manorial organization), deputy (usually the previous mayor, presiding over the lower court of seven jurors), treasurer, militia captain, standard-bearer, Weibel (clerk/messenger), secretary (Landschreiber), one of two advocates, assessor of provisions, sexton, night watchman and several wardens in charge of, respectively, communal assets, church fabric, parish benefice, soul masses, the chapel and the poor. Every year, there were at least thirty positions to fill, without counting those of the economic Genossame association everyone belonged to or fraternities and occupational groups with more selective membership. This amounted to pretty comprehensive coverage; only the executioner had to be borrowed from nearby Schwyz, when the need arose. In 1711, e.g., the major “offices of state” were held by:

23  [Louis de Jaucourt], “Gersaw,” in: Encylopédie, ed. Denis Diderot et  al. (Lausanne/ Berne: Sociétés typographiques, 1782), vol. 16, col. 106–7. French travel writer Madame de Gauthier similarly referred to Gersau as a “république démocratique”: Voyage d’une Française en Suisse et en Franche-Comté. Depuis la révolution, 2 vols (London: n.p., 1790), vol. 1, 200; cf. the passages on representations/perceptions of the polity in Chapter 6.

60

Chapter 3

Marzell Schöchli, land mayor & captain Johann B. Camenzind, deputy & chapel warden Johann Müller, councilor Melchior Niderer, asset warden & councilor Matthias Küttel, standard-bearer & councilor Fridolin Nigg, councilor Joseph Wath [Waad], councilor Fratzist Rigert, councilor

Johann Georg Camenzind, councilor Marzell Rigert, Weibel [enforcement officer] Sebastian M. Rigert, secretary Johann Georg Camenzind, treasurer Marzell Müller, churchwarden Joseph Camenzind, advocate Johann Kaspar Camenzind, advocate Marzell Müller, benefice warden24

The spectrum was similar, if a little less extensive elsewhere. A Soden document from 1777, conveying powers of attorney on twelve delegates to the Imperial Aulic Council, listed as signatories avoyer Lorenz Kern, court mayor Ludwig Jung, communal mayor Johann Ludwig Kuhl and jurors Johann Konrad Petry, Johannes Sachs, Johann Peter Müller, Johann Kaspar Rudolph, Johann Nicolaus Schmundt and Karl Ludwig Müller. Other appointments there included one to four publicans, shepherds, bellmen, a schoolmaster, constable (Büttel) and watchman (Dorfspieß); in the sister commune Sulzbach, apart from senior avoyer and upper/lower court jurors, there were also advocates, foresters, field guards etc. – a total of some 50 positions!25 At Gochsheim, in addition to the sixteen members of the court/stool (including imperial/manorial avoyers) and four mayors/churchwardens, we have evidence of neighbors

24  The 1711 list is in BAG, LB 2: Das Grosse Landbuch (1711–41), frontispiece (cf. Figure  13 below); other positions from perusal of BAG, Ratserkenntnisbuch, no. 1; use of Schwyz’s executioner according to Wiget, ed., “Turmkugel-Dokumente” (note 21), nos 4–5. The vast extent of office-holding has also been noted for monarchical contexts, where it provided commoners with a long-overlooked share in government: Mark Goldie, “The unacknowledged republic: officeholding in early modern England,” in The Politics of the Excluded, c. 1500–1850, ed. Tim Harris (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), 153–94; Goldie suggests that at least one in twenty adult males might have served in some capacity at any one time, at Gersau the figure was more like one in ten. 25  1777 document reproduced in Kromer, Soden (note 19), vol. 2, 196; other offices from Hildegard von Nolting, ed., Protokollbuch des freien Untergerichts zu Soden 1665–1726 (Bad Soden: Arbeitskreis für Bad Sodener Geschichte, 1995), 5–6, 26 (1677 appointment of publicans by the whole court); Geisler, Soden (note 8), 48–50; GRS, Löschhorn (note 9), passim; MR, 46, 50; and Kaufmann, Soden und Sulzbach (note 1), 87 (50 positions).

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

61

acting as field guards, communal smiths, shepherds, schoolmaster, sexton and advocates.26 To cement their obligations with a religious commitment, both neighbors and officials had to swear oaths. At Gochsheim in 1561, in the presence of the junior bailiff and a councilor of the city of Schweinfurt, “all house associates and their sons over 14 years of age” bound themselves: to be faithful and obedient to his Roman Imperial Majesty, our most gracious lord, also to the … highly-born Prince and Lord, Frederick, Count Palatine … and Elector, … as bailiff of the same majesty and those of [the imperial bailiwick of] Schweinfurt, to further their benefit and warn of any damage, not to accept any other … lord, of whatever estate … also to faithfully respect the Imperial Avoyer, to uphold and carry out his orders and bans, which he issues on behalf of his … Royal Majesty, the Holy Empire, and our most gracious … Count Palatine, not to counter them in any way … and should, which God’s will may long delay, our most respected and gracious Prince and Lord pass away … to remain steadfast in these duties and remain with the … Council of Schweinfurt until a new Imperial Bailiff shall be appointed …27 The formula made it clear that the bailiff acted for the empire, not as a territorial ruler; otherwise it used the language known from countless other oaths. The same applies to those used for officeholders. At Gersau, according to a legal code of 1605, mayor and members of the court had to lift three fingers, place the other hand on the book of laws and pronounce that “they will be judges for the generality, helping all to their right, administer justice to the rich and the poor”, as well as locals and strangers, independent of friendship and gifts.28 At Sulzbach, soon after the establishment of a joint bailiff system, the jurors of the upper court had to swear to God “to be faithful, obedient and attentive to the most worthy prince and lord, Johann Philipp, Archbishop of Mainz, and to the mayor and council of the city of Frankfurt, now common lords over the court, in accordance with the agreement struck on 1/11 October 1656 and confirmed 30 January 1657 by his late imperial majesty Ferdinand III, 26   VG, appendices 9, 12. 27  Edited in the appendices of Johann Jakob Joseph Sündermahler and Andreas Alexander Franz Hammer, Dissertatio Inauguralis De Advocatia Imperiali Episcopatus Wirceburgensis In Binos Pagos Immediatos Gochsheim Et Sennfeld (Würzburg: Doctoral Dissertation, 1772), 46. 28   B AG, LB 6: Das kleine Landbuch (1605), 9. Further eighteenth-century oath formulas in BAG, AB 2: Artikelbuch II, and ibid., LB 7: Abschrift wichtiger Verordnungen, 137–43.

62

Chapter 3

not to do anything against them or theirs, nor their graces and privileges, … to maintain the court, in line with the said agreement, rights and custom, … also to make just judgements in matters brought before them … and to pass on to the joint lords what they cannot deal with, to keep silent about the court’s secrets, … and not to abandon these duties for love, time, gifts, favour, fear, hate, envy nor anything else someone might think of.”29 Decision-making normally remains hidden from view.30 Most sources just record what was agreed and emphasize consensus, but there are enough glimpses of competing views and alternative options to suggest lively political processes. Fascinating details of contested elections survive for Eglofs. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, candidates needed around one hundred votes to succeed. Melchior Moll, a miller, played the system most effectively, securing one of the main positions year after year between 1642 and 1683. He tended to win the mayoralty by greater margins than rivals like Hans Schele, who had closer links to external authorities, although Moll’s support waned a little towards the end of his civic career at a time of heightened inner-communal tensions. In the 1688 contest for the highest office, Hans Weber polled 85 votes (64 per cent), publican Jörg Abler 33 (25 per cent) and Michael Schele 12, while – in the following decade – yeoman Hans Georg Erlar emerged as a kind of anti-establishment agitator exercising Eglofs’ judiciary on several occasions.31 At Sulzbach in 1751, a dispute about labor services owed to the village required the appointment of special legal representatives. As we read in Löschhorn’s chronicle, “the commune then gave its consensus and votes, man by man”: Peter Keller received the backing of 28 supporters, Friedrich Anthes polled 29, Georg Mappes 26, Adam Petermann 24 and the writer himself 18, suggesting an electorate of over 120. Since Keller already served as communal mayor that year, the latter four were selected for the task in hand.32 Close insights into political life can also be gained at Gersau. Here, general assemblies were held in the church and could be fairly raucous occasions (as we will see below). When five new burghers were admitted in 1528, the beneficiaries – including one “Thöni Kittel [Küttel]” – swore “to faithfully respect everything which the commune of Gersau will impose on itself with a 29  HHStAW, Abt. 4/405: Eid der Schöffen in Sulzbach (1657). 30  On ways to approach the subject as a ritualized communicative phenomenon and “a cultural technique … shaped and managed differently over time”, using the example of imperial elections at Frankfurt, see Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, Cultures of Decision-Making (London: German Historical Institute, 2016), 5. 31  Peter Kissling, Freie Bauern und bäuerliche Bürger. Eglofs im Spätmittelalter und in der Frühneuzeit (Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2006), 317–26 and diagrams 9–11. 32   G RS, Löschhorn (note 9), 1751.

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

63

majority of hands [mit der meren hand]” and not to take any sides if “some persons set themselves against the commune …, or if any kinds of parties formed among the people of the land”.33 Clearly, consensus could not be taken for granted and the clash of opinions formed a constituent part of the system. On 26 April 1784, the assembly er mehret [decided by a majority] to collect a levy from all inhabitants, adding that the authorities should be empowered to impose an appropriate figure “if one or the other did not want to contribute”.34 Contrasting procedures were adopted for two parish elections in 1774. Regarding the main benefice, contested between vicar Alois Nigg and curate Balthasar Camenzind, provision was made for burghers to cast their vote “in secret” in the sacristy under the watchful eyes of Andreas Küttel, another Gersau-born clergyman. Camenzind emerged victorious “by the larger share”, but a few weeks later an open assembly – held as usual in the adjacent nave – decided to let Nigg succeed him to the curacy “by a public majority”. The obligation to respect the will of the greater part also applied at council level. In 1721, communication of one of its decisions was prefaced by the observation that “what the majority advised had to be accepted and defended by the minority” as well.35 Record-keeping and archiving gradually supplemented face-to-face communication in village government. Among the empire’s “free” peasant communities, Dithmarschen played a pioneering role, storing evidence of privileges from the late Middle Ages, codifying its law in 1447, printing this Landrecht as early as 1485, appointing a first secretary in the fifteenth and starting to keep multiple copies of key legal documents from the sixteenth century (which helped delegates to substantiate the federation’s peculiar status at the imperial 33  The church as assembly venue is specified e.g. in BAG, LB 6 (note 28), f.  2r: “We have also agreed that, if we wish to elect a mayor, all the people of the land [Landlütte] of Gersau shall be called together in the church on their oath.” (1605); the 1528 charter (StAL, Urkunden 64/1187) was to play a fundamental role in a seventeenth-century conflict (see the final section of this chapter) and ended up in the archive of one of the Forest Cantons called upon to mediate, for the explicit reason that it had caused such division and under strict instructions never to hand it back again: Daniel Albert Fechter, ed., Die Eidgenössischen Abschiede aus dem Zeitraume von 1618 bis 1648, vol. 5, section 2a, 2 vols (Basel: C. Schulze, 1875), 1052. 34   B AG, LG 1: Landgemeindebuch I, 2. 35   B AG, UKP: Stiftsurkundenbuch, 322 (1774); ibid., Briefe 1700–1800, no.  35 (1721). In the parish federation of Dithmarschen, decisions needed a two thirds majority at all levels: Hans-Sieghart Schwarz, Eheliches Güterrecht und Erbrecht in Dithmarschen bis 1559 (Diss. iur Kiel, Augsburg 1972), 41. It is worth noting that in pre-modern society more generally, given the ideal of consensus and fear of divisions, routinized submission to majority decisions “was extremely unusual”: Stollberg-Rilinger, Decision-Making (note 30), 23.

64

Chapter 3

diet of 1545), although all legal titles were confiscated by its conquerors in 1559. By that point, the parishes’ bureaucratic development matched that of neighboring territories, undermining the notion that rural government was necessarily “backward”.36 Naturally, situations varied from place to place, time to time and between different genres of records. Sulzbach and Soden kept an archival chest in the parish church well before 1450, when Frankfurt removed it for the duration of the villages’ mortgaging to the city. Even after their redemption in the early seventeenth century, fifteen important documents were held back as a political bargaining tool until 1657.37 Due to their constitutional significance and prominent authors, charters tended to be preserved most carefully, at Gersau since the fourteenth century. Other types of writing remained rare in that community until the early modern period. A tax assessment survives from 1510 and a first collection of documents must have been compiled a few decades later, as the “small land book” of 1605 refers to an earlier version. It also stressed the need for governments of all manors, cities and lands to put their statutes and ordinances “into writing”, so that everyone could learn how to conduct business in courts or councils. In the seventeenth century, a parish anniversary book and the first in a series of “official” chronicles (written on the occasion of major repairs and placed in a golden ball at the top of the church tower) added to the range. From about the same point, a “copying frenzy” gripped the authorities, as key documents were reproduced again and again. On one occasion in the eighteenth century, a new book was justified with reference to period trends: “because all polities … now have a chancellery, we – the free … land of Gersau – have decided not only to establish [one] as well but also [to keep] a book in which to enter peculiar things from the past and for the future.” Apart from any practical use, and in spite of much redundancy, copying important documents had a performative and symbolic dimension: to have an extensive archive implied corresponding significance and conveyed status.38 Remarkably, though, print does not feature at all here in the Ancien Régime, quite in contrast to Dithmarschen and also Sulzbach/ 36  Karl August and Wolf Wilhelm Eckhardt, eds., Das Dithmarscher Landrecht von 1447 (Witzenhausen: Deutschrechtlicher Instituts-Verlag, 1960), 7 (land law); Jörg Mißfeldt, “Die Republik Dithmarschen,” in: Geschichte Dithmarschens, ed. Verein für Dithmarscher Landeskunde e.V. (Heide: Boyens & Co., 2000), 121–66, esp 135–8, 159 (written records); Inge-Maren Wülfing, “Dithmarschen,” in: Lexikon des Mittelalters, 10 vols (München: Artemis, 1980–99), vol. 3, col. 1130–2, esp. 1131. On the allegedly basic communication structures in villages see most recently Rudolf Schlögl, Anwesende und Abwesende. Grundriss für eine Gesellschaftsgeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit (Constance: Konstanz University Press, 2014), ch. II.2. 37   M R, 11; appendices nos XXI, XXXV and p. 85. 38   B AG, Urkunden no. 18 (tax assessment of 1510); LB 6 (note 28), f. 1r; UKP (note 35), frontispiece (imitation quote); and see the series of other “landbooks” and “books of articles”

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

65

Soden, which (in 1614) published transcripts of key archival holdings Frankfurt had not yet returned, and Gochsheim, where early eighteenth-century lawsuits were accompanied by a succession of treatises.39 From an early stage, therefore, script – and to a lesser extent print – formed an integral part of political interactions. On top of storing information, writing structured communication through e.g. facilitating control and prompting responses (in terms of actions as well as emotions). Sulzbach and Soden hold many clues of just how entangled and multifunctional different media were. In 1614, a group of sworn Sulzbach neighbors took representatives of the Count Palatine, then in control of the former Abbey of Limburg’s manorial estate, on a perambulation of the respective lands, with a notary in tow to record exact details (not least of some angry exchanges with adjacent communities whose topographical memories differed).40 In early 1681, during a meeting of Soden’s lower court, mayoral accounts from the preceding years “were read out to the commune, with no one contradicting any items”, thus reassuring all present that communal affairs remained in order.41 A couple of generations later, perhaps mindful of problems caused by lack of access to evidence in the past, village carpenter Johann Heinrich Reiff (1680–1764) decided to transcribe everything he found in Soden’s court chest, suggesting that archives mattered as a source of personal pride as well as government resources. His work features an initial list of imperial privileges and full texts of multiple kinds of legal records, thereby preserving their contents for posterity.42 The villages’ furious reaction to a new court ordinance promulgated in 1753 has already been noted above. What types of financial transactions might have been scrutinized by Soden’s 1681 assembly? One tangible advantage for imperial villages was the absence of territorial levies, which lubricated state formation elsewhere. Still, as immediate units the case studies – with the exception of Gersau – paid some taxes and military dues (Römermonate) to the empire. Gochsheim and Sennfeld had the right to allocate these internally, a task fraught with disputes about how much exactly neighbors owed, when and to which bailiff officials (who also with overlapping contents; PAG, Pfarreibuch no. 1: Anniversary Book (1627–) and Wiget, “Turmkugel-Dokumente” (note 21), no. 1 (1655). 39   Gleichlautende Abschrifft aller Käyserlichen Privilegien und anderer Gerechtigkeitten damit beyde Gerichte und Gemeinden zu Sultzbach und Soden begnadiget sindt worden (Höchst, 1614); VG formed part of a series of publications and rebuttals accompanying proceedings against Würzburg. 40   M R, appendix CXL. 41  Nolting, ed., Protokollbuch (note 25), 33. 42  The manuscript SABS, VI, 1, 64, compiled in 1751, is now published in Hildegard von Nolting, ed., Aus der Sodener Gerichtslade, Materialien zur Bad Sodener Geschichte Heft 21 (Bad Soden: Arbeitskreis für Bad Sodener Geschichte, 1996).

66

Chapter 3

expected separate protector fees totalling 200 f. from the two villages).43 In 1397, king Wenceslas reminded his “faithful” communes to pay their fair share of Schweinfurt’s contribution (then acting as imperial protector), while in 1545 Charles V chastised Sennfeld for withholding the common penny agreed by the diet of Speyer against the Turks, ordering the villagers to meet their obligations in the future or to bring any complaints before the imperial cameral court.44 The situation at Sulzbach and Soden was comparable. Under the 1656 constitution, whenever Römermonate were imposed, the villages’ rate was 12 f./ month (payable to Frankfurt and sometimes lowered in times of crises) alongside an annual protector fee of 125 f. (for each of their two bailiffs), apparently based on set household quotas. On the occasion of coronations, furthermore, Frankfurt demanded help with horse and carriage expenses incurred by the royal cortège, and there were some dues for lands held from manorial lords. Alongside, of course, the villagers had to fund any building/infrastructure projects and legal proceedings they embarked upon.45 Revenue items included rents (for tenements, inns and other collective assets), court fines, entry fees for new burghers and – revealing clear differences to “normal” villages – proceeds from classic state prerogatives like direct taxation and a communal excise on beer and wine! At Sulzbach in 1657, for example, Burger Maister Peter Rebenstöcker and Johann Kohlber accounted for an income of 494 f. (mainly from levies on their neighbors) and expenses of a little under 491 f. (including 250 f. for two years’ protection fees, payments for gate repairs, costs relating to petitions, avoyer expenses – “for riding to town on village business” – and lawyers), resulting in a small profit of just over 3 f. A marginal note suggests that the document was inspected and approved at “Neuenheim”, i.e. by the bailiff’s local official based there.46 43  Peter  H.  Wilson, Absolutism in Central Europe (London: Routledge, 2002), 30 (on links between taxation and growing princely power). For imperial levies in this context see e.g. the bundles of investigations, receipts and imperial instructions in StAW, Reichsstadt Schweinfurt, no. 16, and Simon Friedrich Segnitz, Staatsrecht, Geschichte und Statistik der beyden Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld (Schweinfurt: Heinrich Wilhelm Volkhart, 1802), 83–91 (the villages’ joint rate for a Römermonat was 11 2/3 f., a substantial burden in wartime), 98 (Gochsheim paying 2/3 of the protector fee). 44  Stein, ed., Monumenta (note 5), 183 (1397); StAW, Reichsstadt Schweinfurt, Urkunden, 2 May 1545 (addressed “to all and everyone faithful to us and the empire of the village of Sennfeld”): http://monasterium.net/mom/DE-StAW/SchweinfurtReichsstadt/1545_ Mai_2/charter?q=sennfeld. 45   M R, appendix LXXXII; cf. HHStAW, Abt. 4/1104 (household rates for protection fees); contributions to transport costs demanded ibid., Abt. 4/189 (1748) and Abt. 4/1102 (1764). 46  HHStAW, Abt. 4/893 (1657 account); MR, 48 (right to excise levy on wine and beer); the Neuenhain Amtskeller acted for the Elector of Mainz; for Soden, a 1727 reckoning – listing e.g. income from taverns and fruit-/wood-sales – survives in SABS, VI, I, 18.

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

67

Considering size and location, Gersau had considerable liquidity in its “bounty” (Schatz). Five tellers appointed by the assembly in 1771 found 3,418 f., about one and a half times more than the construction costs of the new village hall built a few decades earlier. Further communal resources of even bigger size had accrued in the coffers of the parish and several associated funds – which allowed targeted investments and proactive provisioning measures in times of high food prices.47 In the 1720s, treasurers (Seckelmeister) incurred expenses of around 300  f. a year for court meetings, public works, officials, church business, diplomatic gifts (in the form of wine) and musicians (who performed on the day of the assembly); while their income of roughly 400 f. p.a. derived from burgher admissions, custom duties, common land (especially for summer grazing up on the mountain) and – again, most unusually for a “mere” village – the commune’s own excise taxes and a salt monopoly, the latter yielding the lion’s share of revenue (362 f. in 1760 alone). Barring any special circumstances like natural disasters (the area being prone to flooding), the micropolity’s finances look very healthy.48 As we have seen in Chapter 2, with the possible exception of Sennfeld, none of the case studies conformed to the stereotype of a homogeneous peasant community. Gochsheim’s yeomanry monopolized the village court and there was a fundamental difference between full burghers and mere residents – not to speak of strangers and marginal groups like the Jews – everywhere, with assemblies jealously policing boundaries and reserving the right to approve (and tax) moves from one category to another. At Sulzbach, male sons of local families typically reached full “neighbor” status, which depended on marriage and the swearing of the respective oath, between twenty and thirty years of age.49 A notarial instrument of 1657, documenting a meeting of both sister villages held “in the large garden behind the common house”, listed 30 and 23 names respectively (alongside 6 absentees), confirming broad but not universal political participation:

47   B AG, UKP (note 35), 316; out of the handsome sum found in the chest, Gersau paid off some debts and charged Joseph Maria Kamenzind to buy wheat for the land; parish assets emerge from the various wardens’ accounts, e.g. BAG, Kirchenbücher, Pfrundvogtrechnungen (cf. Chapter 5). 48   B AG, LS: Landseckelbuch I (1732–1802), 16 r (total expenses of 297 f. incurred in 1728), 21v–24r (Johann Anton Camenzind spending e.g. 4 f. 30 s. “on the drummers and pipers of the land”, 4 f. 12 s. “at the military muster”, 2 f. “on wine for Mr von Flüö” and 15 f. on a court day in 1729–30) and 122 r (Johann Marzell Müller accounting for 37 f. 3 s. received from excise duties, 23 f. “for the roads” and 2 f. 20 s. raised from citizenship renewals in his 1760 reckoning). 49   M R, 47 and appendix no. XXX.

68

Chapter 3

Present from Sulzbach: Peter Petermann [one of the jurors], Bartholomaeus Mappus, Georg Göller, Hartmann Fritz [Court Mayor], Philipp Munster, Johann Wey[c]hel [juror], Hermann zur Linde, Georg Meedt, Hannß Hedler and Jörg Gwalt the younger [marginal note: not in appearance], Hanß Petermann, Jörg Rausch and Caspar Fischer [both of whom left before the end], Jacob Hardt, Peter Rebenstöcker, Philipp Lind, Lorentz Bach, Georg Conradt, Johann Kohl, Hannß Groe, Mathäus Butzisch, Velten Lininger, Georg Filbel, Peter vonn Hain, Martin bey der Linden, Johannes Petermann, Georg Gwalt der older, Hannß Oertell, Georg Thönges and Peter Christian. In attendance from Soden: Hannß Jung, Hannß Semmeler, Peter Sachß, Conradt Borckenhaimer, Georg Bender, Leonhardt Antes, Hannß Christmann, Philips Jung, Jacob Filbell, Hannß Ulrich, Claus Ringel, Johannes Hartmann, Johann Jung senior [a juror], Johann Jung junior, Andreas Rath, Christian Diehl, Henrich Christian, Johannes Brandenstein, Vollpert Döll, Merten Göbel [juror], Georg Hagel, Peter Breittert and Hannß Bommersheim.  egarding the following absentees, it was publicly declared that they R shared the opinion of those present: Johannes Petermann, Johann Jung …, Wörner Bender [Bruder], Philips Groe, Velten Stiehler and Georg Horn.50 Some fifty years later, Johann Heinrich Reiff of Soden – who has already featured as the transcriber of the communal archive chest – provides us with rare glimpses from a “bottom-up” neighbor perspective. Baptized in 1680 as the son of Matthäus Reiff and Maria Susanna von Hain, he married Margaretha Elisabeth Göbel at the local chapel in 1713 and his second wife Maria Rosina Best at nearby Neuenhain (in the Electorate of Mainz) only four years later, two unions that produced nine children.51 In 1703, as a young carpenter, he started a “work-” or “common-place book”, entering practical information like a calligraphic alphabet, calculation tables and a list of measurements, moral guidelines issued by his parish minister in 1716, cures for various ailments, 50   M R, appendix no. XXXV. 51  Pfarreiarchiv Sulzbach, Kirchenbücher der evangelischen Kirchengemeinde (1670–), transcribed by Michael and Michaela Geisler. I am grateful to both for allowing me access to their work in progress. Johann Heinrich’s political interests may well have been fostered by father Matthäus, who represented Soden as a juror on Sulzbach’s upper court in 1713: MR, appendix XCIV.

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

69

FIGURE 12 “Identical copy of all imperial privileges and other rights granted to the two courts and communes of Sulzbach and Soden”, starting with those issued by Emperor Sig[is]mund in 1434, entered into the work book of Soden carpenter Johann Heinrich Reiff (1703–). Extract from SABS, VI, 1, 59, unpaginated.

personal reminiscences (e.g. regarding a foot injury sustained in 1703), reflections on his two marriages, contents of important property deeds and – in an early indication of his political interests – copies of the privileges granted to Sulzbach and Soden by the Roman emperors; the latter testifying to his access to constitutional documents and arguably much personal pride in the villages’ special status (Figure 12).52 A church-seating ordinance of 1729, agreed shortly after the opening of Sulzbach’s new house of worship, presents us with a spatial depiction of local society. Signed by mayor Klippel, it reflected inner gradations by placing the senior avoyer – who represented the empire – and the seven oldest jurors “immediately to the left of the [north] entrance coming from the parsonage” (in the first of a set of pews arranged sideways parallel to the nave wall and thus with the best view over the whole interior); the seven youngest jurors were to sit in front of them; the pastor’s wife and the schoolmaster in the third bench; the midwife and nine peasant women in no. 4; followed – in the most prominent position closest to the altar – by the wife of the senior avoyer and the 52   S ABS, VI, 1, 59: Arbeitsbuch des Johan Heinrich Reiff, Zimmergesellen/Zimmermann zu Soden (1703–). Several renewals of privileges – instructing all imperial estates to respect and defend them – are preserved in the communal archive, among which a confirmation by Ferdinand II of Sigismund’s charter of 1434 (submitted for verbatim inclusion in the new document by “the villages, courts and communes of the parishes of Sulzbach and Soden, faithful to us and the empire” at Regensburg in 1630): ibid., VI, 1, 84.

70

Chapter 3

mistresses of the (bailiffs’) Höfe in the village (arranged in age order); on the opposite side, front-of-church places were set aside for young girls and unmarried women near the pulpit, while the bulk of households sat alongside inhabitants of the dependent chapelry of Soden towards the back in the western part of the nave.53 At Gersau, the body of inhabitants was personally free, unburdened by manorial lordship and (in the case of nearly every adult male) fully engaged in the political commune as well as the socio-economic Genossame, yet similar hierarchies existed. The last major expansion of the citizenry dates from 1528, when an assembly admitted Andreas Gruber, Gallis Falb, Thöni Kittel [Küttel], Jerg Mattis and Bartli Zwÿer [Zweier] as Landmannen (the fact that the charter did not use the term Landleute, as for existing burghers, was to cause a major dispute about their exact status a century later). Most of these new families appear to have vanished pretty quickly, leaving the following twelve as pillars of the community: Ammann (documented since 1300), Baggenstos[s] (c. 1450), Camenzind (1300s, quickly emerging as the largest and most important kinship group with three branches), Küttel (1528), May (1550/1572), Müller (1300s), Niederer (early 1600s), Nigg (c. 1500), Rigert (c. 1500), Schöchli (pre-1500), Vogel (1700s) and Waad (c. 1500) (Figure 13).54 Gersau’s lists of officials, taxpayers and tenants read like litanies of these names, underlining that the number of residents with lesser rights must have been tiny, probably no larger than a handful of householders at any one point. They had to swear a special oath and, according to an assembly decision of 1738, prospective Beisassen were to be accepted on a year-to-year basis only, on payment of a (very sizeable) deposit of 200 f., a condition which six men met at that time. Yet other rules applied to strangers.55

53  HHStAW, Abt. 4/465, f. 8r (ordinance); the ordering of pews is reproduced in Erich Zipp, “Sulzbacher Bürger beschliessen eine Sitzordnung in der Kirche,” in Evangelische Kirchengemeinde, ed., Sulzbach und seine evangelische Kirche 1724–1974 (Sulzbach: Kirchengemeinde, 1974), 28–9 (with four neighbors who, after a recent conflict, had yet to renew their oath to the Elector of Mainz as village bailiff underlined in the plan). 54  StAL, Urkunden 64/1187 (1528); family details and arms discussed in Carl Benziger, “Die Wappen der alten Republik Gersau und ihrer Bürgergeschlechter,” in: Schweizer Archiv für Heraldik 34 (1920), 97–106; compared to the surrounding republics, Gersau is classed as a commune accepting relatively few new burghers: ibid., 98. 55   Beisassen oath in BAG, LB 1b: Copy of the Landbook (1659–), no. 13; 1738 rules/acceptances in BAG, Akten, no. 10; mention of strangers in BAG, UKP (note 35), 512 (1735). A list of houses compiled by Josef Maria Mathä Camenzind (in his nineteenth-century manuscript “Beiträge zur innern Geschichte der Gemeinde Gersau”) shows that just four out of 278 properties were not in the hands of burgher families. I am grateful to Robert Nigg sen.† for this information.

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

FIGURE 13 A list of burghers holding major offices at Gersau in 1742 – placed underneath a dedicatory poem and partially surrounded with an armorial ring drawn by Johann Baptist Nigg (“an admirer of the noble art of painting”, according to the inscription at the bottom) – in a later book of council minutes. Typically, the crests of leading families like the Camenzind (highlighted oval with a crossbow, center top, representing land mayor Johann Anton), Küttel (immediately to its left, showing crossed hooks, for deputy Johann Kaspar) and Baggenstoss (shield immediately right of centre, carrying a spade, referring to treasurer Lienhard) occur several times. BAG, RB 4: Ratserkanntnusbuch (1780–94), frontispiece.

71

72

Chapter 3

Two financial registers, one from the early sixteenth and the other from the early nineteenth century, illuminate the broad and ever-expanding spectrum of wealth within the polity. In 1510, following an expensive border dispute with Lucerne’s village of Weggis, “commune and mayor” compiled a register of “landed properties in the whole land of Gersau”, with a view to raising a levy of 5 per cent on their valuation. Nearly all of the thirty-one individuals listed possessed several pieces of land in the parish (some of which appear to have been located at Vitznau, i.e. “abroad”), but their overall worth differed significantly: Peter Baggenstoss owed the highest contribution of £105 (from seven plots), Jost Scheffer the lowest of £4 (from one) and “average” taxpayers somewhere between £40–50 (like Hans Rigert, who owned four). Overall, the exercise yielded over £1300, implying that the landed wealth of the whole commune totalled £26,060/6,515 f.56 A second spotlight falls on the period just after the demise of the republic. The 1810 survey sought to raise funds for the new parish church (built 1806–12), starting with a 2 per cent initial levy and continuing with a number of smaller/ more selective rates until 1814.57 The assessment lists 236 heads of household (representing a population of perhaps 1,400 souls), carrying the familiar names of Camenzind (101 times!), Müller (46 x), Nigg (17 x), Baggenstoss (17 x), Küttel (12 x) and so on. The total wealth recorded amounted to 1,055,306 f., with an average figure of 4,472  f. (more or less equivalent to what was found in the bounty chest at the end of the eighteenth century). By this point, social differentiation had become yet more pronounced than in 1510, not least due to the emergence of a local industry. Only 12 per cent of householders possessed more than the communal average, 88 per cent had less. By far the most prosperous individual was Josef Maria (Anton) Camenzind (1749–1829), pioneering silk entrepreneur, respected statesman, multiple times land mayor, seasoned diplomat and supreme benefactor of the new church. Born into the “seigniorial” branch of his prominent family (Herrenlinie) – the father serving as government secretary, an uncle as parish priest, his nickname being “KleinLandammann” to distinguish him from a “Gross-Landammann” relative (see Figures 14a and Appendix 2a) – he accumulated a fortune of 155,000 f. (14.5 56   B AG, Urkunden, no. 18: Copy of the Güterschatzung (13 March 1510); here again, alongside some unfamiliar names (like Federssi, Scheffer, Moser, Zimmermann …), burgher families predominate. 57  Full details of the assessment, including a survey table, in BAG, KST: Kirchensteuer (1810); for a contemporary account of the church building project (with estimated total costs of 60,000 f.) and its main benefactors see Josef Reichmuth and Josef Wiget, eds., “Die Turmkugel-Dokumente der Pfarrkirche Gersau,” in: Mitteilungen des Historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz 77 (1985): 117–142, esp. 136–42.

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

FIGURES 14A–B

73

The imposing Fontana house (on the left), erected for Kleinlandammann Josef Maria Anton Camenzind in baroque style, dates from 1777. Featuring spacious amenities, including wood-panelled salons, a ballroom, park and private fountain, it was one of several silk industrialist mansions built on the Reichsstrasse – the “imperial road” running from village hall to parish church used for official announcements – in the late eighteenth century. The contrast with Gersau’s oldest dwelling, the wooden Schlosserhaus further down the same road (on the right), is striking.

per cent of Gersau’s overall total). His “fair” share of the levy would have been 3,720 f., but he contributed 7,800 f., inspiring other burghers to pay extra, too.58 Together, the 43 per cent of householders identified as Camenzinds owned a disproportionate 68 per cent of the commune’s wealth, but by no means all of their members were rich. Ropemaker Heinrich Martin’s assessment was a mere 68 f., only a little higher than that for the least prosperous individual recorded (a member of the Ammann family worth 44 f.). As far as we can tell, and is to be expected, most office-holders came from the higher bands, but some scored well below average, such as benefice warden Johannes Camenzind (1,000 f.), Weibel Josef Dionis Nigg (700 f.) and provisions assessor Kaspar May (500 f.).

58  Barbara Camenzind, a maiden assessed at 3,150 f., donated a voluntary 52 f., butcher Josef Maria Camenzind 13 of assets totalling “just” 100 f.: KST (note 57), pp.  24, 57. Camenzind family details derive from the respective entries in the genealogical tables of BAG, GST: Stammbuch der bürgerlichen Geschlechter, vol. 2. Specifically on the KleinLandammann see also Camenzind and Co., 250 Jahre Seiden-Industrie in Gersau (Gersau: Camenzind & Co., 1980), 9–10; his portrait paiting in Gersau’s village hall can be viewed in “Portrait Archiv,” no.  155823, http://portraitarchiv.genealogie-zentral.ch/Portraits/ upload150/155823.jpg; he went on to play a major role in the temporary restoration of the republic 1814 and the unsuccessful attempt to prevent Gersau’s integration into the Canton of Schwyz in 1817, when he travelled to Bern to try and influence the Swiss Diet.

74

Chapter 3

Then as now, political freedom neither depended on (nor lead to) social homogeneity. There was a growing chasm between super rich and poor people at Gersau, even within single families.59 British writer Helen Maria Williams, an admirer of the egalitarian ideals of the French revolution, found little to praise in this Ancien Régime “democracy” which, as she observed on a journey undertaken on the brink of its demise, “bore many marks of the vices and defects of more extensive governments. A few handsome mansions, surrounded by wretched cabins, and infested by beggars, afforded no presumptive evidence of an equal distribution of power or wealth.”60 In 1770–71, during a period of weather damage and scarce food supplies, popular agitators such as Fidel Camenzind challenged the council’s official policy of allowing butter exports to Lucerne. Angry protests marred an illegally convened assembly and there were threats of mob violence, resulting in a series of court proceedings and public apologies to the whole commune.61 Otherwise, putting Williams’ critique in perspective, there are few traces of economic unrest in the polity. The common resources of the Genossame, backed up by poor relief measures and kinship ties, appear to have absorbed the potential for mass protest most of the time. Imperial villages were clearly not immune to social and political tensions. In contrast to other communities, though, they could address many issues directly, on the spot, in their own courts.62 At Gersau, apart from the occasional mediation by allies from the Forest Cantons, literally everything was dealt with in-house. In addition to references in council minutes and various land books (suggesting a considerable rate of up to 20 civil and criminal cases per year), the archive contains a dedicated “crime” file with materials for around thirty major incidents – involving both locals and strangers, men and women – heard between 1641 and 1809. These include matters of morals, communal rights and above all property.63 Repeated stealing, by far the single most common issue, could result in the death penalty. Johann Christian Rigert, a burgher aged twen59  The wealthiest peasants had up to thirty cows, the poorest only two to three: Johann Konrad Füssli, Staats- und Erdbeschreibung der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft. vol. 1 (Schaffhausen: Benedikt Hurter, 1770), 387. 60   A tour in Switzerland; or A view of the present state of the governments and manners of those cantons: With comparative sketches of the present state of Paris, 2 vols (Dublin: P. Wogan, 1798), vol. 1, 95–6. 61  On the so-called Ankenhandel see BAG, UKP (note 35), 311; ibid., LB 4: Grosses Landbuch von 1762–90, 4; and Josef Maria Mathä Camenzind, Die Geschichte von Gersau, ed. Hans Georg Wirz, 3 vols (Gersau: Robert Müller, 1953–59), vol. 1, 111–12. 62  On communal negotiation of religious divisions see Chapter 5 below. 63  Crime rate based on BAG, LB 5: Landbuch no. 5 (1792–1833), 1792–98; ibid., Gerichtsakten, e.g. no. 1 (a gang of foreign robbers sentenced to corporal punishment in 1641), 8 (1753-

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

75

ty-one from an unstable family background, faced four interrogations by members of the triple blood court and several applications of torture (involving stretching with weights). All in all, he admitted to a staggering 83 offences yielding 27 f. 31 s., including repeated raids of collection boxes in local chapels, apparently committed because “he was hungry”. Rigert’s pleading “with their wisest lordships for mercy and charity” fell on deaf ears and he lost his head on 25 May 1752.64 Four years later, another cause célèbre had international implications, since the defendant came from Weggis in Lucerne. Johannes Galli Zimmermann, just nineteen years of age but previously tried and branded for similar crimes at Zug, underwent five examinations for numerous break-ins, partly assisted by accomplices. Trying to assess his character, Gersau’s interviewers wanted to know, for example, “whether he had heard mass on Sunand feast days”, to which he replied “Yes, except on our Lady day in August” (when he stole bread, shirts, cloths, money, tobacco and other items from Franz Küttel at Weggis); then “whether he had also made confessions during this time?” – “Yes, at Easter, in [the monastery of] Einsiedeln” – “Whether he had reported everything?” – “No … not all could be said there”. From the fourth interrogation, the executioner (who had again come across from Schwyz) started to use torture, which produced further details and a somewhat belated promise by the defendant “to better himself”. Yet, as ordered by Gersau’s triple court, Zimmermann was executed on 30 August 1756, with the only concession that both body and head could be buried in consecrated ground behind the parish church.65 Soden’s lower court operated at the other end of the jurisdictional scale. At thrice-yearly sessions, specially appointed officials made presentments on petty misdemeanours, debts, insults, tavern brawls and agricultural offences. Yet the same body also performed executive and administrative tasks such as elections, the swearing in of new neighbors, the supervision of chapel property interrogation of Magdalena Ammann of Gersau about her illegitimate child fathered by a man from Lucerne), 10 (encroachment on communal wood resources 1752). 64   B AG, Gerichtsakten, no. 7; the case also features in the tower ball chronicle of the same year, where parish priest Tanner recorded that the decapitation took place “on the Bläui, next to the cross, by the executioner of Schwyz”, thus revealing that the old gallows position on the lakeshore – visible on the 1654 prospect in Matthäus Merian, ed., Topographia Helvetiae (Basel: R. Geering, 1926), 38–9 – had been abandoned in favor of a site above the village center. Only a month later, Josef Müller, another thief, received 60 whiplashes and a branding with the land mark “G” for offences of a less serious nature: BAG, Gerichtsakten, no. 10; Wiget, ed., “Turmkugel-Dokumente” (note 21), no. 4. 65   B AG, Gerichtsakten, no. 11; related August 1756 correspondence with Lucerne in StAL, Akt  11/290; the case was subsequently reported in Wiget, ed., “Turmkugel-Dokumente” (note 21), no. 5.

76

Chapter 3

and the passing of by-laws (on issues ranging from the maintenance of roads via excise rates to a ban on public smoking). Some types of business involved the whole commune, as on 24 August 1676, when Peter Keller obtained a public house license and – as was customary – offered everyone present free beer, or in January 1680, when the mayors’ accounts were read out to the neighbors. In 1678, a meeting agreed “that the mayors shall have a court chest made and promise to put all the records in it, with the avoyer and jurors each having a key”. It was these documents carpenter Reiff transcribed in the eighteenth century.66 Alongside, as we have seen, villagers interacted with several other tribunals: manorial matters went before the Hofgericht of the feudal lords, appeals and cases of high jurisdiction to the upper court at Sulzbach, the gravest issues even as far as Frankfurt, Mainz, Speyer, Wetzlar or Vienna. Yet the impression that it was always a case of “good” commune against “nasty” individuals or insiders vs outsiders would be misleading. Quite often, villages were divided among themselves, either vertically – between elite and humbler members – or horizontally – between different factions – or in a mixture of both.67 One of the Gersau cases involved no serial criminals, but insults hurled by Sebastian Melchior Müller at Gersau’s land mayor Johann Martin Baggenstoss, while at Soden, “Hanß Christman refused to come to court; because of an argument with the junior avoyer, who chided him; instead, he ran off to bring the matter before the bailiffs.”68 Whatever the merits of these particular spats, there were some genuinely problematic characters among village governors. Take Ludwig Karl Hartwig, active as avoyer of Soden from 1750–66. Originally a Prussian army officer, he arrived in 1743, married Anna Maria Roßbach from a burgher family and became tenant of Soden’s bathing house. In a first shocking incident in 1749, passers-by caught him raping a girl from Rödelheim on the highway. Although he additionally assaulted one of the witnesses, Hartwig managed to sabotage the ensuing investigation and to secure appointment as avoyer by the bailiffs in 1750. Once in post, he furthered the latter’s interests, e.g. as a promoter of the controversial 1753 court ordinance, where – according to chronicler Löschhorn – he played the role of 66  The oldest court book covers the years between 1665 and 1726: Nolting, ed., Protokollbuch (note 25), 24 (beer), 27 (court chest), 33 (accounts) and passim. 67  A classic case study of conflicting interests is David Martin Luebke, His Majesty’s Rebels: Communities, Factions, and Rural Revolt in the Black Forest 1725–45 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997). 68   B AG, Gerichtsakten, no. 16 (Gersau 1763); Nolting, ed., Protokollbuch (note 25), 27 (Soden 1678). In 1536, when land mayor Hans Camenzind stood accused of homicide, Gersau’s court was considered an interested party and the case had to be passed on to Forest Canton judges: BAG, UKP (note 35), 268–70.

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

77

“a right villain, pushing the communes into great need and fear, so that they could think of no remedy”. By 1764, a specially appointed commission under the Mainz official Wilhelm Anton Scheppeler received no fewer than thirty complaints against the avoyer’s conduct, including accusations of extortion, embezzlement of funds, over-charging etc. Although Hartwig denied any wrongdoing, he simply vanished in 1766, leaving his wife with a mountain of debt totalling 3,500 f.69 A classic issue of inclusion/exclusion exercised Gochsheim in the late fifteenth century. At that point, all political power had passed from the imperial/manorial avoyers, mayors and neighbors to a body of twelve men, allegedly because “of the difficulty and inconvenience of dealing with the whole commune”. Having initially approved the change, bailiff Count Wilhelm of Henneberg was asked to reconsider the situation by fourteen villagers, individually named as “Pauls Vogel, Caspar Nagel, Betz Hutzelman, Contz Schmidt, Michel Strohman, Hanns Kißling, Hanns Lutz, Michel Vetter, Cuntz Heselbach, Hanns Hammerschmidt vnnd Endres Rech, Peter Schmidt, Hanns Hasentzagk vnnd Claus Heydner”. They complained that the twelve had, “in each year of their term so far, selected the mayors and churchwardens from among themselves and rendered accounts only to each other”, thus obscuring their activities and also appointing minor officials like sextons, field wardens and shepherds without seeking consent. Henneberg thus summoned both parties to a meeting at Schweinfurt, listened to their arguments (the case for the twelve being made by a handful of plenipotentiaries, i.e. imperial avoyer Peter Heymbrich, Dietz Heimbrich, Claus Krug, Contz Messelberg and Peter Reylich) and – in the interest of “unity and peace” – decided to restore the old system. In the ensuing village ordinance of 1500, which everyone swore to uphold, the bailiff ordered that, first, “all bad feeling and disfavour generated between the parties from the beginning of this dispute until the date of this charter … shall disappear … and that they shall … remain good housefellows”. Further, that the “common meal” assembly should be held for both rich and poor in accordance with the old custom; that all lawsuits should first be brought before Gochsheim’s court; that all officers – from avoyer down to shepherd – had to be “elected in an assembly of the whole commune … by a majority decision”, as of old; and, finally, that accounts should be rendered to those traditionally involved in auditing, in the presence of the junior bailiff, so that communal or church property would not be “dealt with in inappropriate and obscure fashion”. As we know, 69  Geisler, Soden (note 8), 32, 35, 78–9; GRS, Löschhorn (note 9), 1753–54 (where Hartwig is also accused of having hacked off the fingers of a publican and of committing perjury against the communes).

78

Chapter 3

the “democratic” spirit of the law was not fully adhered to in the longer term, but there were clearly limits to the extent of aristocratic government the commune was prepared to accept.70 Gersau’s most serious political crisis took the form of a citizenship dispute in the second quarter of the seventeenth century. This “great misunderstanding” arose because of “an old parchment charter”, the 1528 admission of new Landmannen already encountered.71 From 1634, the rising prosperity and influence of the Küttel family prompted a majority of villagers – including land mayor Andreas Camenzind and most councilors – to seek its disenfranchisement on the somewhat tenuous grounds that the document did not use the term Landleute, subjected the Küttels to eternal gratitude and forbade them to take sides in communal affairs. However, influential figures like former land mayor Walther Rigert, treasurer Johannes Nigg, churchwarden Andreas Camenzind and Our Lady warden Johannes Nigg opposed the move.72 Over several decades, the communal assembly remained paralyzed by the issue and the village riven by strife: Küttel-supporters found themselves abused, stripped of their offices and banned from grazing cattle on communal pasture. Delegates of the Forest Cantons, especially Uri and Schwyz, were called in to mediate. They supported the minority view, i.e. that the Küttels and their descendants should count as full burghers, but nearly despaired of the stubbornness of both parties. Early proposals, even decisions reached by Forest Canton diets, remained unenforced and village representatives hurled insults at the arbitrators, prompting the Swiss to threaten anyone blocking the settlement with a loss of confederate protection.73 On 15 November 1635, eight high-ranking diplomats – including Ludwig Schumacher, avoyer of the City of Lucerne, and the land mayors of Uri, Schwyz and Nidwalden (i.e. four confederate “heads of state”) – confirmed their verdict at one of several diets summoned to Gersau

70  StAW, Lib. div. form. 20, f. 835. I am grateful to Dr Elmar Geus for providing me with a transcript of this ordinance; see also Weber, Gochsheim und Sennfeld (note 4), 317–23. 71  StAL, Urk. 64/1187 (cf. n. 54 above); quotes from BAG, UKP (note 35), 283. 72  Albert Müller sees the origins of the crisis in a political dispute between the current and former land mayor: Gersau – Unikum der Schweizer Geschichte (Baden: Hier + Jetzt, 2013), 58. 73  For full details of the commissioning of Uri and Schwyz see StAL, TA: Tagsatzungsabschiede 88, f. 29r–31v (diet held at Gersau on 29 March 1635), threats against those failing to accept the mediation ibid., 76v–77r (diet at Lucerne on 13 June 1635) and a formal arbitration attempt ibid., 87r (diet at Gersau on 20 June 1635). The summary edition of diet minutes for the years 1618–48 contains over thirty references to the so-called Küttelhandel: Fechter, ed., Abschiede 1618 bis 1648 (note 33), index; explicit reference to slanderous words used against the mediators ibid., 1001 (diet at Brunnen on 4 August 1636).

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

79

itself, providing both sides with a written copy of all findings.74 Gradually, escalating legal and diplomatic costs of several thousand Gulden forced the villagers to bite the bullet and leave the Küttel’s status unchanged. However, the payment schedule worked out by the Swiss triggered fresh arguments, with burghers who had kept a low profile refusing to contribute as much as the leading agitators; the 1637 assembly came to blows, harassment of family members continued for some time, valuable common land had to be sold and financial implications reverberated well into the 1650s.75 Subsequent internal commentators deplored “what discord can do to our land, [as] we have painfully experienced with the highest damage and loss” and expressed the firm desire “to prevent such division and discord affecting our dear fatherland in the future”.76 The severity of the crisis highlights one of the drawbacks of extreme local autonomy. When communes split into irreconcilable factions, there was no accepted “neutral” authority to decide matters one way or another. A similarly acrimonious majority/minority division paralyzed Sulzbach at around the same time. Weary of Frankfurt’s reluctance to revert to mere protector status after the sister villages had redeemed their mortgaging to the city in 1613 (and despite repeated imperial orders to do so), most neighbors felt that Mainz might show greater respect for their privileges.77 The electorate already held feudal rights in the villages, having acquired the manor of Sulzbach from the Palatinate. This set the two major powers on a confrontation course, with Frankfurt alerting the Imperial Aulic Council to interferences from Mainz in 1652 and the latter, in turn, denouncing any territorial aspirations by the city (emphasizing, with impressive historical expertise, that a 1282 charter had called those of Sulzbach and Soden concives, fellow burghers, rather than subjects).78 On the ground, tensions became very tangible. Sulzbach neighbor Johann Petermann supported Frankfurt by planting rumors that Mainz planned to introduce serfdom, a charge vehemently denied by 74  Gersau’s charter in BAG, Urkunden, no. 29; the Küttel copy, now kept at Vitznau, is reproduced in Müller, Gersau (note 72), 59. Names of all Swiss delegates, a digest of the meeting and reference to breeches of the peace in the village in Fechter, ed., Abschiede 1618 bis 1648 (note 33), 962. 75  See the overview in J. M. M. Camenzind, Gersau (note 61), vol. 1, 76–90. 76  Wiget, ed., “Turmkugel-Dokumente” (note 21), no. 1 (1655), and BAG, UKP (note 35), 288 (mid-seventeenth century). 77  For evidence of ongoing disputes between Frankfurt and the villages see e.g. HHStAW, Abt. 4/220 (1649). 78   M R, appendix XXXI; for the author of the treatise, this made 1652 “the strangest [year] in the history of the two imperial villages”: ibid., 18. The respective charter is ISF, Dörfer, 526 (1282).

80

Chapter 3

elector Johann Philipp who presented himself as the villages’ true protector.79 On Wednesday 24 January 1655, a “public sounding of the bells” summoned both communes to an assembly held in the house of Hartmann Fritz, first to hear a statement signed by eighteen men, including Petermann and Johann Christmann, deploring the recent worsening of relations with Frankfurt, probably also on confessional grounds, and reporting that the city had recently promised to respect all privileges “by mouth, hand and seal”. Second, in a particularly dramatic gesture, a public notary read out a passionate appeal by the same pro-Frankfurt party:80 “Honourable and respectable … dear friends and fellow neighbors … Unfortunately, it is known throughout the world … what an irreconcilable conflict erupted between … our dear ancestors and the right honorable … council of Frankfurt, our protector and appeal authority.” Yet, has the city not shown us many favors in the past and should we not have pressed much harder for the return of our constitutional documents ourselves (which could have prevented protracted proceedings in the imperial cameral court)? Considering that the ultimate goal has always been “the conservation of our traditional freedom”, should we still “mutually devour and consume ourselves” over legal wranglings, now that Frankfurt has pledged to release all remaining titles? Is it not shocking that some of us “prefer the eternal serfdom” ensuing from association with Mainz to keeping faith with our ancient protector? Was it the rejection of such subjection which led “you to withhold water, pasture and other communal resources, which nature does not deny us, from me, Johann Petermann, and me, Hannß Christmann?”81 Please consider, if you “as the lowliest and least provided-for [members] of the Holy Roman Empire” exercise such harshness, “what could a leading potentate [like Mainz] do … with you and us, after we voluntarily slip into servitude, abandoning our Reichs = Freyheit for eternal subjection out of our own free will?” Our ancestors would damn us, for remember: “He who does not seek God will face Satan with all his danger.” Those who incited you to ban us from the commons, “only desired that we cause misfortune and damage amongst us ourselves”. We thus oppose “the transfer and sale” of both villages and warn 79  This account of the dispute is based on MR, 19–21, and appendix XXXIII. 80  Translated and paraphrased from MR, appendix pp. 47–56. 81  A related cameral court case brought by the two men is documented in HHStAW, Abt. 1/3690 (1654–56); the ensuing verdict to restore their rights was ignored by the communes, revealing a somewhat opportunistic attitude towards the supreme courts of the empire: Kaufmann, Soden und Sulzbach (note 1), 31.

Domestic Affairs: Co-Operation and Conflict

81

you that “the court seal you may wish to use to further your plans” cannot serve to renounce imperial privileges. Let us thus accept Frankfurt’s hand rather than “to jeopardize our religion … May God point your hearts in the right direction.” In 1656, the dispute became academic, since the two protector candidates simply decided to share power. Preferring a negotiated settlement to lengthy confrontations with uncertain outcomes, Frankfurt and Mainz struck an agreement which – following confirmation by the emperor the following year – was to frame communal life at Sulzbach and Soden for nearly a century.82 This fait accompli focused the parties’ minds to unite against the new threat. Throughout the transition period, the communes offered concerted resistance and insisted on greater respect for their ancient rights – a campaign we will examine more closely in chapter 4. These village disputes revolved around a variety of issues and spanned a wide spectrum (from petty technicalities at Gersau to fundamental questions of lordship at Sulzbach), but shared much common ground. In all cases, the political appears inextricably intertwined with the personal, related kinds of “freedom” – of participation, citizenship, immediate status – took center stage, a passionate assertion of established rights motivated all parties and escalating unrest quickly transcended communal boundaries.83 Recapitulating the themes surveyed in this chapter, there was no one way of governing an imperial village. Assemblies of burghers formed the basis of the pyramid, but their competences varied. Acting as the highest authority in the most “democratic” constitutions, “aristocratic” models centred on courts (presided by avoyers under bailiff supervision) appear more common, all exercising multiple functions without a modern division of power. Communal organization usually derived from jurisdictional roots, but socio-economic and especially parish structures could also play important parts. All Reichsdörfer expected broad participation, a spirit of civic engagement and accountability of officials, without “levelling” social differences between neighbors. Imperial avoyers could be bottom-up appointments (as at Sennfeld) or external choices 82   M R, appendix XXXIV; the original agreement is in ISF, Privilegien 449. 83  “In imperial villages, the smallest communal matters probably caused greater arguments than elsewhere”: Karl Siegfried Bader, Dorfgenossenschaft und Dorfgemeinde (Weimar: Böhlau, 1962), 327. For fierce internal divisions during Freienseen’s legal campaign to assert immediate status (involving withholding of communal resources, violence and political exclusion) see Bernhard Diestelkamp, Ein Kampf um Freiheit und Recht. Die prozessualen Auseinandersetzungen der Gemeinde Freienseen mit den Grafen zu SolmsLaubach (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2012), 42–6.

82

Chapter 3

(Sulzbach/Soden), natives or strangers,84 but in any case they resided locally, became immersed in village society/institutions and acquired the janus-faced outlook characteristic of senior officials with split loyalties. Depending on their character and sense of obligation, post-holders could lean different ways: in the eighteenth century, Oberschultheiss Gabler’s primary loyalties appear to have been to his Sulzbach neighbors, while predecessor Erstenberger violated their privileges (cf. Figure Appendix 2g) and Soden Schultheiss Hartwig pursued mainly personal agendas. The Dorf- Bürger- or Bauermeister, who held the purse strings, were unambiguously communal representatives drawn from the inhabitants. Financially, regimes appear at least viable and often prosperous, in large part due to the absence of ever-growing burdens imposed by territorial lords. For political exchange, each village evolved a specific blend of oral, written and ritual communication; while consensus remained an aspiration, all case studies experienced virulent internal strife which tested their resilience to the limit. Compared to “normal” villages, there were similarities and differences. As noted in the previous chapter, all rural communes practised a more or less extensive degree of self-government and, during their mortgaging to the City of Frankfurt in the “long” sixteenth century, the position of Sulzbach and Soden, for example, differed little from the period standard of subordination to a territorial lord. Even after their redemption, top officials remained external appointees, bailiffs interfered in village politics and the accounts required their approval. Having immediate status, however, carried advantages: direct taxation stayed within the limits negotiated by the imperial diet rather than growing in line with unchecked princely demands; excise levies supported local purposes rather than centralization; one ever-denser layer of regulation, associated with the early modern state, did not apply; recourse to – and influence on – higher jurisdiction remained more direct; all of which allows students of Reichsdörfer a clearer view of “popular politics” than elsewhere. Still, communal autonomy decreased over the course of the period even in immediate communities, with the significant exception of Gersau, which moved towards sovereignty in the eighteenth century. The next chapter will widen the perspective from domestic to external affairs and assess the relationship between imperial villages and the world around them.

84  At Sulzbach, for example, Henne Ganß appointed in 1457 was a local (HHStA Abt. 4:U38), but Philipp Dietz 1613 hailed from Solms: Achilles Augustus von Lersner, Chronica Der Weit-berühmten Freyen Reichs-Wahl- und Handels-Stadt Franckfurt am Mayn, part ii (Frankfurt a.M.: Johann Adam Recksroth, 1734), 623. Given that external authorities appointed here, the latter was more common.

Chapter 4

External Relations: Protectors and Predators As immediate entities of the Reich, imperial villages belonged to a larger whole; as collectives with political rights, inhabitants interacted with peers and superiors well beyond their boundaries; and, as self-governing units exempt from territorial lordship, the communes attracted the attention of expansionist princes and cities. This chapter reviews external relations in three steps: first, by gauging awareness of the wider imperial framework and peer polities within it; second, by examining Gersau’s position in the matrix of Swiss treaties; and, third, by studying the interactions of the German case studies with bailiffs and imperial bodies, both in terms of friendly exchange and mounting tensions. Charters carefully stored in communal archives, periodic oaths of allegiance and interactions with protectors or central courts provided tangible reminders of the direct relationship between immediate villages and the Holy Roman Empire. But these bonds mattered to individuals, too. We have seen in previous chapters how, during the eighteenth century, Soden carpenter Reiff made several copies of communal privileges, once even for a workbook intended to guide him in everyday life. In neighboring Sulzbach, his contemporary Johann Adam Löschhorn recorded important events in a personal diary. Apart from agricultural and family matters, it also features political landmarks like the coronation of the first non-Habsburg monarch for several centuries, an event which happened on his doorstep: Anno 1741. In the month [of October] His Roman Imperial Majesty Carl the 6th died and in the month of November the delegates for the election assembled; having gathered for 28 sessions, they held their election day on 24 January 1742 and thus chose Carl Albrecht, Elector of Bavaria, by the majority of their votes; after which, the solemn entry into [Frankfurt and] the Barckhausen Palace occurred on the 30th following; the coronation took place on 12 February, when His Imperial Majesty rode to the [imperial] cathedral [of St Bartholomew] on a white horse under a canopy carried by 10 city magistrates …1

1  G RS, Tagebuch des Johann Adam Löschhorn (1738–), 1741.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004396609_005

84

Chapter 4

In both villages, furthermore, deaths of emperors – as well as bailiffs – were marked by the ringing of church bells and, certainly in the cases of Joseph II and Leopold II in the 1790s, a range of further commemorative activities.2 Here, as in Gochsheim/Sennfeld and the Ingelheimer Grund, we have noted close contacts, as well as a degree of institutional linkage (particularly through upper or appeal courts), between adjacent communities. Looking further afield, opportunities for networking were hampered by the fact that immediate villages – in contrast to cities – did not attend imperial diets, at least not as officially recognized members.3 Every so often, however, we find peasant representatives bringing special requests to individual meetings. At the height of the Luther affair in 1521, Jäck Moll and Josef Muchlin travelled to Worms for confirmation of Eglofs’ privileges and to complain against encroachments by the city of Wangen; in 1545, Peter Nanne and Thomas Boie – members of Dithmarschen’s Forty-Eight regents – visited Worms to reject claims of overlordship by Holstein with (somewhat opportunistic) reference to the federation’s subjection to Bremen; at Speyer in 1570, envoys from Gochsheim and Sennfeld asked for a bailiff other than Schweinfurt; and in the eighteenth century, they alerted the imperial diet at Regensburg to violations of their religious rights by the Prince-Bishop of Würzburg.4 On such occasions, as during visits to the royal court or jurisdictional sessions, informal exchange with other rural petitioners would have been likely, even though documentation is hard to come by. At the very least, dealings with the diet must have boosted “public” awareness of imperial villages throughout the Empire, even in regions where they were less numerous or absent. The appeal and advantages of immediate status were certainly well-known. Weggis on Lake Lucerne had once steered the same course as Gersau, joining 2  HHStAW, Abt. 4/188: Trauergeläut zu Sulzbach und Soden (1740–74), and ibid., Abt. 4/190–91: Tod der Kaiser Joseph II/Leopold II (1790–92); cf. Chapter 6 below. 3  The parish federation of Dithmarschen, formally subject to the Archbishopric of Bremen, was mistakenly summoned to the 1496 diet, possibly because its effective independence made it appear comparable to an imperial city: Catherine De Kegel Schorer, “Bauern am Reichstag? Zum Verhältnis reichsunmittelbarer ländlicher Gemeinwesen zur Reichsstandschaft,” in: Gemeinde, Reformation und Widerstand, eds. H. R. Schmidt et al. (Tübingen: bibliotheca academica, 1998), 433–41, esp. 434–8. 4  “Eglofs chronicle,” http://www-old.eglofs.de/; Rosemarie Aulinger, ed., Der Reichstag zu Worms 1545, Deutsche Reichstagsakten: Jüngere Reihe, vol. 16 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2003), part 1, 245; part 2, 1131 (Dithmarschen); Die fränkischen Zuschauer, 2. Stück (Erlangen, 1773), 45 (Gochsheim/Sennfeld) – for a woodcut of a 1570 audience, conceivably showing the delegates, see Harriet Rudolph, Das Reich als Ereignis (Cologne, 2011), fig. 31; Simon Friedrich Segnitz, Staatsrecht, Geschichte und Statistik der beyden Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld (Schweinfurt: Heinrich Wilhelm Volkhart, 1802), 126 (1720).

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

85

in the 1332/1359 alliance with the Forest Cantons and taking an equal part in ensuing military action, even signing a joint declaration of war on Zurich over a succession dispute in 1440. Yet, lacking explicit imperial privileges, Weggis fell under the overlordship of Lucerne, which it considered an injustice. In 1466, during an acute conflict with the city, the villagers threatened “to become free/and act as lords themselves/like their neighbors of Gersau, who have their own low and high court/also stocks and gallows”.5 Communal resentment continued well into the seventeenth century, when Weggis took the matter to the diet of the rural republics. Referring again to their erstwhile partners (at the time embroiled in the Küttel dispute), the petitioners reminded Uri, Schwyz and Nidwalden that they should enjoy no “less freedom than those of Gersau”. Having consulted with their respective governments, the delegates merely recorded the request in the minutes of a subsequent meeting. Upon further prompting on 4 February 1640, the diet promised to investigate “how Weggis might be returned to a free state, since it used to be allied to the cantons in the same way as Gersau”, but no concrete action seems to have followed, probably out of a realization that Lucerne would have never entered into negotiations.6 Clearly, proud communes like this went to great lengths to (re-)gain immediate status, usually by asserting that they had a legitimate claim. Another example is Kochendorf in the Neckar valley, whose inhabitants sent their lord a clear message by obtaining a separate communal seal from the Hofpfalzgraf (entitled to make such grants on behalf of the emperor). This so infuriated the local knight that he destroyed their new stamps, imprints and associated documentation. Although he was sentenced to bear all costs in the ensuing imperial cameral court case of 1599, the village failed to sustain its ambition in the longer term and the knightly chancellery recovered control over official transactions.7 Had Kochendorf been inspired by the example of “real” imperial 5  B AG, Urkunden, no. 3 (1359); specifically on Weggis see Aegidius Tschudi, Chronicon Helveticum; oder Gründliche Beschreibung der so wohl in dem Heil. Römischen Reich als besonders in einer lobl. Eydgenoßschaft … vergeloffenen Merckwürdigsten Begegnussen, 2 parts (Basel: H. J. Bischoff, 1734–36), part 2, 310 (1440), 658 (1466); for Lucerne’s growing grip on Weggis cf. Urs Thalmann, “Luzern – Schwyz,” in: Mitteilungen des historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz 83 (1991): 41–62, esp. 57–8. 6  Daniel Albert Fechter, ed., Die Eidgenössischen Abschiede aus dem Zeitraume von 1618 bis 1648, vol. 5, section 2a, 2 vols (Basel: C. Schulze, 1875), 918, 984, 1158 (1635–40). 7  Wilfried Schöntag, Kommunale Siegel und Wappen in Südwestdeutschland. Ihre Bildersprache vom 12. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Osfildern: Jan Thorbecke, 2010), 100–1 (with reproduction of the seal featuring the letter “K”); for other and more protracted cases of communes claiming immediate status see the discussion of imperial jurisdiction in the last section of this chapter.

86

Chapter 4

villages? Explicit evidence of cross-fertilization derives from Sulzbach and Soden. When jurist Friedrich Carl von Moser collated evidence for their immediate status in a 1753 treatise, he included “proof by analogy with other Reichs = Dörfer”. Referring to past cameral court resolutions, Moser drew parallels between how Gochsheim and Sennfeld had sought to replace their then protector Schweinfurt with Würzburg in the sixteenth century and more recent calls in his Taunus communes to transfer bailiff rights from Frankfurt to Mainz. Only sustained recourse to the law, he concluded, allowed “imperial villages … to defend their immediate status”.8 Given that the Middle Ages marked the high point in the evolution of immediate peasant polities and that the period coincided with an “associational age”, were there widespread attempts to forge leagues of self-governing rural communities throughout the Empire (as pioneered on its northern and southern peripheries)? A recent study of the Upper German region highlights the flurry of interactions, as an intricate web of overlapping rights and interests forced all agents – from dukes right down to small cities – into alliances to promote peace, stability and the common good. Key co-ordination instruments were multilateral Tage, regular meetings of representatives to supervise agreements and arbitrate any disputes.9 Indeed, once established, both Dithmarschen’s regents and the Swiss diet sought consolidation and further expansion; the former e.g. through unsuccessful attempts to join the Hanseatic League,10 the latter with aggressive military campaigns (at least up to the Italian wars) and the conquest of jointly administered dependent lordships (Gemeine Herrschaften).11 In the seventeenth century, there were even visions of a comprehensive republican alliance linking northern trading ports with the United Provinces, German 8   MR, ch. 4, §11, 111–12. In 1755, Moser acknowledged a payment of 50 f. by the commune of Sulzbach for his “legal endeavors”: ISF, Höchst, Orte, 6/37. 9   Duncan Hardy, “Associative Political Culture in the Holy Roman Empire: The Upper Rhine, c. 1350–1500” (DPhil thesis, Oxford, 2015), esp. 326 (interpretation of the Empire as an associative entity”); for the author, the most striking characteristic of the period may thus have been “horizontal” bonding rather than “vertical” division or territorialization. 10  For Wilhelm Volkmar, trading links convinced Dithmarschen “that the burgher and peasant republics were natural allies against the power of the princes”: Geschichte des Landes Dithmarschen bis zum Untergang des Freistaates (Braunschweig: Friedr. Vieweg und Sohn, 1850), 28; the inability to strike alliances with nearby cities was to be a major factor in the demise of the parish federation: William L. Urban, Dithmarschen: A Medieval Peasant Republic, Mediaeval Studies 7 (Lewiston: E. Mellen Press, 1991), 142. 11  André Holenstein, “Gemeine Herrschaften,” in: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz, ed. Marco Iorio (19  August 2005), http://www.hls-dhs-dss.ch/textes/d/D9817.php. On the dynamic potential of communal organization more generally see Peter Blickle, “Kommunalismus, Parlamentarismus, Republikanismus,” in: Historische Zeitschrift 242 (1986): 529–56.

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

87

Reichsstädte and the Swiss confederates.12 Yet, apart from Gersau’s involvement in the Alpine treaty-network, there are few traces of leagues between imperial villages or individual communes with towns, never mind prelates or princes. One example was the 1282 agreement between Sulzbach and the city of Frankfurt. Previously, the Reichsdorf appears to have had no lord or bailiff at all and the language of the charter suggests an arrangement among equals, through which the scultetus, scabini et universitas of Sulzbach pledged participation in Frankfurt’s military levies in return for protection by the city’s avoyer, jurors and commune. There is no mention of subjection here, much rather the peasants acquired the status of concives, fellow burghers, although the relationship became increasingly lop-sided over the succeeding centuries.13 The free peasants on Leutkircher Heide, too, struck alliances with neighboring cities, especially Wangen, in an attempt to contain the rising Austrian influence in the region, yet again with little long-term success.14 On the whole, imperial villages seem to have minded their own business, looking inward rather than out. Given the massive resources mobilized for the defence of their own rights, the scarcity of associations must reflect choice rather than a lack of imagination, opportunities or legal expertise. Fellow communes provided precedents and inspiration, but the prospect of linking up does not seem to have held much appeal; Weggis, for example, did not aspire to a union with Gersau, it just wanted the same freedom. Undoubtedly, this somewhat parochial stance derived not least from practical considerations like topographical constellations and power deficiencies, especially compared to the mighty principalities and cities in more central parts of the Empire. A similar impression – pursuit of own interests, limited solidarity with other rural communes – arises from attitudes during rebellions. Imperial villages, of course, were subject to fewer bureaucratic and fiscal pressures than other rural polities, reducing the potential for discontent; on the other hand, they would have found resistance much easier to organize. As far as can be ascertained, only a handful Reichsdörfer – located in the hotbeds of the Allgäu and 12  Hans-Dieter Loose, “Der hamburgische Senatssyndicus Vincent Garmers (1623–1687) und das Ende der Hanse,” in: Akteure und Gegner der Hanse. Zur Prosopographie der Hansezeit, ed. Detlef Kattinger (Weimar: Böhlau 1998), 245–253, esp. 250 (I thank Joachim Whaley for this reference). Such an alliance might have stretched to imperial villages. 13  Ekkehard Kaufmann, Geschichte und Verfassung der Reichsdörfer Soden und Sulzbach 1035–1806 (reprint Flörsheim a.M.: Lauck, 1981), 99, 103 (absence of lordship); Hildegard von Nolting, ed., Aus der Sodener Gerichtslade (Bad Soden: Arbeitskreis für Bad Sodener Geschichte, 1996), 66, and MR, 44 and appendix II (language and meaning of agreement). 14  Catherine De Kegel Schorer, Die Freien auf Leutkircher Heide: Ursprung, Ausformung und Erosion einer oberdeutschen Freibauerngenossenschaft (Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2007), part 1.

88

Chapter 4

Franconia – played active parts in the great Peasants’ War of 1524–26.15 Jörg Weiß from Sennfeld participated in a spectacular attack on Mainberg Castle (located just across the river from his home) and two men from Gochsheim were executed as ringleaders in July 1525. Subsequently, the villagers blamed any wrongdoing on pressure from the peasant army (passing by mid-June on its way from Schweinfurt to Eltmann) and begged their bailiff, Count von Henneberg, for mercy and permission to retain their links to the Empire. By way of punishment, Gochsheim had to perform labor services for the reconstruction of the castle.16 Gersau’s attitude in the Swiss Peasants’ War of 1653 is particularly telling: far from taking the side of oppressed peasant communities, whose socio-economic profile largely resembled their own, land mayor and commune heeded a call for assistance by the patrician rulers of Lucerne. Very clearly, Gersau considered itself (constitutionally) on a par with its Forest Canton allies – i.e. in this case the “lords” – rather than the “subjects” who had taken up arms. This is how the episode appears – relatively soon after the events – in the communal archives, as part of records relating to Lucerne: Anno 1653, on 1 March, the lords of Lucerne sent us an official letter about the rebellion of their subjects, asking us – as confederates – to keep 40 or 50 men on stand-by … Were we to see those of Uri sailing by with their troops, then we should get on our boats to join them, hurrying to come to the aid of the city. On 14 March, [Lucerne] thanked us in a very friendly manner for getting [our soldiers] ready in accordance with the alliance, urging us to remain alert for eventual support.

15  Erhard Nietzschmann, Die Freien auf dem Lande: Ehemalige deutsche Reichsdörfer und ihre Wappen (Wolfenbüttel: Melchior Verlag, 2013), 2013, 27 (Eglofs), 77 (Urfersheim), 80 (Westheim); cf. also Ludwig Schnurrer, “‘Verhinderte’ Reichsstädte in Franken,” in: Reichsstädte in Franken, ed. Rainer A. Müller, vol. 1: Verfassung und Verwaltung (Munich: Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte, 1987), 357–67, esp. 360 (Lenkersheim). 16  Fritz Zeilein, “Das freie Reichsdorf Gochsheim – Einführung,” in: Reichsstädte in Franken, ed. R. A. Müller, vol. 1: Verfassung und Verwaltung (Munich: Süddeutscher Verlag, 1987), 379–87, esp. 383; Doris Badel, Sennfeld: Geschichte eines ehemals freien Reichsdorfes in Franken (Sennfeld: Gemeinde, 1997), 32. For the arrest and execution of Gochsheim rebels see also Friedrich Stein, ed., Monumenta Suinfurtensia historica (Schweinfurt: E. Stoer, 1875), 510; for the latest general account of the war (from the perspective of the Swabian League’s commander) Peter Blickle, Der Bauernjörg: Feldherr im Bauernkrieg – Georg Truchsess von Waldburg 1488–1531 (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2015), esp. 293 (route of peasant army).

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

89

Afterwards, on 20 March, they sent us another friendly request, asking us to send our men to their aid against the rebellious subjects, especially those of the Entlebuch, which we duly did.17 Much later, in 1745, land secretary Johann Balthasar Nigg elaborated in a paper note added to one of the land books, although not without repeating that, “after the City of Lucerne and their subjects had started a war against each other”, Gersau was obliged to provide military aid by its treaties. Thus, on 26 March 1653, Captain Melchior Camenzind led seventy-five men across the lake to the ally’s capital, where they were not only “regally paid” but also honored with “great thanks” before being discharged after the defeat of the subjects. The war, Nigg concluded, “turned out very nasty for the rebellious peasants”. The lords of Lucerne “had 15 supporters executed by sword and rope, also sentenced two [of their own] burghers to infinite imprisonment, [and] exiled several from the city and districts for secretly siding with the peasants and promising them help; otherwise the war ended without much shedding of blood”.18 The language of these local reminiscences is matter-of-fact, if tinged with both a sense of pride – of being asked for help by a powerful city and earning its gratitude – and a simultaneous desire to justify the commune’s response. It wasn’t Gersau’s finest hour. Preserving peace and securing mutual assistance, to proceed to the second step of the argument, were the core objectives of the confederate structures emerging in the Lake Lucerne region from the thirteenth century. Gersau’s status following the 1332/1359 treaties is not easy to determine.19 Being neither a full canton nor a dependent lordship, modern scholarship places it somewhere 17   B AG, UKP: Stiftsurkundenbuch (started in the 17th century), 2. 18   B AG, LB 6: Das kleine Landbuch (1605–), 149–50. 19  Various variants of the alliance of 31 August 1359, survive in StAL, Akt 11/290; ibid., Urkunden 113/1713–1716; BAG, Urkunden, no. 3; the text clarified that, without being explicitly mentioned, the neighboring parishioners of Gersau and Weggis (“vnser gu(o) ten nachgeburen die Kilchgnossen gemeinlich von Gerso(u)w vnd von Wetgis”) had also sworn to the “eternal” 1332 alliance struck between Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden on the one hand and the City of Lucerne on the other. The original document is not preserved but a later copy – specifying measures for mutual military aid, the preservation of peace and arbitration of conflicts – is BAG, Urkunden, no. 2, edited in Allgemeine Geschichtsforschende Gesellschaft der Schweiz, ed., Quellenwerk zur Entstehung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, Part 1: Urkunden, 3 vols (Aarau: Sauerländer, 1933–75), vol. 2, no. 1638. Conceivably, Gersau may be represented among the envoys shown on an illustration of the 1332 oath ceremony in Die Luzerner Chronik des Diebold Schilling 1513: Eine wissenschaftlich bearbeitete Faksimile-Ausgabe (Luzern: Kunstkreis AG und Faksimile-Verlag, 1977), 22.

90

Chapter 4

between a zugewandter Ort (a lesser associate “leaning towards” the Swiss, such as the city of Biel) or a Schirmverwandter (a protectorate like the Abbey of Engelberg).20 Gersau, however, believed that it had joined these alliances on an equal footing, without any further obligations (such as attendance at the Diet) or involvement in later constitutional agreements. Early modern observers concurred, one noting that the commune “is not subject to any capital of the Swiss, but entirely separate and wholly free”.21 In long-term perspective, Gersau is probably best described as an allied “neighbor” (the term appearing in 1359) or “confederate” (used e.g. in diet minutes of 150722) of the Forest Cantons for the specific – military and conflict-resolution – purposes agreed in the fourteenth century, whose minute size precluded parity with its partners and invited their paternal succor. Hence both Swiss and Gersau documents also use the term “protectors” (Schirmherren) for Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden and Lucerne, albeit without any implication of subordination or lordship.23 Yet, in the decades immediately following the treaties (when all parties worked out how exactly to interpret the arrangements), Gersau did face the danger of absorption into adjacent territories. Schwyz and Lucerne considered 20  Albert Müller, emphasizing the polity’s independent position, prefers the term zugewandter Ort: Gersau – Unikum der Schweizer Geschichte (Baden: Hier + Jetzt, 2013), 27; Andreas Würgler, pointing to the lack of diet membership, sees indications of a Schirmherrschaft: Die Tagsatzung der Eidgenossen: Politik, Kommunikation und Symbolik einer repräsentativen Institution im europäischen Kontext 1470–1798 (Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2013), 110. 21  Matthäus Merian, ed., Topographia Helvetiae, Rhaetiae et Valesiae [1654] (Reprint Basel: R.  Geering, 1926), 39; cf. Josias Simmler, Regiment gemeiner loblicher Eydgnoschafft (Zürich: Christoph Froschauer d.J., 1576), vol. 2, 240: “to my knowledge, there is none [i.e. no village or Flecken] with greater liberties in these lands”; and the use of the term “confederates” in Johann Konrad Füssli, Staats- und Erdbeschreibung der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, vol. 1 (Schaffhausen: Benedikt Hurter, 1770), 384: “Die von Gersau sind nicht Schirm- oder Schutzangehörige, sondern Bundesgenossen der vier Waldstätte.” 22  “The pious people, our faithful dear Eittgnossen von Gerso(u)w”: Martin Salzmann, ed., Die Rechtsquellen des Kantons Luzern, part 2: Rechte der Landschaft, vol. 1: Vogtei und Amt Weggis (Aarau: Sauerländer, 1996), 125 (1507; cf. StAL, Urk 220/3106). 23  In return for accepting their arbitration verdict of 15 November 1635, the Forest Cantons promised Gersau to “protect and guard them in the possession of their old rights, treaties and seals”: Fechter, ed., Abschiede 1618 bis 1648 (note 6), 962; the 1635 charter survives in BAG, Urkunden, no. 29 and at Vitznau: Müller, Gersau (note 20), fig. 28. Looking back at the Ancien Régime, Gersau itself referred to the Forest Cantons as Schirmstände, see e.g. BAG, RB 6: Raths Protocoll von 1809–18, 486 (1817). According to modern legal scholarship, protection rights derived from purely defensive alliances hardly ever evolved into territorial lordship: Dietmar Willoweit, Rechtsgrundlagen der Territorialgewalt: Landesobrigkeit, Herrschaftsrechte und Territorium in der Rechtswissenschaft der Neuzeit (Cologne: Böhlau, 1975), 223.

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

91

small parish polities natural targets for expansion and monitored each other’s moves jealously. In a 1395 verdict by arbitrators from other Forest Cantons, Gersau was instructed not to enter into any burgher agreements with either party or indeed anyone else, and in May 1406 Schwyz again warned Lucerne of any encroachment.24 The decisive moment arrived in 1430, when Lucerne asked three villages to renew their alliance oaths in the city rather than on home soil, as had been the custom, and claimed priority call-up rights for any military aid. The rural cantons intervened, Gersau, Weggis and Vitznau did not travel to Lucerne and a diet held in September decided to put the matter to arbitration. In March 1431, an external Swiss confederate – the avoyer of the City of Bern – agreed to head the respective panel.25 Having considered the conflicting positions and scrutinized the relevant treaties, Rudolf Hofmeister cast the decisive vote on 7 May 1431. His judgement was differentiated: from now on, Weggis and Vitznau were to renew their oaths in Lucerne and join the city’s military levies; regarding Gersau, however, in what amounted to “international” recognition of the village’s independence, the avoyer decided: Given that, at Gersau, Lucerne holds no further legislative, jurisdictional or other rights than those conveyed to it – as well as equally to the three rural cantons – by the treaties, and that it could be proven that, with one exception, Gersau has always renewed the alliance oath in the village rather than at Lucerne, those of Gersau and their dependents shall not be bound to renew it in the city in the future. Regarding military summons, too, Lucerne shall have no greater right than the three lands. Thus, when the four cantons Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden go to war together, Gersau shall join the one calling it up first. If only one of them embarks on a campaign (or if the others do not require support), Gersau shall follow the canton which needs its help.26 24  Thalmann, “Luzern – Schwyz” (note 5), 58. 25  Salzmann, ed., Weggis (note 22), 49 (oath ceremony taking place without villages); Philipp Anton von Segesser, ed., Amtliche Sammlung der älteren eidgenössischen Abschiede aus dem Zeitraume von 1421–1477, vol. 2 (Lucerne: Meyer, 1863), 85 (matter put before Rudolf Hofmeister, avoyer of Bern); a charter dated 17 March 1431, confirming Hofmeister’s appointment, survives in Bern, Staatsarchiv, Urkunden, Äusseres Archiv, C 7: Fach LU Luzern. On the same day, the parishes of Gersau and Weggis recorded their agreement with the arbitration process: StAS, Urkundensammlung, no. 370. The latter is the first document carrying Gersau’s own seal – reproduced in Der Geschichtsfreund 9 (1853): 226 – and has been called “the freedom charter of this small state”: Carl Benziger, “Die Wappen der alten Republik Gersau und ihrer Bürgergeschlechter,” in: Schweizer Archiv für Heraldik 34 (1920): 97–106, esp. 100. 26  Segesser, ed., Abschiede (note 25), 90.

92

Chapter 4

The verdict became another cornerstone of communal memory. Some two hundred years later, a Gersau scribe recalled that “in the year 1432 [sic] there was some disagreement between the City of Lucerne and the three rural cantons, following which we were told: whenever the 4 Forest Cantons embark on a joint campaign, we should follow the first one calling us to aid.”27 A combination of multiple alliance partners (who effectively neutralized each other) constituted one important factor in keeping the village safe. However, as the fate of Weggis and Vitznau demonstrates, Gersau’s proactive purchase of political freedom in 1390 proved even more important, bringing key rights under communal control before they could fall into the hands of any predators.28 Just two years later, at Basel in 1433, the commune secured an imperial confirmation of privileges. Following hard on the heels of a constitutional landmark and building on its 1418 royal grant of high jurisdiction (which in turn had rounded off the rights acquired in 1390), this is unlikely to be a coincidence; much rather evidence for strategic use of the empire to consolidate and communicate positions. But is it all a little too neat? Following closer inspection, Wilhelm Altmann expressed reservations about the authenticity of both documents, pointing to the lack of formal features such as chancellery’s notes on issuers and – in 1433 – a matching entry in the imperial registers.29 The possibility of forgeries should not be discarded, but there are strong counterarguments. As king and emperor, Sigismund bestowed a flurry of favors on Swiss beneficiaries in the early fifteenth century, particularly in gratitude for their support against his opponent Frederick, Duke of Austria.30 When the rivals came to an agreement in May 1418, these grants were explicitly confirmed, and the close relationship continued: three burghers of Lucerne, for example, secured similar rights of high jurisdiction on the very same day as Gersau (16 September 1418); did these men help the village to realize a communal ambition kindled perhaps during a visit of the Roman king to the Forest Cantons the previous autumn?31 Similarly, in 1433, the acquisition of a charter fits a wider pattern; after Sigismund’s coronation as emperor in May (effecting a change 27   B AG, UKP (note 17), 274. 28   B AG, Urkunden, no. 6 (1390). 29   R I XI,1 no. 3470 (1418) and RI XI,2 no. 9724 (1433), in: Regesta Imperii Online, http://www .regesta-imperii.de/id/1418-09-16_1_0_11_1_0_3930_3470 and http://www.regesta-imperii .de/id/1433-10-31_4_0_11_2_0_3905_9724. The 1433 charter survives in BAG, Urkunden no. 8 (1433), now on loan at the Bundesbriefarchiv Schwyz. 30  Heidi Schuler-Alder, Reichsprivilegien und Reichsdienste der eidgenössischen Orte unter König Sigmund, 1410–1437 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1985), 111–14 (Swiss support for the king) and 205–35 (long list of privileges granted to confederate recipients). 31  Schuler-Alder, Reichsprivilegien (note 30), 215 (1418 charter for three burghers of Lucerne); Jörg  K.  Hönsch, ed., Itinerar König und Kaiser Sigismund von Luxemburg 1368–1437

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

93

in the constitutional framework), numerous confederates called on him during his stay at the Council of Basel. Gersau could have easily joined one of the allies’ delegations or asked Lucerne, Unterwalden or Uri– who obtained confirmations of privileges on or around the same date (31 October 1433) – to act on its behalf.32 Then there is the possibility of corruption: chancellor Kaspar Schlick had a reputation for selling imperial rights at the right price, which Gersau – on the evidence of the funds raised in 1390 – might have been able to offer. But any suspicion of illegitimate behavior raises a host of fresh questions: who would have planted such risky ideas in the minds of rural parishioners (and for what reasons?), which experts could have helped to bribe highranking officials or – even more dauntingly – forge two highly formalized charters in sufficiently good quality (including, in 1433, a dorsal registration note by genuine royal notary Marquardus Brisacher) to mislead contemporaries as well as subsequent generations?33 On balance, the assumption of genuine, if slightly imperfect grants seems much more plausible. In any case, after the 1430–31 crisis, Gersau’s immediate status was not challenged again, but the relationship with the Forest Cantons remained complex. Over the centuries, a series of conflicts triggered diplomatic and legal irritations. Apart from the Küttelhandel examined in Chapter  3, one of the most serious was a border dispute with Weggis during the years 1503–12.34 To exert pressure, Gersau sent envoys to Schwyz, Nidwalden and Lucerne and even committed an act of aggression, abducting cattle from what the neighboring commune considered its pasture. Lucerne as overlord was not impressed. Perhaps with a tinge of bitterness about Hofmeister’s 1431 verdict, it accused Gersau’s men of “considering themselves the freest confederates and not answerable to anyone else”.35 The other Forest Cantons summoned the parties to substantiate their case at Küssnacht (Schwyz) in 1506 and then appointed (Warendorf: Fahlbusch, 1995), 98 (presence of the king at Lucerne and Schwyz documented in late October/early November 1417). 32  Schuler-Alder, Reichsprivilegien (note 30), 229. 33  Max Dvorák, “Die Fälschungen des Reichskanzlers Kaspar Schlick,” in: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 22 (1901): 51–107; evidence for notary Brisacher: Hönsch, Sigismund (note 31), e.g. 396, 457, 477, 590. Even if we were dealing with forgeries, of course, the desire to have such charters would testify to imperial allegiance, while their acceptance in the period (and long-term local memory) remains undisputed. I am grateful to Duncan Hardy for his comments and suggestions on these issues. 34  The Forest Cantons first heard about the matter in June 1503: Philipp A. von Segesser, ed., Die eidgenössischen Abschiede aus dem Zeitraume von 1500–1520, vol. 2 (Lucerne: Meyer, 1869), 231. 35   Luzerner Chronik (note 19), 630 (with colored illustration of the abduction scene).

94

Chapter 4

councilor Bartholomäus Stocker, an external confederate from Zug, to chair an arbitration panel composed of two judges each, which found in the city’s favor in 1507. Still, the matter dragged on for several years, during which Gersau insulted Lucerne’s honor, the latter threatened reprisals, fresh boundary stones had to be set and the village’s costs escalated further and further (prompting the land assessment of 1510).36 On many other occasions, however, external intervention worked in Gersau’s favor. In 1576, for example, the confederates admonished two burghers embroiled in an acrimonious dispute to keep the peace and assured the village of help in case of further disruptions. More generally, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden and Lucerne formed a republican buffer zone around the micro-polity, which contemporaries recognized as a key reason for its long-term survival.37 Gersau’s correspondence archive sheds further light on external relations. Discounting a small number of its own writings, it contains 224 letters received between 1516 and 1798, of which 159 (71 per cent) came from Forest Canton governments and 40 (18 per cent) from individual towns and villages within the Confederation. Most of the latter are based in the region (such as Weggis, Arth, Stans etc.), but there were communications from further afield, including Basel, Zurich, Bern, Constance and the abbeys of Einsiedeln/Engelberg. Unless distorted by survival rates, the frequency increased dramatically over time: a mere 5 date from the sixteenth century, 62 from the seventeenth and 157 (70 per cent) from the eighteenth (pre-invasion of 1798), with a flood of 93 flowing in during the first two years of the Helvetic Republic (1798–99).38 The official language mirrored the diplomatic conventions of the time, but a closer look at forms of address is instructive, as it confirms Gersau’s 36  Salzmann, ed., Weggis (note 22), 125–6 (1507 verdict; original in StAL, Urk 220/3106), 126–8 (1510 field examination); BAG, Urkunden, no. 17 (sealed charter with boundary details; 8 April 1507); Luzerner Chronik (note 19), 669 (defamation and arrests). According to local folklore, when Lucerne boatmen mockingly placed a puppet on Gersau’s gallows, the villagers dressed it up in the city colors of blue and white, causing further diplomatic complications: Hans Steinegger, Schwyzer Sagen aus den Bezirken Gersau und Küssnacht (Schwyz: Riedter, 1983), 65. 37  Josef Karl Krütli, ed., Die eidgenössischen Abschiede aus dem Zeitraume von 1556–86, vol. 4, section 2, part a (Bern: Rätzer, 1861), 612 (1576). In 1535, arguing that the high number of mediations must be burdensome for its allies, Gersau had requested permission to approach just one – rather than all – of them in any conflicts, but the system seems to have remained unchanged: StAL, Akt 11/290. “An enemy would have to overcome the other cantons before reaching Gersau.” Johann Conrad Fäsi, Genaue und vollständige Staats= und Erd= Beschreibung der ganzen helvetischen Eidgenoßschaft, Vol. 2 (Zurich: Orell, Geßner & Co., 1766), 352. 38   B AG, Briefe (1500–1700/1700–1800), as catalogued in the accompanying “Briefverzeichnis”.

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

95

separate – and apparently well-respected – status within the Confederation. Most senders use varieties and elaborations of the phrase “dear confederates/ friends and neighbors”: in 1582, Zurich – not a direct ally, but linked through its own bonds with the Forest Cantons – wrote to “the honorable, wise, our dear and good friends, land mayor and council of Gersau” (1500–1700, no. 4); in 1678, the magistrates of Ägeri (Zug) addressed “the highly-respected, honorably firm, pious, circumspect and wise land mayor and council of the hon. land of Gersau, our especially good friends and faithful dear neighbors” (1500–1700, no. 35); in 1720, Schwyz used the formulation “pious = circumspect = honorable = wise especially good friends, faithful confederates and neighbors” (1700–1800, no. 34); a little later, the suffragan Bishop of Constance referred to “the privileged land of Gersau” (ibid., no. 41), the corn director of the city state of Bern – a relatively distant correspondent – to “those well- and nobly born, severe, distinguished and wise lords, land mayor and council of Gersau, our particularly good friends” in 1773 (ibid., no. 129) and the freshly elected Abbot of Einsiedeln even to “the hon. republic” (ibid., no.  131). Gersau, as we can gather from a comparable collection in the Lucerne archives, deployed similar taxonomy, e.g. the address “honorable, wise, circumspect avoyer and council of the city …, our particularly good friends and faithful dear confederates” in 1535; and, in 1738, “the highly respected, highly and nobly born [etc.] avoyer and council of the highly hon. canton [sic] of Lucerne.”39 The imperial Prince-Bishop of Constance represents the only “non-Swiss” correspondent for whom letters survive at Gersau and many remote polities, even within the orbit of the confederation, must have had little idea about its status.40 Period observers felt that the villagers “have nothing to do with other nations. They do not need the French, nor the Austrians; and they seek no business with the Spanish, Savoyards or Dutch.”41 Yet no early modern commune existed in such isolation. There are, for example, glimpses of contacts with French representatives, the single most important foreign agents in the Confederation. In 1653, two of these – Mr Bigier and Mr Brillac – attended a meeting of the V Cantons (including Zug) held in the village, albeit on unrelated business.42 Following severe flooding in July  1739, Lucerne alerted the 39  Both in a box of Gersau-related files with the shelfmark StAL, Akt 11/290. 40  In a letter sent to Lucerne in 1577, the Abbey of St Gall – itself an associate of the Swiss – referred to Gersau as a rural subject of the city: StAL, Akt 11/290. This lack of familiarity with the polity may have been a factor in the diet’s decision to assign it to Schwyz in 1817: Müller, Gersau (note 20), 104. 41  Fäsi, Erd = Beschreibung (note 37), 352–3 (citing Anton Friedrich Büsching). 42  Pupikofer, Johann Adam, ed., Amtliche Sammlung der älteren eidgenössischen Abschiede aus dem Zeitraume von 1647–80, vol. 6, section 1a (Frauenfeld: Huber, 1867), 191. The

96

Chapter 4

French ambassador in Solothurn to the “astonishing storm” which had hit its ally and requested support. In a swift response, the diplomat assured the city that France would do what it could “en faveur de Mrs de Geresaw”, since he was aware of the misfortune afflicting their homeland.43 A few decades later, the microrepublic refused a pension offer, suggesting that Louix XVI attempted to gain access to its militia. Finally, following the invasion of 1798, land mayor and deputy travelled to Zurich to plead with French General Schauenburg, but any hopes of preventing integration into the district of Schwyz were dashed.44 The intriguing pension reference raises the topic of mercenary service, a delicate and heavily contested issue among the confederates. The rural cantons, in particular, valued foreign commissions as a financial resource for political elites and an employment alternative for their weak agricultural economies, while opponents like Zwingli in Zurich denounced the trade in soldiers as unchristian and morally degrading.45 Given the European-wide reputation of Swiss troops, derived from spectacular victories of their infantry formations over knightly cavalry in the late Middle Ages, even tiny Gersau appears to have caught the eye of monarchs raising ever larger armies. On the whole, the village steered a cautious course; for defensive reasons, it could not risk sending large numbers of men abroad. Foreign recruiting agents were banned from its lands, but the council appears to have used protector Schwyz as an intermediary in international negotiations.46 Alongside, however, there was the occasional independent initiative. In 1758, the government allowed burgher Antoni Camenzind to levy troops for service in France, an adventure which was to turn sour for some of the soldiers. Within a year, Hans Georg Wad and Johann Marzell Camenzind advised their “very wise superior, our much-loved land Spanish ambassador, in turn, attended a diet held at Gersau in April 1619 to discuss payments for troops: Fechter, ed., Abschiede 1618–1648 (note 6), 61–2. 43  On 1 August, Gersau thanked Lucerne for its intervention. All letters in StAL, Akt 11/290. 44  “1786 Gersau refuse une pension de la France,” Mélanges Helvétiques des années 1787, 1788, 1789, 1790 (Basle: Charles Auguste Serini, 1791), 227; Müller, Gersau (note 20), 85 (1798). 45  Among an extensive literature see e.g. Norbert Furrer, ed., Gente ferocissima: Solddienst und Gesellschaft in der Schweiz 15.–19. Jahrhundert (Lausanne: Ed. d’en bas, 1997); Rudolf Jaun et al., eds., Schweizer Solddienst: Neue Arbeiten, Neue Aspekte (Birmensdorf: Schweizerische Vereinigung für Militärgeschichte, 2010). 46  For a request to represent Gersau’s interests in contacts with foreign rulers and ambassadors see StAS, Archiv 1, 267.001: Gersau 1620–1848, letter of 18 September 1620; captains of companies from Schwyz could seek recruitment permission from Gersau’s council for specific campaigns: Füssli, Staats- und Erdbeschreibung (note 21), 385. Some men appear to have joined up with Lucerne, too: BAG, Gerichtsakten, no. 5 (Johan Marzell Müller in 1745). According to information from 1812, Gersau resident Johann Jost Ammen “had nearly always been in foreign military service”: BAG, LR: Landrecht-Erneuerungs-Register (1784–1812), 153.

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

97

mayor” Josef Franz Schöchli that the Swiss guard in Paris had broken promises made towards them, a charge flatly denied by recruiter Camenzind in a justificatory letter. A little later, similar complaints arrived from London, where the unit had moved to serve the British army under brigadier Zurlauben from Zug. Now, there was even talk of captivity. Challenged to explain the situation by the land mayor in 1764, Zug conceded the men’s detention and reported the death of Johann Marzell Camenzind.47 Genealogical records confirm the casualty, but what could the head of a village council do against any injustices committed by more powerful confederates, never mind the French and English crowns? Quite a few other Gersau men died in mercenary service: sergeant and namesake Johann Marzell Camenzind 1743 in Savoy, sergeant Johann Nikolaus Camenzind 1752 in Spain and brothers Johann Georg/Kaspar Leonard Rigert 1753–54 as soldiers “abroad”.48 On the other hand, there was the lure of money and glittering careers: in the wealth assessment of 1810, we find a Lieutenant Colonel Josef Maria Camenzind with assets worth 10,000 f., well above the villagers’ average figure of 4,472 f.49 The pledge of military aid by the 1332/59 partners turned out to be rather one-sided. Without ever having to ask for help itself, Gersau answered summons for the battle of Sempach (1386, where a Camenzind appears among the casualties honored in the commemorative chapel), the old Zurich war (1440), campaigns against Charles the Bold of Burgundy (1470s), the Swiss civil wars of Kappel (1529–31 – fighting on the Catholic side against Zwinglians), Lucerne’s peasant rising (1653), the civil war of Villmergen (1712) and the fateful French invasion (1798).50 As we have seen, a typical Gersau levy consisted of a captain, standard-bearer (Figure 15) and around seventy-five men, a considerable number for a commune of a few hundred inhabitants. Their participation cannot have been decisive in encounters of several thousand soldiers, but the long sequence of call-ups – as well as notes of thanks for services rendered – suggest that the small ally made useful contributions to the confederate war effort. 47   B AG, Akten, no. 7 (permission for Camenzind); ibid., no. 13 (several items of correspondence about soldiers). 48   B AG, GST: Stammbuch, vol. 1, f. 29v, 28v; vol. 2, 301; corroboration that the first Johann Marzell Camenzind “died as a soldier in France” in 1763: ibid., vol. 1, f. 32v. 49   B AG, KST: Kirchensteuer (1810), 19. 50  Swiss historians keep debating how and even whether “mythical” battles like Sempach took place, but they have firm places in regional memory. For details on campaigns see Müller, Gersau (note 20), 54, 96; the capture of a messenger carrying Gersau’s declaration of war against Zurich in 1440 is illustrated in Werner Schodoler, Die Eidgenössische Chronik [1510–35], facsimile edn (Lucerne: Faksimile Verlag, 1980–1981), https://de.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Datei:Schodoler_Bote_von_Gersau.jpg.

98

Chapter 4

FIGURE 15 The standard bearer of the Gersau militia, dressed in armor, wearing a plumed helmet, carrying a sword and holding a banner in the commune’s colors of red and blue. Colored drawing in a collection of fundamental laws, BAG, LB 6: Kleines Landbuch (1605–), 15.

For a balanced picture, the relationship between Gersau and its allies/protectors should not be reduced to legal and military affairs. Due to its central lakeside location, within easy reach of the capitals of Schwyz and Ob-/Nidwalden and about equidistant from those of Uri, Zug and Lucerne, the village served as a convenient venue for diplomatic encounters on quasi-neutral ground. Some of these related directly to the treaties (especially the periodic sworn renewals), but others constituted regular meetings of the (Catholic) Forest or V Cantons. The first formal diet there appears to have taken place in 1549 and the highest frequency was reached in the seventeenth century, partly because of the lengthy Küttel dispute. Remarkably, looking at the sufficiently-documented period from 1470 to 1798, Gersau appears among the top twelve Swiss diet locations, hosting 64 sessions – nearly as many as the City of Bern (71), without actually being a member! This allowed the village to forge valuable contacts, raise issues informally and must have been a boon to the local economy, especially the hospitality trade.51 Amicable relations found expression in glass 51  Würgler, Tagsatzung (note 20), 187. The central location is emphasized in Johann Leopold Cysat, Beschreibung deß Beru(e)hmbten Lucerner= oder 4. Waldsta(e)tten Sees (Luzern:

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

99

panel donations to public buildings, a traditional confederate custom symbolizing close political bonds and friendship. Upon Gersau’s requests, such gifts were approved e.g. by Lucerne (1485, 1508), Schwyz (a mixture of windows and shields for inn and parish church by painters like Frank Ziltener in 1614, 1618, 1619 and 1640) and all members of a 1644 diet (for the parsonage).52 Several armorial and commemorative panels remain in situ, e.g. at the St Mary Helper chapel outside the village on the lake shore about half way towards Brunnen in Schwyz (Figure 16).53 Last but not least, there is much evidence of financial and material help for construction projects or in environmental emergencies such as the frequent thunderstorms and floodings; not only by cantonal governments, as we have seen in the case of Lucerne, but also on an ad-hoc basis by individuals and groups from neighboring communities.54 North of the Rhine, to move to the final part of this chapter, the threat of integration became ever more pronounced and eventually too strong for most imperial villages. In our case studies, the constitutional situation (at least) was pretty clear. At Gochsheim and Sennfeld, both their agreement with the Bishop of Würzburg (1575) and its endorsement by Rudolf II (1578) explicitly related to the position of “imperial bailiff” and “protector” rather than territorial prince, even though the “small print” listed numerous rights which either the prelate – or his predecessor, the city of Schweinfurt – claimed to possess under this title.55 Period jurist Simon Friedrich Segnitz, who analyzed the legal, fiscal and ecclesiastical relationship in detail, came to the same conclusion:

David Hautten, 1661), 234. Extensive regulation of Gersau’s hospitality trade is documented from the seventeenth century. There were numerous public houses and burghers’ taverns selling wine and domestically produced cider/spirits; even clerics could retail alcohol: BAG, Josef Maria Mathä Camenzind. “Beiträge zur inneren Geschichte,” transcribed by Robert Nigg (mid-nineteenth century manuscript), Vierte Beilage. 52  Carl Styger, “Glasmaler und Glasgemälde im Lande Schwyz (1465–1680),” in: Mitteilungen des historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz 4 (1885): 1–62, esp. 12, 36–7. 53  Alongside two local donations by chaplain Beat Franz Heinzer and fabric warden Marzell Müller in 1709. 54  Following a devastating fire in 1786, “our neighbors from Beckenried [Nidwalden] lent us great support”. BAG, UKP (note 17), 324–5. 55  In 1578, Rudolf II confirmed the transfer of the “imperial bailiwick” from the latter to the former only after receipt of evidence for the communes’ consent; Gochsheim’s sealed copy of the 1575 agreement referred to the Prince-Bishop of Würzburg as “our eternal irrevocable imperial bailiff, guardian and protector” to whom the villagers were to “swear on behalf of the empire”: GAG, GO-ZM25001-UI/3-(020), printed in Johann Jakob Joseph Sündermahler and Andreas Alexander Franz Hammer, Dissertatio Inauguralis De Advocatia Imperiali Episcopatus Wirceburgensis In Binos Pagos Immediatos Gochsheim Et Sennfeld ([Würzburg], 1772), appendix no. 5, pp. 21 and 33.

100

Chapter 4

FIGURE 16 “While we sail in wind and rain, we plead with Mary and her dear child as well as St Nicholas, who can fortunately shield us from the waves.” Above the central picture showing a crowded boat protected by saints the artist has depicted the mythical scene of William Tell taking aim at an apple placed on his son’s head; Uri’s crest appears on the sail and at the bottom, in the latter case under the imperial crown. Stained glass panel donated to Gersau’s St Mary Helper chapel by the boatmen of its Forest Canton ally who regularly passed the site on their journeys (1709).

“Protection does not equate to lordship.”56 Similarly, at Sulzbach and Soden, the first item of the October 1656 settlement between Mainz and Frankfurt clarified that their “ancient privileges  … and good customs held from the Sacred Empire” were to be safeguarded and Ferdinand III approved the new arrangements in January 1657.57 Indeed, on many occasions during the late Middle Ages, Reichsvögte jumped to the aid of their charges, mediating internal conflicts and blocking external attacks (just like the Forest Cantons did visà-vis Gersau). Frankfurt, for example, found viable solutions for disagreements between Sulzbach and Soden in 1323 (by redistributing pasture and common rights), 1478 (by proposing a salomonic 50:50 split for joint obligations) and 1545 (by clarifying the course of a boundary fence), while preventing reprisals by knight Klaus of Wolfskehl in a manslaughter case of 1401–03 as well as 56  Segnitz, Staatsrecht (note 4), 100; the term “Reichs=Vogt” still appears in a 1773 document of the Imperial Aulic Council: ibid., 120. 57   I SF, Privilegien 449a (11 October 1656) and 449 (30 January 1657), the former printed in MR, appendix XXXIV; in an eighteenth-century petition against military quartering the two communes pointed to their “immediate link to the empire [unmittelbahren nexus mit dem Reich]” and styled themselves the Elector of Mainz’s “most submissively faithful protection kin [unterthänigst getreue Schutzverwandte]”: HHStAW, Abt. 4/255, f. 308r.

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

101

– through proceedings in the imperial cameral court – legal encroachments by the house of Eppstein-Königstein in the 1440–50s.58 Gochsheim and Sennfeld’s bailiff Count of Henneberg, in turn, resolved a 1475–76 conflict about military and fiscal dues between the communes and neighboring Schweinfurt.59 Looking back over the centuries in 1792, Segnitz argued that: without a protector and imperial bailiff, these two imperial villages would not have survived, since [the respective arrangements] have often proved beneficial, sometimes for the communes, sometimes for the lords; after all, this is their ultimate purpose as intended by the emperor … and the basis upon which [he] agreed to the transfer agreement [in 1578]. Without such a higher intermediate authority, perhaps, their immediate status might degenerate into anarchy and their freedom into licentiousness. What matters is solely that the terms of the bailiff’s position are not expanded too far, and that the princely chapter [of Würzburg cathedral] refrains from weaving the two Reichsdörfer into its own lands under such pretext; [also,] that just and equitable judges, favorably disposed to their constitution, can always be appealed to. For as long as these imperial villages order jurisdictional and other affairs in due manner, as long as subjects stay content with superiors, and as long as the latter preserve the former’s respect and obedience; then their freedom and immediate status will persist, without the office and organs of the high chapter taking an active role, apart from cases of complaints and division.60 In this sense, bailiffs can be seen as resources, representing the realm’s “good” overlord towering over “bad” intermediary powers.61 The benign image of the kings of the Romans explains the innumerable petitions, appeals and requests 58   M R, appendices V–VII (1401–03), XXIII–IV (1478), XXXV (1323); Achilles A. von Lersner, Chronica Der Weit-berühmten Freyen Reichs-Wahl- und Handels-Stadt Franckfurt am Mayn, part 2 (Frankfurt: Johann Adam Recksroth, 1734), 618 (1444); RI XIII, H.  5 n.  126 (1459); Johann Heinrich Faber, Topographische, politische und historische Beschreibung der Reichs= Wahl= und Handelsstadt Frankfurt am Mayn, vol. 2 (Frankfurt: Jägerische Buchhandlung, 1788), 572 (1545); cf. Joachim Kromer, Bad Soden am Taunus. Stadtgeschichte. 2 vols (Frankfurt a.M.: Waldemar Kramer, 1990–91), vol. 2, 47, 51, 53 etc., and the villages’ petitions for financial or material help from the city in times of need, e.g. ISF, Ratssupplikationen, 1.638, 1.639. 59  Stein, ed., Monumenta (note 16), 291, 367. 60   “Beytrag zur Geschichte und statistischen Topographie der beyden Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld in einem kurzen Entwurf,” in: Journal von und für Franken 4 (1792): 529–628, esp. 605–6. 61  Axel Gotthard, In der Ferne: Die Wahrnehmung des Raums in der Vormoderne (Frankfurt a.M.: Campus, 1997), 33.

102

Chapter 4

for privileges addressed straight to the top. Detailed information exists for Sulzbach and Soden. The first surviving confirmation of their “courts, freedom, common lands, good traditions and how they follow the customs [herkhommen] of our … imperial city of Frankfurt” was granted to the two villages, then explicitly described as parishes (Kirchspiel), by Emperor Sigismund in 1434, i.e. the year after he had done the same for Gersau.62 Merely a decade later, Sulzbach and Soden – possibly assisted by Frankfurt in a joint effort to quash the lordship claims of the Counts of Eppstein – approached Frederick III for reassurance that the villages “remained under him and the Holy Roman Empire”, which he duly did, albeit this time with rather more emphasis on how the rural communes depended on Frankfurt, obtained court verdicts from the city and received ordinances from its authorities.63 Under these circumstances, it is significant that subsequent confirmations reverted to the more neutral first formulation, specifically by inserting key passages from Sigismund’s document into any renewals. No doubt the communal deputies to the imperial court – in 1613, an assembly of 120 individually named neighbors chose Hans Herr from Sulzbach and Christen Hanßen from Soden to act on their behalf – primed the issuing scribes accordingly.64 Similarly, following their Reichsfreiheit grant by Frederick  II in 1243 and permission to adopt the city law of Lindau in 1282, the burghers and peasants of Eglofs approached all successive kings of the Romans for re-endorsements of their rights, thus collecting another unbroken series of imperial charters stretching from the thirteenth to the eighteenth century. No effort or expense 62   R I, XI/2, no. 10203, p. 284; cf. HHStAW, Abt.4:U22. In a copy kept in the Frankfurt archives, the passage relating to the city is underlined: ISF, Dörfer, 527, p. 25. 63   I SF, Privilegien 340 (sealed parchment charter of 4 October 1444), printed in MR, appendix XVII. The Frankfurt archives, in fact, contain a draft confirmation, intended for approval by Frederick’s predecessor Sigismund (but never issued), which contains the even stronger formulation that Sulzbach and Soden “have from ancient times belonged to [the imperial free city], owe military support, bring lawsuits [before its courts] and that [Frankfurt] can erect fortifications and appoint officials” there: ibid., Privilegien Ugb 122. This contrasts with a written pledge given to the communes in 1434 that the city would not exceed its customary rights: HHStAW, Abt.4:U21. 64  For examples see ISF, Dörfer, 527, pp. 141–4 (copy of charter by Charles V in 1522), ibid., Privilegien, 406 (Maximilian  II; sealed parchment charter of 1566), 423 (Rudolph  II, sealed original of 1582), 533 (copy of Ferdinand II’s charter issued in 1630; an original is kept in SABS, VI, 1, 84); ISF, Höchst, Orte 6/33 (copy of Leopold’s confirmation, 1659); further sealed parchment grants ibid., Dörfer, 1.089 (Charles VI, 1712), 1090 (Charles VII, 1742), 1091 (Francis II, 1793). According to their 1613 charge, the Sulzbach and Soden deputies, who travelled to the Diet at Regensburg, were to assure Emperor Matthias of the villages’ unwavering fealty and to claim reasonable expenses only (ibid., Dörfer, no. 1.088). For the custom of renewing privileges see also HHStAW, Abt. 4/566 (1791).

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

103

was spared: in 1382, delegates had to travel all the way to Budweis!65 The sheer volume of requests must have been difficult to handle and chancery officials clearly failed to check entitlements in each and every case. Towards the end of Charles V’s reign in 1555, Freienseen in Upper Hesse obtained not only a protection letter but also a “replacement” copy of an alleged earlier grant of its own crest and seal, seemingly on the sole basis of the villagers’ own testimony. This formed part of a quest to free themselves from the Count of Solms-Laubach and led to furious protests by their lord. Unfazed, Freienseen went on to secure re-confirmations of these documents in 1622 and 1713.66 A telling anecdote – and rare record of face-to-face exchange – survives in Reiff’s transcription of communal archives, according to which Sulzbach and Soden were the first subjects to receive a renewal of privileges from Charles  VI in 1712. When he offered them an extra royal favor to mark this distinction, the neighbors were too startled to know what to suggest, with the carpenter-scribe suggesting that they should have asked for an “imperial eagle” to place on each gate, even if the costs had exceeded 1,000 f. (cf. Figure 3 above).67 If not from the monarch himself, some communities benefitted from access to the diet (as outlined in the section on Empire awareness above) or the findings of royal commissioners. In 1613, acting in the latter capacity, Mainz and Hessen-Darmstadt confirmed the redemption of Sulzbach and Soden’s mortgaging to Frankfurt in return for the repayment of its 800 f. loan; in 1649, a restitution committee under Swedish supervision restored the immediate status of Gochsheim and Sennfeld (temporarily reduced to Würzburg subjects during the Thirty Years War); and in 1651, imperial commissioners protected the “free village” of Althausen against claims of the Teutonic order. All immediate members of the empire, furthermore, received international guarantees that

65  By 1747, they had accumulated no less than 44 royal/imperial charters: Peter Kissling, Freie Bauern und bäuerliche Bürger: Eglofs im Spätmittelalter und in der Frühneuzeit (Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2006), 38–47, schemes 1–2 and figure 5; Ergersheim in the Rangau was another imperial village with a large collection of such grants: Günther Franz, Geschichte des deutschen Bauernstandes vom frühen Mittelalter bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer, 1970), 76. 66  Bernhard Diestelkamp, Ein Kampf um Freiheit und Recht: Die prozessualen Auseinandersetzungen der Gemeinde Freienseen mit den Grafen zu Solms-Laubach (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2012), 19–24. 67  Nolting, ed., Gerichtslade (note 13), 130 (a note at the back of the booklet); the charter in ISF, Dörfer, 1.089. Four years later, Charles VI ordered the Bishop of Würzburg not to violate the immediate status of Gochsheim und Sennfeld: Johann Reinhard Wegelin, Gründlich-Historischer Bericht von der kayserlichen und Reichs Landvogtey in Schwaben, part 1 (Ulm, 1755), 38.

104

Chapter 4

their ecclesiastical regimes, as practiced in the “normal year” 1624, would be protected by the Peace of Westphalia.68 By far the most frequent contacts with the empire, however, involved jurisdiction. In 1487, for example, the “imperial free village” of Bauerbach in the Kraichgau secured a royal mandate against the Abbot of Hirsau’s aspirations to become a personal lord over serfs rather than just a protector of immediate peasants. Among the witnesses supporting the action, one recalled how a grandparent had first alerted him to the commune’s special status by stressing that “there was none freer in the land than Bauerbach”.69 The establishment of the imperial cameral court in 1495 then fostered a more general juridification process right across the realm. Legal dealings were lengthy, costly and enforcement patchy, but imperial villages relished the chance to bring concerns before judges believed to be sympathetic to their cause. Having been alerted by a plaintiff, the court would typically issue a mandate calling on the defendant to stop the alleged wrongdoing or to contest the case at law. For Sulzbach, apart from numerous constitutional struggles with bailiffs, illustrated at the end of this chapter, we find both communal suits – e.g. against the hospital order of St Anthony for failing to pay full land charges in the 1750s – and internal disputes – pitting pro-Frankfurt neighbors Christmann/Petermann against other villagers in the 1650s.70 In the course of a confessionally charged burial conflict with their Catholic bailiff from 1592, Lutheran Gochsheim and Sennfeld called on the cameral court at Speyer no fewer than twenty-three times, initially with a demand that the bishop respect the religious peace in the empire (securing a corresponding mandate in 1593), while a comparable frequency of interaction – now focusing on the court’s new seat at Wetzlar – resulted from a bundle of ecclesiastical and fiscal disagreements with Würzburg during the years 1715–20.71 68  Kaufmann, Soden und Sulzbach (note 13), 101 (1613); Friedens=Executions-Haupt=RECESS (Stettin: Johann Valentin Rheten, 1650), appendix Lit  A., no.  37 (1649); Anton Faber, Europäische Staats-Cantzley, vol. 58 (Nürnberg: Weber, 1731), 198–9 (1651, when Althausen produced “many charters” in support of its case; cf. the substantial archival holdings surviving for the village in the Staatsarchiv Ludwigsburg); Instrumentum Pacis Osnabrugensis [treaty between the Holy Roman Emperor and Sweden], in: Der Westfälische Friede, ed. Friedrich Philippi (Münster: Regensberg, 1898), 33–71, art. V.2 (1648). 69  Matthias Bähr, Die Sprache der Zeugen: Argumentationsstrategien bäuerlicher Gemeinden vor dem Reichskammergericht (1693–1806) (Constance: UVK, 2012), 138–9. 70  HHStAW, Abt. 1/1923 (1756–58); ibid., Abt. 1/3690 (1654–56). During the War of the Austrian Succession, a time of heavy billeting and tax burdens, the communes were encouraged to launch a cameral court case by one of its judges, the Prince of Hohenlohe, who happened to stay at Soden’s bathing house: GRS, Löschhorn Tagebuch (note 1), 1745–46. 71  For details on these proceedings see Jubilaeum Theatri Europaei (Frankfurt a.M., 1738), 261 (1590s); VG, e.g. appendix 20: the mandate “de non contraveniendo Paci Religiosae

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

105

Abstracting from certain restrictions, the Reichskammergericht provided all German subjects with a means to defend their political rights; for most, in fact, the emperor became largely “congruent” with his tribunals.72 As institutionalized stages for the evaluation of conflicts, they fostered people’s “ability to make rational formulations and political representations of their own interests”. To an increasing extent, so-called Untertanenprozesse replaced violent risings as conflict-resolution instruments in the early modern period. It saw the emergence of an entire infrastructure (of advocates, hostelries etc.) catering for the needs of peasant litigants.73 In the cases of Kochendorf and Freienseen, we have seen how imperial resources could be used to pursue emancipation agendas. Spurious as the latter’s claims may have been, they triggered an avalanche of legal proceedings. In what became “fundamental opposition” against the Counts of Solms-Laubach, previously Freienseen’s acknowledged territorial lords, the village contested forty-eight separate suits before imperial courts and commissions between 1554 and 1803 (some of which simultaneously). At times, communal representatives adduced Roman law authorities like Baldus de Ubaldis to argue their case! Neither formal verdicts nor informal arbitration attempts – most notably by Landgrave George II of Hesse-Darmstadt in 1639 – resolved the matter; most settlements favored the counts, some demanded unconditional oaths of allegiance, but there were enough ambiguities and partial concessions for the villagers, or at least a core of activists, not to abandon the “dream” of acceptance as a reichsfreier Flecken.74 Most likely inspired by neighboring Harmersbach, the valley of Nordrach in the Black Forest pursued similar ambitions. In 1662, it took its call for independence from the city of Zell to the imperial cameral court. One of its wealthiest neighbors invested

ac Instrumento Pacis Westphalicae” issued by the cameral court against Würzburg in 1715; and Chapter 5 below. For further Reichsdorf cases cf. the online resource Datenbank Höchstgerichtsbarkeit under the search terms “Elmenhorst” and “Ockstadt”. 72   Joachim Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, vol. 1. From Maximilian I to the peace of Westphalia 1493–1648 (Oxford: University Press, 2012), 44; Bähr, Reichskammergericht (note 69), 101 (quote). 73  Ralf-Peter Fuchs, “The supreme court of the Holy Roman Empire: The state of research and the outlook,” in: Sixteenth Century Journal 34 (2003): 9–27, esp.  15 (quote). On subjects taking their lords to court see Helmut Gabel, “Deutsche Untertanen vor dem Reichskammergericht,” in: Frieden durch Recht: Das RKG von 1495–1806, ed. Ingrid Scheurmann (Mainz: Zabern, 1994), 273–80; Rita Sailer, Untertanenprozesse vor dem Reichskammergericht: Rechtsschutz gegen die Obrigkeitin der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts (Cologne: Böhlau, 1999); specifically on facilities supporting rural litigants: Peter  H.  Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire 1495–1806, 2nd  edn (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2011), 113. 74  Diestelkamp, Freienseen (note 66), 3, 60, 69, 75, 192 and passim.

106

Chapter 4

three months to personally advance the cause at Speyer but after eight years of proceedings the commune had to settle for continued submission.75 At Berkach on the present-day Thuringia/Bavaria border, an outright challenge to lordship was triggered by seigneurial attempts to tax the communal brewing house. In 1698, forty-seven villagers formed a syndicate to block these fiscal demands, seeking advice from other peasants with trial experience across the region and meeting with legal counsel at the Berkach inn. To bolster its case, the commune collected witness statements disputing any notion of subordination to the Bishop of Würzburg; residents as well as former inhabitants testified that lower jurisdiction had always been exercised by local jurors, that the village possessed “comprehensive corporate privileges” (although none were actually produced) and – distilling its specific points into an abstract conclusion – that Berkach was “free”. The conflict escalated, leading to the deployment of soldiers and physical attacks on suspected ringleaders, including publican Hans Dietz, who had a vested interest in cheap drinks supplies. As was often the case, proceedings appear to have stalled before a formal verdict, but – according to subsequent accounts – brewery operations continued untaxed, suggesting that the communal strategy succeeded (at least from a fiscal point of view). Given Berkach’s meticulous preparations, it is likely that, here too, “real” imperial villages provided blueprints, perhaps Gochsheim and Sennfeld (just forty miles to the south) with their long track record of suing the same prelate in the same court.76 Alongside the Reichskammergericht, essentially run by the German estates, the Reichshofrat (imperial aulic council) – operating in close proximity to the monarch at Vienna – exercised overlapping and sometimes conflicting jurisdiction.77 Many imperial villages, including our case studies, made appearances there. Between 1568–79, Gochsheim and Sennfeld – alongside other defendants, including the Count Palatine – fought attempts by the City of Schweinfurt to gain control of the eponymous bailiwick. These irritations prompted the communes to petition the imperial diet of Speyer in 1570 for 75  Franz, Geschichte (note 65), 75. 76  Bähr, Reichskammergericht (note 69), chapter 2, esp. 100, 129 (claims of Reichsdorf status), 135–9 (model function of other imperial villages) and figure 5 (formation of a communal syndicate on 20 April 1698). 77  The cameral court’s core concern was the preservation of public peace, while the aulic council dealt with everything involving feudal rights and royal prerogatives, including renewals of privileges; among overlapping areas, however, were cases of denial of justice: Martin Otto, “Rechtsmittel,” in: Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit, ed. Friedrich Jaeger, vol. 10 (Stuttart: Metzler, 2009), col. 707–15, esp. 714. On a key group of mediators, the lawyers acting for clients at Vienna see now Thomas Dorfner, Mittler zwischen Haupt und Gliedern: die Reichshofratsagenten und ihre Rolle im Verfahren 1658–1740 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2015).

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

107

an alternative protector, resulting in the appointment of the Prince-Bishop of Würzburg. In 1716, the villages turned plaintiffs, accusing the then prelate of excessive tax levies, and later on in the century, the court shielded the two Reichsdörfer from further abuses.78 Sulzbach and Soden petitioned the Reichshofrat for confirmations of privileges on at least two occasions, in 1613 and 1644, the former shortly after the accession of Matthias (to bolster their position after regaining independence from Frankfurt), the latter well into the reign of Ferdinand III (in an attempt to stop continued encroachments by the city).79 After the manor of Sulzbach had fallen into the hands of Nikolaus von Hünefeld, a member of the council himself, the villages appealed to his fellow judges in 1670–71. Supported – on this occasion – by the city of Frankfurt, peasant representatives Philipp Kroh, Peter Petermann and Johann Philipp Schmunck travelled to Vienna to denounce Hünefeld’s violations of customary rights, only to be told that they had to bring the matter before the manor’s overlords and the alleged offender himself.80 A particularly acrimonious dispute erupted in 1753: to stem aspirations of territorial lordship by joint bailiffs Mainz and Frankfurt, the villages launched fresh proceedings at Vienna. This time, they commissioned jurist Friedrich Carl von Moser to substantiate their Reichsfreiheit in a treatise collating and reproducing all supporting evidence from the communal archives (Figure  17). In 1777, over twenty years into the case, members of the Soden court empowered twelve delegates to push for a successful outcome, but ultimately to no avail. According to the Löschhorn family chronicle, they actually obstructed Sulzbach’s representatives Jacob Mapes and Hartman Bach at the Austrian court. In 1787–88, although accepting

78  The project “Die Akten des kaiserlichen Reichshofrats” (http://reichshofratsakten.de/) is currently cataloguing substantial parts of the records of the imperial aulic council at Vienna. Details for the 1568–79 file can be found in Wolfgang Sellert, ed., Die Akten des kaiserlichen Reichshofrats, Series 1: Alte Prager Akten, vol. 5: S-Z (Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 2014), 215–16 (case no. 5112) and at http://www.rhrdigital.de/altepragerakten.5.5112 (includes the villagers’ oath sworn to the Elector Palatine in 1559); for the 1716 proceedings see Jubilaeum (note 71), 269, and Segnitz, “Beytrag” (note 60), 615–16 (Charles VI protecting his “immediate subjects” on 8 May); for the subsequent eighteenth-century case Johann Jacob Moser, Grund=Riß der heutigen Staats=Verfassung des Teutschen Reichs, 7th  edn (Tübingen: Cotta, 1774), 532. 79   “Akten” (note 78), http://www.rhrdigital.de/altepragerakten.5.5581 and http://www .rhrdigital.de/altepragerakten.5.5580; in his transcription of village archives, Soden carpenter Reiff noted that Matthias’s renewal charter “was handed to us at the imperial diet of Regensburg … and signed by his imperial majesty”: Nolting, ed., Gerichtslade (note 13), 76. 80   M R, section i, §30; HHStAW, Abt. 4/230–1; cf. Michael Geisler, Leben und Tod der Anna Katharina Duß: Die Geschichte einer Dienstmagd aus Soden (Wiesbaden: Waldemar Kramer, 2015), 14.

108

Chapter 4

FIGURE 17 Commissioned to bolster Sulzbach and Soden’s Reichshofrat case against bailiffs Mainz and Frankfurt at Vienna, jurist Friedrich Carl von Moser “proved and defended” their immediate status in his treatise Die Reichsfreyheit der Gerichte und Gemeinen Sultzbach und Soden gegen die neuerliche Chur-Mayntz- und Franckfurtische Vogtey und Schutz-Herrliche Eingriffe erwiesen und vertheidigt. [no place/publisher], 1753, title page. SUB Göttingen: 2 DEDUCT S 433/a.

the villages’ arguments in principle, the judges decided not to take any remedial action and to send the matter back to the bailiffs.81 81   M R, see esp. chapters 3 (refutation of territorial lordship) and 4 (proofs of immediate status). The course of the trial and its disappointing outcome are discussed in GRS, Löschhorn Tagebuch (note 1), 1787–88 (by that point updated by son Johann Georg) and Kromer, Soden (note 58), vol. 2, 192–6.

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

109

Many trial files involving imperial villages remain to be investigated,82 but the general trend appears clear. Over the course of the early modern period, the position of immediate communities weakened substantially. Confirmations of privileges continued to be issued by new monarchs as a matter of routine, but supreme judges proved increasingly reluctant to pay more than just lip service to political freedom. Perhaps the caseload became too heavy, the constitutional peculiarity too archaic or the peasants’ insistence too petulant for the taste of “enlightened” elites. When Sulzbach and Soden’s delegates refused to leave the capital in the late 1780s, the Reichshofrat simply had them arrested and deported. A last-ditch appeal to the evangelical estates at the imperial diet proved equally futile, meaning that the documentary assurances, so painstakingly collected by Moser, began to sound hollow, although – in our case studies at least – not to the villagers themselves.83 According to one recent observer, this reflected broader shifts in the legal landscape of the time. Traditionally, the term Reichsdorf had evoked an accepted status which – provided that custom could be pleaded – required no further substantiation. Early eighteenth-century jurists like the Saxon Johann Leonhard Hauschield similarly postulated a favor libertatis, i.e. assumed personal freedom as the default position, but over the succeeding decades the pendulum shifted towards a praesumptio contra rusticos, where peasants had to adduce concrete evidence for their specific liberty. Imperial courts became preoccupied with the distinction between free and servile individuals (and the detection of seigneurial encroachments on personal rights), rendering claims of abstract or collective privileges of immediate villages somewhat “beside the point”. The priority now was to fight serfdom not mediatization.84

82  In 1659, for example, Kröv accused the Elector of Trier of encroaching on its immediate status: “Akten” (note 78), http://www.RHRdigital.de/altepragerakten.3.2512; Dreis’ ultimately unsuccessful campaign against lordship claims of the Abbey of Echternach (stretching from the late fifteenth to the early eighteenth century) included proceedings at both Speyer and (e.g. in 1677) Vienna: Gerhard Köbler, “Das Reichsdorf in der deutschen Landesgeschichte,” in: Zeitschrift integrativer europäischer Rechtsgeschichte 5 (2015): http://www.koeblergerhard.de/ZIER-startseite.htm. Other imperial courts should also be taken into consideration, such as the Hofgericht at Rottweil (which summoned the Sulzbach avoyer in 1488: ISF, Hofgericht Rottweil, 282) or the Landgericht at Nuremberg (which accepted Geislingen’s defence against the Teutonic Knights “since they are free and empowered to elect their own protector”: Franz, Geschichte [note 65], 76). 83  Kaufmann, Soden und Sulzbach (note 13), 48; Diestelkamp, Freienseen (note 66), 34. In typically condescending fashion, a Frankfurt chronicler of the period reported that the inhabitants of Sulzbach and Soden “pretended to be Reichsfreye Leute”: Faber, Frankfurt (note 58), vol. 2, 565. 84  Bähr, Reichskammergericht (note 69), 141–2.

110

Chapter 4

While juridification defused violent conflict to a certain extent, bailiffvillage relations retained much disruptive potential. By way of illustration, the following vignettes zoom into two flashpoints already touched upon, namely the constitutional crises at Sulzbach and Soden in the mid-seventeenth and mid-eighteenth centuries. From as early as the 1430s, Frankfurt had started to regard the Reichs- as Ratsdörfer, i.e. communities under the council’s direct control, a perception linked to jurisdictional influence (via the city’s Oberhof court) and reinforced by their temporary loss of immediate status between the mid-fifteenth and early seventeenth century. The high-resolution lenses of Moser’s treatise and associated local records allow rare fly-on-the-wall access to the micro-political cultures of imperial villages in the early modern period.85 Towards the end of the Thirty Years’ War in the mid-1640s, Frankfurt’s assertive policies stretched to armed intervention and arrest which prompted Sulzbach and Soden to lodge a complaint at the Reichskammergericht.86 When the city struck a power-sharing deal with Mainz on 11 October 1656, the villages thus suspected moves towards a condominium rather than joint protectorship. Indeed, in a confidential supplement (Nebenrezess) signed the following day, Frankfurt and Mainz anticipated resistance and agreed a common strategy: Considering that the communes look unlikely to accede in good spirit and given concerns that they may resist one or the other [of us], persist in their illegal insubordination and prefer to remain in the present confusion and disorderly state rather than to consent to this agreement made for their own benefit … the transition arrangements shall be suspended [until the receipt of formal imperial confirmation] … Should the two villages not willingly accept our agreement, but continue cameral court 85  On Frankfurt’s perspective see Alexander Krey, Die Praxis der spätmittelalterlichen Laiengerichtsbarkeit: Gerichts- und Rechtslandschaften des Rhein-Main-Gebietes im 15. Jahrhundert im Vergleich (Cologne: Böhlau, 2015), 225. While Moser’s account is advancing a case in support of the communes, it is substantiated with documentary evidence (such as notarial/court records) which can be independently verified. There are clearly interpretive preferences in how he presents the material, but this forms part of a more general rhetorical strategy of polar good/bad argumentation in period submissions to imperial jurisdiction: Ralf-Peter Fuchs, “Recht und Unrecht im Verfahren Lackum – Ein Kriminalfall mit Widerhall,” in: Justiz und Gerechtigkeit. Historische Beiträge (16.19. Jahrhundert) ed. Andrea Griesebner et al. (Innsbruck: Studienverlag, 2002), 149–68, esp. 157. 86  Tensions had escalated over a brawl between Soden carpenter Philipp Raiff/Reiff and a Frankfurt burgher at the local salt works; the procurators for the villages, which used Sulzbach’s upper court seal, were Drs Johann Conrad Albrecht and Bernhard Henning: Inge Kaltwasser, ed., Inventar der Akten des Reichskammergerichts 1495–1806: Frankfurter Bestand (Frankfurt a.M.: Waldemar Kramer Verlag, 2000), 986–8.

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

111

proceedings against us, mayor and council of the city of Frankfurt [or any other lawsuit against either of us], then we, archbishop and elector … as well as we, mayor and council … shall be empowered [to impose financial penalties, also] if both … Sulzbach and Soden were to accept the agreement per majora, but one or other [among them], be they neighbors or jurors, decide to resist it.87 Imperial approval for the joint agreement – granted in January 1657 – strengthened the bailiffs’ hand substantially, but the situation remained tense. According to a notarial document adduced by Moser, a communal assembly was summoned “to the garden behind the lords’ house”.88 On 8 June of the same year, 30 men from Sulzbach and 23 from Soden (but not Johannes Petermann, Johann Jung, Werner Bruder, Philip Groe, Velten Stieler and Georg Horn) gathered in front of the bailiffs’ representatives seated around an outdoor table. It proved an encounter of high drama. The delegates started by praising the new treaty as a means to resolve all lawsuits “without prejudice to the villagers’ privileges”, reporting that advocates acting for both sides at Speyer had settled any outstanding issues. Frankfurt’s city scribe Adam Schiele then read out the emperor’s assent, while a notary held up the actual charter. Next, fifteen “original documents so far kept at Frankfurt, above all the crucial mortgaging agreement” were tantalizingly placed on the table with a promise of instant return, “provided that the remaining members of the communes would also appear and swear allegiance together with the others”.89 At that point the neighbors requested a pause, wishing to consult with each other. Having done so, they asked the notary to relay a number of demands, including continuation of “the communes’ right to retail wine and beer freely, as of old”; independent 87   I SF, Privilegien 449b, art. 3; cf. MR, section 1, §28, and appendix XXXIII, esp. 57–8. 88  From a 1645 cameral court mandatum issued at the start of the ongoing lawsuit, which ordered Frankfurt not to violate imperial privileges “in matters regarding Sulzbach”, we learn that the villagers had been forced to abandon “their customary public site for the holding of courts and councils” (under the linden tree outside the church) in favor of meetings at the Herrenhaus (i.e. the avoyer’s offical seat adjacent to the Frankfurter Hof; cf. Figure 6b): MR, appendix XXVIII. 89  Frankfurt’s failure to return important documents after the villages regained immediate status in 1613 had been a source of tensions for decades, prompting the villagers to appeal to imperial judges, print their transcripts (Gleichlautende Abschrifft aller Käyserlichen Privilegien und anderer Gerechtigkeitten) in 1614 and, eventually, to seek protection from Mainz: see e.g. MR, appendix XXX, esp. witness no. 4; Gunther Krauskopf, “Die Bickenbacher Fehde 1450: Soden und Sulzbach in Frankfurter Knechtschaft 1450–1621,” in: Sulzbacher Geschichte(n), ed. Geschichtsverein Reichsdorf Sulzbach, part 1 (Norderstedt, 2009), 18–51, esp. 35; and the marginalization of the pro-Frankfurt minority discussed in Chapter 3 above.

112

Chapter 4

admission of residents, whether Christians or Jews; confirmation of their right to lease Soden’s salt works for 50 f. p.a.; and unrestricted access to the pastures of Neuenhain. The delegates assented on excise and rents, but reserved judgement on Jews, citing the emperor’s prerogative, and the use of commons, as a matter for all villages involved. It was enough, though, to get the neighbors to listen to a rehearsal of the new oath of allegiance: Neighbors’ Oath [Each villager shall swear] to be faithful …, obedient … and steadfast to the most worthy prince … Johann Philipp [Elector of Mainz] … and the mayor and council of the city of Frankfurt, to keep any damage from them … and not to do anything against them … also to … obey the senior avoyer appointed by [the bailiffs], and to carry out orders issued in their name, truly and faithfully, observing in particular [the 1656 agreement] in all aspects which concern him.90 Characteristically, there was much ambivalence here: no explicit mention of either empire on the one hand or territorial lordship on the other. Following a second time-out, the neighbors communicated, again via the notary, that they “were prepared to swear”, albeit only with further assurances regarding ensuing burdens, an equitable division of legal costs and getting “to hold the documents in their hands without waiting for the absentees”. The bailiff delegates pledged that no official would oppress them, that court expenses could be shared “in equal parts” and that the archive chest would be released, yet – since not everyone had consented – with only one of its three keys (to remain in pastor Klein’s safekeeping) until all absentees had come forward. Now, at last, the chancellor of Mainz could preside over the oath ceremony, where each neighbor repeated the above formula with two fingers of his right hand raised (except for Jörg Rausch and Caspar Fischer, who had decided to leave by this point). Somewhat exasperated, the delegates gave the communes a few days to talk all absentees round. Next, five of the local court jurors escorted the village key to the nearby parsonage, where it was stored in the cupboard of the minister’s upper chamber. In return, they agreed to sign a “renunciation note”, i.e. an official suspension of all legal proceedings, and to affix their “old” seal for the last time (with a new one, featuring both bailiffs, to be commissioned for use in the future). Closing this memorable assembly with another

90  All details and quotes relating to the assembly of 8 June 1657 taken from MR, appendix XXXV, esp. 68–76; cf. the 1561 Gochsheim oath discussed in Chapter 3 above.

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

113

act of high symbolism, the delegates offered the neighbors a cup of wine, a ritual in which all participated “peacefully”.91 Ten days later, officials of both bailiffs gathered in the upper chamber of the lords’ house, choosing a notably more hierarchical positioning than on the occasion of the open-air meeting. Having checked the notary’s minutes of that day, communal representatives were summoned upstairs to hear that the new seal and a copy of the emperor’s approval were now ready to be exchanged for their old stamp and the signed renunciation note. Avoyer Hartmann Fritz, Peter Petermann, Jacob Filbell, Hans Bommersheim, Andreas Roth and Hans Christmann, though, responded with demands of their own, specifically full access to their documents and a fresh imperial confirmation, since Ferdinand III had died just a couple of months earlier. Mainz seemed amenable, but Frankfurt refused to release the archive until all Sulzbach men had sworn allegiance. The tone hardened, with much cajoling by the authorities, denouncements of “recalcitrants”, thinly veiled threats of financial penalties (as envisaged by the Nebenrezess) and ominous references to the availability of “soldiers”. Eventually, the Mainz chancellor warned: “You are free people but could easily lose such freedom through disobedience.” Startled, the villagers went downstairs to consult with fellow neighbors waiting in the yard. Upon their return, accompanied by five of the absentees who had changed their mind, the documents were exchanged and – in a symbolic gesture – the old seals broken.92 On 2 July, both communes reassembled in the Herrenhaus garden to learn that all remaining neighbors had “most humbly  … petitioned both sets of lords” for admission to the oath and remission of monetary fines. Remarkably, this supplication carried twenty-four names, including four women, rather than just the eight previously known absentees, pointing to rather stronger opposition than originally assumed. A second Huldigung ceremony took place and further signatures as well as the new seal were added to the renunciation note. To round everything off, the court proceeded to the appointment of new jurors (having been urged to “put forward suitable people, from among which several could be chosen”), followed by the administration of their oath of office

91  On the connotations of sharing drinks and pledging healths see B. Ann Tlusty, Bacchus and Civic Order: The Culture of Drink in Early Modern Germany (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2001), esp. ch. “The Social Body.” 92  All details and quotes relating to the exchanges of 18 June 1657 taken from MR, appendix XXXV, esp. 77–9. Three unmarried men and four widows were dispensed from having to take oaths.

114

Chapter 4

and – at long last – the opening of the communes’ archival chest, marking the recovery of the communes’ written heritage.93 Alas, hopes for a return of calmer times proved unfounded. Two years later, the villages appear to have been in open “rebellion” against the settlement.94 According to a report by notary Johann Rhundbelig of October 1659, Sulzbach representatives Peter Räbenstaller [Rebenstöcker?] and Peter von Hain had come to see him at the Golden Eagle inn of Bessingen [Bessungen] near Darmstadt – a “safe haven” on neutral Hessian ground some 25 miles from the village – to lodge a formal record of “the great distress suffered by the people of Sulzbach and Soden in recent times”.95 On 10 August, soldiers of both bailiffs had “ambushed the villages on foot and horseback …, behaving most atrociously, in order to force them, free people with immediate ties to the Holy Roman Empire” to submit to the 1656 settlement. To corroborate these claims, the notary put a set of questions to six witnesses from Liederbach, an immediately adjacent Taunus community, who were also in attendance. Christoph Pfeiffer, for example, confirmed that: he had personally seen the invasion; Georg Filbell, Philip Leidt, Hans Fritz Christmann and one called Schmidt had fled to his village; the troops had used swords and denounced neighbors as rebels; the refugees now spent their days in the fields and nights in the village; six soldiers each remained in Sulzbach and Soden; and that these events were common knowledge throughout the area. Other testimonies – all by men aged between 40–55 – completed the picture, putting the number of troops at 60 (some of whom had chased after people trying to escape), identifying a further displaced person (Hans von Feiten), mentioning an arrest (of Georg Zendtner, held for four weeks at great detriment to his health) and recounting the “tears” of the displaced.96 Relations between bailiffs and villagers had 93  Information on events on 2 July and a previous thanksgiving sermon in the parish church in MR, appendix XXXV, esp. 79–85; the jurors’ oath included commitments to obey both bailiffs, pass just verdicts and keep matters of the court secret, except towards Mainz and Frankfurt. Such ceremonies had proved problematic in the past: a 1435-oath by court members on Frankfurt’s Römer town hall square referring to “obedience” as well as “custom” had been interpreted as an act of homage by the city but as a mere confirmation of the protection relationship by the villages: ISF, Dörfer, 527, p.  30. In 1474, when all neighbors swore at Sulzbach under the linden tree before a Frankfurt delegation, a revised wording included explicit mention of the empire: ibid., between pp. 134–5. Cf. Krey, Laiengerichtsbarkeit (note 85), 224. 94  The term explicitly appears in HHStAW, Abt. 4/1094. 95  This notarial instrument is reproduced in MR, appendix XXXVI. 96   M R, section 1, §29 (according to which the invading force consisted of 129 riders from Mainz and foot soldiers from Frankfurt, suggesting that around 60 men occupied each village) and appendix XXXVI (quotes); cf. Krauskopf, “Soden und Sulzbach” (note 89), esp. 50.

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

115

clearly reached a new low, but fresh threats posed by an aggressive feudal lord (the Hünefeldische Händel prompting separate Reichshofrat proceedings) and ecclesiastical encroachments (to be addressed in the next chapter) shifted the focus of attention onto different ground, at least temporarily. Fast forwarding to our second flashpoint, we find the conflict re-erupting with great urgency in the mid-eighteenth century. 1753 marked the communes’ annus horribilis, due in part to fresh impositions by Mainz officials and two violent crimes (including the callous murder of a servant),97 but chiefly because of another seismic shift in the constitution (cf. Figure 11a). What had been a constant fear, imposition of territorial lordship, now seemed to become reality. A new court ordinance and related instruction to the senior avoyer (both issued on 21 March) used the dreaded term Landes=Herrschaften for the first time.98 Under the new arrangements, the bailiffs’ interests had to be uppermost in everyone’s mind, with offences such as adultery or brawls removed from local scrutiny. Simultaneously, the communes lost their traditional dispensation from customs and market fees at Frankfurt as well as the right to admit neighbors on their own authority. This prompted not only an instant appeal to Vienna and Moser’s supporting treatise, but furious confrontations on the ground. A protest delegation sent to Mainz’s regional official at Neuenhain, Amtskeller Veit Gottfried Straub (about to pen a rebuttal of Moser’s treatise), was simply arrested and Sulzbach’s senior avoyer – Johann Paul Gabler, “who had fought too hard for the interests of the inhabitants” – summarily replaced by Johann Adolf Triebert.99 The first test for the new regime came almost instantly, in the guise of an infanticide case conflating personal, moral, gender, political and ritual dimensions into an explosive mixture. In essence, it concerned an illegitimate birth, a dead infant hastily buried in a corn field, forensic and criminal investigations by authorities looking for quick results, lengthy interrogations of a hapless suspect and ultimately a beheading. Detailed trial records allow fascinating insights into the world of Anna Katharina Duß, a Soden maid in her early thirties with an ominous family history. A first child had already died under suspicious circumstances and a great aunt, Gertraud Kroh, had been executed on an infanticide charge in 1687. Having spent part of 97   G RS, Löschhorn Tagebuch (note 1), 1753–54; one of Mainz’s controversial demands was a change in local weights and measures. 98   M R, 25, 30, 44, 47 and appendices XLIV (instruction)/XLV (ordinance); for a similar sudden claim of territorial lordship over the imperial village of Holzhausen put forward by the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel in 1741 see Wilhelm A. Eckhardt, “Das Reichsdorf Holzhausen,” in: Zeitschrift für hessische Geschichte und Landeskunde 92 (987): 155–70, esp. 157. 99  Geisler, Soden (note 80), 48. At least four candidates (including Triebert, a notary well versed in matters of law) had petitioned Frankfurt for appointment to the position: ISF, Ratssupplikationen, 1.753, vol. 1.

116

Chapter 4

her working life away from the village, Anna Katharina returned home when the father of her second baby failed to honor a promise of marriage. Back at Soden, she moved in with her half-brother, occupied a chamber furnished with scant possessions (as revealed by an inventory drawn up during the investigation) and quite possibly fell victim to a grave miscarriage of justice, as evidence of premature birth (perhaps caused by the mother’s fall from a ladder) was ignored and a confession, subsequently revoked, re-extracted through torture.100 Of particular significance for our purposes are the political and confessional implications. Straub and Triebert, together with junior avoyer Ludwig Karl Hartwig (the notorious Soden official we encountered in Chapter 3) and Johann Daniel Bochleutner (acting for Frankfurt), emerged as the driving forces of the trial. Communal representatives – such as Soden mayor Johann Nikolaus Anthes, jurors Johannes Rebstöcker/Johann Friedrich Anthes and midwife Roth – also played significant parts, e.g. by gathering evidence, searching the suspect’s chamber, examining the child’s body and occupying the villagers’ customary seats on the blood court. Following Anna Katharina’s initial flight and capture, she was imprisoned, first in Soden’s bathing house and, after an attempted escape, the more secure official seat (Amthaus) of the bailiffs, at both places under the customary guard of four neighbors. Following hours of interrogations and hundreds of questions, which convinced him of Anna Katharina’s guilt, Straub started to plan for her execution (tellingly anticipating procedural complaints by the communes). He also replaced the peasant watch with professional soldiers – a measure village elders denounced as a blatant breach of tradition.101 In a further twist, a priest named Koch promised the despairing suspect a pardon if she were to convert to Catholicism, a plot uncovered by Frankfurt and foiled through the pastoral intervention of a Lutheran minister. On 25 February 1754, the day of judgement, there were last-minute arguments about the exact wording of the sentence. Anna Katharina, accompanied 100  The extensive archival material in ISF, Criminalia 6.877 (comprising 588 folio pages of evidence) is engagingly brought to life in Geisler, Soden (note 80), with reference to further primary and secondary sources. 101  According to the testimony of Johann Georg Keller [alias Göller], a 74-year old juror from Sulzbach, given to an imperial notary in August 1753: “defendants in criminal trials … have always been held in the prison or village hall at Sulzbach under a guard of neighbors from both communes …, yet never in the bailiffs’ common house, much less under a watch of soldiers from the city of Frankfurt or the electorate of Mainz.” In a separate statement, Jacob Christman, one of the neighbors involved, described how a Mainz captain had summoned the peasant guard to the Amthaus and how the bailiffs’ officials had ordered them to leave their post: MR, appendix LXXXI. For Sulzbach’s local chronicler, the sustained deployment of soldiers underlined the bailiffs’ lordship intentions: GRS, Löschhorn Tagebuch (note 1), 1753.

External Relations: Protectors and Predators

117

by Sulzbach’s pastor Rothe and an armed guard, entered the Amthaus dressed in white burial robes. All present rose and, at that crucial moment, peasant juror Johann Friedrich Anthes challenged Straub’s blue-print by insisting that – according to the 1656 constitution – communal officials should read out the verdict. Replying that the villages were properly represented on the court, Frankfurt’s secretary pronounced the death sentence and senior avoyer Triebert performed the symbolic breaking of the staff. At 9 o’clock, Anna Katharina left the building to enter a circle formed “by the men of both communes … dressed in their Sunday clothes and carrying rifles”. Then, taking her place in a procession headed by children, escorted by four ministers and flanked by soldiers, she embarked on her last journey. After almost two hours, during which “several thousand” locals and strangers swelled numbers, the disorderly cortège reached Diefenwegen near Höchst, where an advance party had prepared the traditional execution site. Here again, two circles formed, an outer one made up of soldiers and an inner ring of neighbors. In the middle, there was hardly enough space for Anna Katharina, her executioner Nord and four communal blood jurors dressed in black coats, never mind the children who – according to chronicler Löschhorn – sang “ferociously beautiful songs”. Nord then performed his duty in a swift and professional manner, Anna Katharina’s corpse was buried straight on the spot and everyone made their way back with continued musical accompaniment by the choir.102 In conclusion, this review of external relations has revealed fundamental and recurring traits of the political culture in imperial villages: first and foremost, broad and frequent popular participation, involving regular assemblies with – as the 1653 “time-outs” have shown – extensive peer consultation; second, intimate familiarity with – regularly renewed – privileges, instilling a sense of entitlement and pride; third, an almost petulant insistence on all customary rights, exemptions and procedures associated with the villages’ collective freedom; fourth, an acute sensitivity to political language and other – visual, ritual and archival – forms of symbolic communication (particularly regarding differences between protection and lordship); fifth, a readiness to challenge the merest encroachments by any offender of whatever status through situation-specific combinations of oral exchange, written complaints, printed treatises, lawsuits and direct action; finally, a resolve to operate at local, regional and central level as well as on neutral ground, irrespective of time and 102  Geisler, Soden (note 80), 73–6. Upon hearing the juror’s concern, which was duly recorded in the minutes, Straub satirically asked whether the villagers wished to decapitate the culprit as well? The atmosphere of the day is evoked in GRS, Löschhorn Tagebuch (note 1), 1754. The execution site at Diefenwegen between Sulzbach and Sossenheim near Höchst appears e.g. on the map of “Frankfurt with its territory” by Johann Baptist Homann (c. 1714).

118

Chapter 4

expense. Such permanent vigilance, activism and investment must have been difficult to sustain over centuries, explaining why few of the 300+ communities in Appendix 1 preserved their immediate status as long as the four German case studies examined here (which had the added advantage of operating as pairs). Quite in contrast to period stereotypes, these peasants were shrewd political operators drawing on generations of legal and executive experience. In contrast to larger rural polities (like the Forest Canton of Schwyz, the Grey League of the Grisons or Dithmarschen on the North Sea coast) and the wider period trend, furthermore, imperial villages appear predominantly selfcontained. This inward orientation had practical reasons (the vast majority of Reichsdörfer existing as isolated cells and lacking real power), but even in auspicious constellations of regional clusters, there were few signs of proactive integration through common meetings or institutions. “Thinking small” seems to have been a corollary of political freedom built on distinctive communal privileges rather than membership of wider historical landscapes of rural autonomy. Given its spirited defense – by those who possessed it – and evident appeal – to localities like Berkach, Freienseen, Kochendorf or Nordrach who did not – immediate status was clearly perceived as an asset in the pre-modern countryside. But how did imperial villages (a phrase with a telling oxymoronic touch) square the circle of intense localism and membership of a vast Reich? Almost invariably through strategies of containment. The only “networker” was Gersau, leveraging congenial republican surroundings through multilateral defensive treaties turning potential Swiss lords into allies. In the German case studies, it was a case of preventing imperial bailiffs from exceeding their brief, either through negotiating rivalling interests and/or recourse to higher authority. Frankfurt, Mainz, Schweinfurt and Würzburg all played ambivalent roles: appointed as representatives of the Roman kings and thus “protectors”, they struggled to hide their self-understanding as Landesherren over rural subjects. In the ensuing defensive campaigns, pursued with astonishing tenacity and resourcefulness, Kaiser and imperial courts served the villages as natural custodians of the constitution,103 although their efficacy waned towards the end of the period. In the next chapter, attention shall turn to an ever higher, divine authority and the ways in which immediate communes interacted with the metaphysical sphere.

103  On associations with imperial courts as means of self-assertion, with explicit reference to Sulzbach, see Krey, Laiengerichtsbarkeit (note 85), 194.

Chapter 5

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth Reflecting a wider pre-modern pattern, secular and spiritual affairs were inextricably intertwined in imperial villages. Any worldly authority ultimately derived from God; the same neighbors carried responsibility as burghers as well as parishioners; and church absentees or dissenters found themselves excluded from civic life. But were there characteristics that set the case studies apart from other rural communities? Could extensive political self-­determination forge distinct ecclesiastical regimes? Furthermore, how did immediate communes relate to the clerical hierarchies and emerging state Churches, the evolving doctrinal parameters and ever more detailed guidelines in terms of beliefs and practices?1 When asked to complete a questionnaire on the local situation at the end of the Ancien Régime, for example, Gersau parson Alois Nigg (cf. Figure 22) reported that his flock of some 1,400 souls supported two clerical posts (his own net income being around 160 f. per year), operated a school, made substantial donations, kept all buildings in good repair and that the commune acted as both patron and administrator of all benefices.2 Does this upbeat assessment provide an accurate, even typical picture? To explore such questions, the argument starts with a closer look at “heavenly” matters: cure of souls, sites of worship, Reformation challenges and popular piety. A second part then moves on to “earthly” affairs such as communal church government, lay-clerical relations and the numerous points of tension within and beyond individual villages. Throughout the Latin Church, parishes formed the key units for the administration of sacraments and the forging of a Christian society.3 In a network 1  For surveys on developments and scholarly debates see e.g. C.  Scott  Dixon, The Church in the Early Modern Age (London: I.B.  Tauris, 2016); Stefan Ehrenpreis and Ute Lotz Heumann, Reformation und konfessionelles Zeitalter (2nd edn, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008). 2  The form, signed and dated by Nigg on 2 March 1799 (see Figure Appendix 2b), had been issued by the government of the new Helvetic Republic to take stock and identify policy priorities: StAS, Archiv 1, Akten 1, 582.019, no. 180. Coming on top of free accommodation in the parsonage and some benefits in kind, his net income was equivalent to 160 three-course meals at period inns: Johann Gottfried Ebel, Anleitung auf die nützlichste und genussvollste Art in der Schweitz zu reisen (Zürich: Orell, Gesner, Füssli, 1793), 22. 3  From 1215, Christians had to make a confession to – and take communion from – their local priest at least once a year: “The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), no.  21,” in: Internet History Sourcebook, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004396609_006

120

Chapter 5

evolved over several centuries around the first millennium (and in some areas well into the early modern period), parsons took charge of the cure of souls in closely circumscribed local territories in return for livelihoods derived from permanently-endowed benefices, ideally consisting of tithes, glebe land and offerings, although local arrangements varied considerably. From around the thirteenth century, a parallel organization – the “fabric”, administered by lay officials we can summarily call “churchwardens” – started to look after buildings, ornaments and other matters of common concern. This framework was embedded within an ecclesiastical hierarchy of archdeaconries, dioceses and ultimately the papal curia at Rome, each with their own regulatory and jurisdictional powers.4 The situation in immediate communes reflects these general trends and layers, resulting in often highly complex local distributions of rights. The villages fitted into originally three, later four and – in modern times – five parishes: Gochsheim, Sulzbach and Gersau are all mentioned before 1200, with St Erhard, Sennfeld (from its 1094 foundation as an oratory until the separation from Gochsheim in 1540), and St Valentin, Soden (from the 1480s until 1852), restricted to the status of chapels dependent on their sister communes.5 Communal influence on religious life was facilitated by the fact that political and ecclesiastical boundaries coincided, minimizing possibilities for interference by external secular powers.6 At Gochsheim and Sulzbach, however, the parish benefice was “incorporated” to an ecclesiastical institution (a canon of Bamberg Cathedral and the Abbey of Limburg respectively). This

4  Recent comparative approaches in Nathalie Kruppa, ed., Pfarreien im Mittelalter: Deutschland, Tschechien, Polen und Ungarn im Vergleich (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008); Beat Kümin, The Communal Age in Western Europe c. 1100–1800: Towns, Villages and Parishes in Pre-Modern Society (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2013), esp. ch. 3; and Michele Ferrari and Beat Kümin, eds., Pfarreien in der Vormoderne: Identität und Kultur im Niederkirchenwesen Europas (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2017), esp. Enno Bünz’s opening essay on the Holy Roman Empire. 5  For origins and evolutions see Evangelische Kirchengemeinde Sulzbach, ed., Sulzbach und seine evangelische Kirche 1724–1974 (Sulzbach, 1974); 1200 Jahre Gochsheim: Festschrift der Gemeinde Gochsheim zur 1200 Jahrfeier 1996 (Gochsheim: Gemeinde, 1996); Michael Tomaschett, Die Pfarrkirche St. Marcellus in Gersau (Bern: Gesellschaft für Schweizerische Kunstgeschichte, 2013); Evangelische Kirchengemeinde Bad Soden am Taunus, ed., 300 Jahre Evangelische Kirche Bad Soden, co-ordinated by Achim Reis and Christiane Schalles (Flörsheim: Lauck, 2016). 6  Quite in contrast to the imperial village of (Burg-)Holzhausen, which was shared/contested between different lords as well as split between two parishes; by 1720, a Catholic and Lutheran chapel had been built by the same architect (Johann Wilhelm Detler) within a stone’s throw of each other: Wilhelm A. Eckhardt, “Das Reichsdorf Holzhausen,” in: Zeitschrift für hessische Geschichte und Landeskunde 92 (987): 155–70.

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

121

legal construction, very common in pre-Reformation Germany, meant that only parts of the resources supported the priest serving the locality.7 Depending on their fields of interest, studies on religious life can draw on a wide range of local, regional and central sources – synodal legislation; charters and deeds; accounts; registers of births, marriages and burials; visitation proceedings; consistory minutes; church court records; sermons etc. – but survival tends to be patchy before the early modern centuries. Parish churches, to start with the material heritage, were invariably the largest buildings, beacons of local identities and melting pots of spiritual and secular concerns in premodern communities.8 As constantly evolving sites, subject to innumerable changes and often wholesale reconstruction over the course of the centuries, none of the present-day structures yields more than tantalizing glimpses of the time when they served immediate polities. At Nieder-Ingelheim, a Romanesque tower and portal from around the first millennium recall the time of royal ownership, but the rest of the fabric dates from after the takeover of the Elector Palatine in the fourteenth century. A short distance away, at OberIngelheim, today’s Burgkirche forms a most impressive complex surrounded by remnants of a quasi-urban defensive wall, yet most of it reflects a rebuilding campaign in the fifteenth century and noble influence. Perhaps the most evocative setting there is the simple north chapel with a medieval tabernacle niche surviving from the earlier church (then dedicated to St Wigbert), whose elegant vaulting is decorated with painted leafage and keystones featuring saints.9 Thanks to the long duration of self-government, some of our case studies offer more extensive clues. At Sulzbach, the oldest parts are a high medieval tower and apsis from c. 1500; adjacent to the former chapel of Soden, there is the sacristy built in 1510; at St Michael’s, Gochsheim, visitors find the tower and choir erected one year later under parson Hans Turck and imperial bailiff von Henneberg (commemorated – respectively – by an inscription on the outside wall and an armorial crest on the chancel ceiling; the nave dating from 1872). All of these churches underwent substantial early modern refurbishments, allowing insights into shifting priorities and tastes. At Sulzbach, a persistent 7  Friedrich Weber, Geschichte der fränkischen Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld (Schweinfurt: Ernst Stoer, 1913), 45; Joachim Kromer, Bad Soden am Taunus (Frankfurt a.M.: Waldemar Kramer, 1990), vol. 1, 247 (Sulzbach). 8  Andrew Spicer, ed., Parish Churches in the Early Modern World (London: Routledge, 2015); specifically on German towns see Arnd Reitemeier, Pfarrkirchen in der Stadt des späten Mittelalters: Politik, Wirtschaft und Verwaltung (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2005). 9  For further details, including the tombstone of Ober-Ingelheim parson Johannes Erpp von Hoist (d.  1501), see the respective pages on Historischer Verein, “Ingelheimer Geschichte,” http://ingelheimer-geschichte.de/.

122

Chapter 5

Christocentric theme is represented e.g. by a late Gothic wall-painting of the crucifixion in the apsis, a more elaborate Baroque processional cross of 1713 and the purely verbal message Solus Christus on the pulpit, donated by the sons of former senior avoyer Ernst Casimir Bassy in 1725. Gersau’s St Marcellus, in contrast, was entirely rebuilt at the start of the nineteenth century (with, as we have seen in Chapter 3, Kleinlandammann Camenzind – whose crest still adorns the high altar – acting as the main driving force) and only a few foundations survive from Sennfeld’s pre-modern past, as World War II damage forced a complete reconstruction in the middle of the twentieth century. The fact that local communities redesigned their place of worship on many occasions testifies to its lasting spiritual as well as aesthetic importance. At Meldorf in Dithmarschen, the thirteenth-century rebuilding of the ancient parish church of St John’s represented an emphatic statement by the capital of the young peasant federation: the huge dimensions and rich ornamentation were unprecedented in the region and rendered the Dom (as it became widely known) “perfectly suited for the ceremonies and pageantry associated with governmental functions”.10 In the case studies, allies and bailiffs often lent a hand. In 1489, overwhelmed by the costs of a new tower (with two bells) and choir, Gersau petitioned the Forest Cantons for support, who in turn sent a request for financial assistance to their fellow confederates Zurich, Bern, Zug, Glarus, Freiburg and Solothurn.11 At the time, the church stood directly on the lakeshore, making it liable to flooding and erosion. A full reconstruction was required in 1618, major repairs in 1655, an extension agreed upon in 1737 (both involving free labor services by the parishioners) and further embellishment undertaken in 1770. The latter involved the carving of new seating in the Rococo style by the Gersau master Marzell Müller sen.; when it became redundant due to the whole-scale rebuilding (at greater distance from the waterfront) between 1806–12, the commune donated the artistically notable benches – together with two side altars, a font and a pulpit – to the parish church of Lauerz in Schwyz, where they remain in situ today.12 10  William Urban, Dithmarschen: A Medieval Peasant Republic (Lewiston: E. Mellen Press, 1991), 28. 11   B AG, UKP: Stiftsurkundenbuch, 275; a copy of the letter requesting contributions, sent in the name of the Forest Cantons on behalf of “our dear confederates of Gersow”: ibid., Urkunden, no. 14. 12  Albert Müller, Gersau – Unikum der Schweizer Geschichte (Baden: Hier+Jetzt, 2013), 35 (1618); Michael Tomaschett, “Kunsthandwerker und Künstler des 18. Jahrhunderts,” in: Geschichte des Kantons Schwyz, ed. Historischer Verein, vol. 6 (Zurich: Chronos, 2012), 91– 114, esp. 99 (benches); see also the church guide “Röm. kath. Kirche Lauerz ‘St. Nikolaus’: Ein Blick in unsere Kirche” (Lauerz: Pfarrei, 2008), 2, 5, 10.

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

123

Sulzbach and Soden could turn to their protectors, especially the neighboring imperial free city but also the Elector of Mainz, who was obliged to maintain the chancel as the owner of tithe rights. Following the destruction of its chapel during the Margrave War in 1552, Soden gained permission to raise funds for the rebuilding in Frankfurt. Three years later, the council also supported the mounting of the bells, inscribed with the imperial eagle and the name of the village. The present-day nave dates from a successive campaign in 1715–16, again – as the chapel accounts show – with a substantial contribution from Frankfurt (650 f.) as well as smaller sums from individual magistrates and various “good friends” there. Other contributions included a rate levied on local households (142 f.), offerings made on the church dedication day (47 f.) and various donations: from Soden’s salt works owners (60 f.), neighboring Sulzbach (85 f.), the villages’ joint parson Schott (15 f.) and several external sources, including handsome amounts from collectors in Hamburg (533 f.), the territory of Ansbach (85 f.), an anonymous benefactor (50 f.) and the nearby parish of Bornheim (35 f.).13 Over at Sulzbach, the Battle of Höchst fought on the commune’s doorstep in 1622 caused near-complete fire damage. For several decades, merely the tower appears to have been available for worship and remedial action could only be taken at the end of the Thirty Years’ War. In 1647, Frankfurt helped to fund a new bell and, in 1652–59, Mainz’s Amtskeller official at Neuenhain supported larger-scale restoration work. Then, in 1723–24, Sulzbach embarked on a complete rebuilding of nave and choir entirely at its own expense, resulting in the church still serving the parish today (Figures 18a–b).14 Large-scale structural work was one pressing concern, securing sufficient clerical resources another. In the Middle Ages, individual and collective efforts to increase divine service usually took the form of pious foundations

13   M R, 44–6 (1550s and church building in general); Michael Geisler, ed., “Kirchenrechnung mit Übersetzung aus den Jahren 1715/1716 und 1718/1719 [recte 1717/1718],” in: 300 Jahre Kirche Bad Soden (note 5), 191–215, esp. 192–95 (total income for the two years 1715–1716 amounted to 2831 f. – over ten times as much as in the following, more “normal” accounting period – and with only slightly larger expenses the chapelry incurred a deficit of just 8 f.). The parish collection at Bornheim near Frankfurt in ISF, Chroniken S5, 283, vol. 1, p. 138. 14  The post-1622 disruption is vividly evoked in a petition to the council of Frankfurt: ISF, Ratssupplikationen, 1.633, vol. 3, 58r; Johann Heinrich Faber, Topagraphische, politische und historische Beschreibung der Reichs= Wahl= und Handelsstadt Frankfurt am Mayn (Frankfurt: Jäger), vol. 2, 572 (1647); Evangelische Kirchengemeinde, ed., Sulzbach Kirche (note 5), esp. 16 (1650s restoration), 26 (rebuilding costs).

124

FIGURES 18A–B

Chapter 5

Left: the “village of Soden”, represented by its chapel with the recently rebuilt nave, in a survey of landed properties drawn up in 1721. The ridge turret is here depicted as a full-size tower. GRS, Ackerbuch über des Hochlöbl: Kornambts = Geländ zu Sultzbach, f. 171r. Right: architectural plan of the western prospect of the new parish church of Sulzbach drawn up in 1723, with a caption clarifying that it shows the front gable and door. HHStAW, Abt. 4/487, f. 1r.

which carried spiritual benefits for both parish and donor(s).15 In 1330, an Our Lady chaplaincy was endowed at Sulzbach; in 1393, Betze Huffe funded a morrow mass at Sennfeld; a similar benefice was established in pre-Reformation Gochsheim (where the avoyer of Salzburg’s tenants donated land and a house – on what is today 3–5, Weyrer Street – to accommodate the mass priest); and at Soden’s chapel, recently established on a plot given by Count Johann von Solms-Münzenberg, the villagers augmented the dotation of St  Mary’s altar to secure the livelihood of a cleric in 1500.16 Shortly afterwards, of course, the “Luther affair” ended the medieval unity of the western Church. As in the case of immediate cities, the large majority 15  Rosi Fuhrmann, Kirche und Dorf: Religiöse Bedürfnisse und kirchliche Stiftung auf dem Lande vor der Reformation (Stuttgart: G. Fischer, 1995); Immacolata Saulle Hippenmeyer, Nachbarschaft, Gemeinde und Pfarrei in Graubünden 1400–1600, 2 vols (Chur: Kommissionsverlag Bündner Monatsblatt, 1997). 16  HHStAW, Abt. 4/470, 1r (1330; in 1411, Sulzbach’s parish church additionally contained a St Nicholas altar: ibid., Abt. 4/U14, whose endowment became a bone of contention between senior avoyer Erstenberger and parson Schott in 1716: ibid., Abt. 4/486). A copy of Sennfeld’s 1393 charter in StAW, Archivalien-Sammlung des Historischen Vereins Unterfranken, o. 66; 1200 Jahre Gochsheim (note 5), 43 (Gochsheim; cf. StAW, Reichsstadt Schweinfurt, Akten no.  11, 1558); for Mainz’s approval to found a chapel at Soden in 1482 see HHStAW, Abt. 4/U51, for the 1500 investment (linked to a morrow mass) ibid., Abt. 4/U60.

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

125

of imperial villages gradually moved over to the new faith.17 Compared to local communities within principalities, their big privilege was the ius reformandi, the ability to take this momentous decision themselves. We know very little about opinion-formation and possible tensions with vested interests (such as the ecclesiastical hierarchy and incorporating institutions) in the case studies, but by the late 1540s Gochsheim, Sennfeld, Sulzbach and Soden were firmly in the Lutheran camp, while Gersau remained Catholic. Regional influences certainly mattered, especially the contrasting leanings of Schweinfurt and Frankfurt on the one hand and the Forest Cantons on the other,18 but there are glimpses of distinct confessional pathways. According to a song documented in the period, before Johann Sutellius delivered the first evangelical sermon at Schweinfurt in 1542, those in the city who “desired the Word of God … long had to go to Sennfeld”. Protected by bailiff Poppo of Henneberg, a Lutheran cleric preached in the village from 1539, while Gochsheim’s first reformist appointment was Johann Spangenberg the year after.19 Gersau, in turn, gained a reputation for religious fervor in the Swiss civil wars of Kappel 1529–31, suggesting that its participation reflected Catholic leanings rather than just the fulfilment of military obligation towards its regional allies.20 Whichever way the decision had gone, the case studies developed strong confessional identities, with few signs of internal divisions. At Gochsheim, 17  Bernd Moeller, Imperial Cities and the Reformation: Three Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972); Peter Blickle, The Communal Reformation: The Quest for Salvation in SixteenthCentury Germany (Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1992); R. W. Scribner, “Why was there no Reformation in Cologne,” in: Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 49 (1974): 217–41. Catholicism also remained strong in the imperial valley of Harmersbach, with visitors flocking to the local pilgrimage church throughout the early modern period: Karl Löster, Maria zu den Ketten (Zell am Harmersbach: Kapuzinerkloster, 2012). 18  When asked about their religious preferences by Frankfurt in 1537, Sulzbach and Soden declared that they wished to order the Church as in the imperial free city (to which they were mortgaged at the time): Kromer, Bad Soden (note 7), vol. 1, 251; however, their parson Blingenheimer – who went on to become the last Abbot of Limburg – defended the old religion, with a Lutheran regime only emerging under his successor Ruelmann: Eckhardt, “Sulzbach und seine Kirche,” in: Sulzbach Kirche (note 5), 14–17. 19  Friedrich Stein, ed., Monumenta Suinfurtensia historica (Schweinfurt: E. Stoer, 1875), 471 (the song, published in 1543, appears in a late sixteenth-century chronicle of the city); Doris Badel, Sennfeld: Geschichte eines ehemals freien Reichsdorfes in Franken (Sennfeld: Gemeinde, 1997), 32 (preacher Johann); Fritz Zeilein, “Das freie Reichsdorf Gochsheim – Einführung,” in: Reichsstädte in Franken, ed. R. A. Müller (Munich: Süddeutscher Verlag, 1987), vol. 1, 379–87, esp. 383. The fact that the neighboring imperial villages adopted the Reformation ahead of Schweinfurt is also emphasized in Jubilaeum Theatri Europaei (Frankfurt, 1738), 259. New research by Wolfang Wüst appeared too late for inclusion. 20  Johann Kaspar Steiner, Germano-Helveto-Sparta : Oder Kurtzdeütliche Grund-Zeichnung Dess Alt-Teutschen Spartier-Lands (Zug: Muos, 1684), 404.

126

FIGURES 19A–B

Chapter 5

Left: panel from Gochsheim’ stone pulpit erected in 1589 and subsequently adorned with a relief of St Peter, whose key provides a fitting attribute for the village officials – including imperial avoyer Jonas Merz and two churchwardens – whose names are inscribed below. Right: comparable religious imagery – of Christ as salvator mundi/on the cross/risen – on the oriel window of the Apostelhaus in the Mönchsgasse.

a new font (of 1545) and octagonal stone pulpit decorated with biblical figures and inscriptions on its nave-facing panels (from 1589) helped to give the church interior a distinctly Lutheran appearance. Similar imagery spread into the village, with reliefs of Christ and donors adorning a pulpit-like oriel window on the so-called Apostelhaus, a building with a Renaissance-style patchwork façade acquired and further ornamented by parson Johann Athanasius Schrickel t.E. in 1690 (Figures 19a–b). Proceeding to the eighteenth century, a supposedly more “rational” or secular period, both Sulzbach and Soden – as well as Holzhausen and other parishes in the Rhine-Main area, following the model set by St  Catherine’s, Frankfurt, c.  1680 – adorned the frontages of their seating and organ galleries with numerous Baroque paintings of prophets, apostles and the life of Jesus. This theologically orthodox program, probably based on a collection of engravings published in the previous century, reflects the continued appeal of visual communication in Lutheran areas, where – in contrast to the Swiss

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

127

FIGURE 20 Shortly after the reconstruction of Sulzbach church in 1723–24 (cf. Figure 18b), artist Konrad Jäger decorated the seating galleries in the nave with sixty panel paintings of prophets, biblical saints and scenes from the life of the Holy Family.

Reformation – parishes commissioned countless depictions of the Holy Family and scriptural saints throughout the early modern period. The Catholic artist Konrad Jäger (1672–1750) from Schönberg in Tyrol produced at least twentytwo panels to embellish the new nave at Soden (c. 1720) and, some five years later, no fewer than sixty very similar images for Sulzbach, where he returned in 1732 to add a painting of the Last Supper for the main altarpiece (Figure 20).21 The church’s organ, in turn, originally built in 1626 for St Catherine’s at Frankfurt and acquired by Sulzbach in 1778, reflects the continued importance of musical 21  Bridget Heal, “‘Better Papist than Calvinist’: Art and Identity in Later Lutheran Germany,” in: German History 29 (4/2011): 584–609. Jäger’s works are discussed and reproduced in Heinz Theile, “Emporengemälde und Altarbild der Evangelischen Kirche in Sulzbach (Taunus),” http://evangelisch-in-sulzbach.ekhn.de/startseite/ueber-uns/kirche/bilder galerie.html, and Werner Hansel, Die wiedergefundenen Barockbilder in der evangelischen Kirche Bad Soden a.Ts. (Bad Soden: Arbeitskreis für Bad Sodener Geschichte, 1997); for a comparison of the two sets and research on their relation to a 1623 copperplate collection see now Christiane Schalles, “Apostel und Propheten,” in: Kirche Bad Soden (note 5), 97–113.

128

Chapter 5

elements in post-Reformation worship.22 Yet whatever the medium, the Word of God remained at the heart of the liturgy: following repeated cures at the local spa, Christiane Charlotte – wife of the Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg – presented the chapel of Soden with a Luther Bible in 1751.23 A sprinkling of evidence, furthermore, suggests that the pastors’ preaching did not fall on deaf ears. Peasant chronicler Löschhorn makes the occasional reference to special sermons and church services, for example when the parish marked the bicentenary of “the free exercise of religion” (meaning the Peace of Augsburg) in 1755.24 Earlier on, young carpenter Johann Heinrich Reiff had used his commonplace book to record that: …  on every Sunday in the year of Christ Anno 1716 our Mr  Pastor at Sulzbach, Johannes Schott, presented us certain rules of comportment towards God, towards neighbors and also towards oneself … On the 4th Sunday of Advent [for example, he advised]: 1. Commit to Jesus with your mouth, 2. Speak the truth from the bottom of your heart, 3. Search yourself at every hour of the day. On the Sunday after Christmas: 1. Try hard to serve God, 2. Live always according to the will of God …25 Not long before they decided to pull down their old church, Gersau’s parishioners purchased two new altars for 700 f. in 1749–50 and a reliquary for the display of a particle of the true cross for 40 f. in the following year. Treasurer Anton Küttel financed a high altar in 1782 (at a cost of 130 Louis d’Or), his fellow magistrate Josef Ignaz Nigg a font in 1782 and councilor Johann Caspar Camenzind a silver hanging light in 1784 – the fact that all this was meticulously recorded reminding us that Catholics viewed such donations as good

22  Information on the instrument built by Lorenz Ettlin and purchased for 225 f.: http://evan gelisch-in-sulzbach.ekhn.de/startseite/musik/orgel.html. Cf. Christopher Boyd Brown, Singing the Gospel: Lutheran Hymns and the Success of the Reformation (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2005). 23  The surviving 1736 edition carries a dedication by “prince and lady Christiania” and a note of thanks by Sulzbach parson Johann Andreas Rothe: Kirche Bad Soden (note 5), 78–80. 24   G RS, Tagebuch des Johann Adam Löschhorn (1738–), 1755; in 1763, parson Rothe organized a celebratory feast at the end of the Seven Years’ War: HHStAW, Abt. 4/468. 25   S ABS, VI, 1, 59: Arbeitsbuch des Johan Heinrich Reiff, Zimmermann zu Soden (1703–), 1716.

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

129

works conveying spiritual benefits.26 Unsurprisingly, therefore, the case study provides us with particularly rich evidence of devotional practice. Surely continuing medieval tradition, written traces of anniversaries appear in the late sixteenth century, with the earliest preserved book – a leather-bound parchment volume – started in 1627. Under 2 January, in a month where only four days contain no entries, land mayor Walther Rigert, his wife Elia and son Hans appear alongside a pious bequest of £9, which daughter Greti augmented by £6; while on 24 June, a less crowded time of the year, the founder of the day’s “eternal” anniversary in 1634 hailed from outside the parish: Hans Huber of Arth in Zug donated £13 for two annual masses around the feast of St John the Baptist. The second book, dating from 1704, contains greater detail. The entry for 23  January records Maria Anna Nigg’s endowment of masses for herself, husband and councilor Josef Caspar Rigert, friends and kinfolk with a capital of 100 f. to be distributed annually as follows: 1 f. 10 s. to the parson for celebration of the soul mass on the day, an equal amount to his assistant priest for two masses, the same again to a vicar for two further services, 20 s. to singers, 10  s. to the sexton and 20  s to the church (totaling 5  f., the Lucerne Gulden being equivalent to 40 s., i.e. a typical 5 % of the capital). On top of this, Nigg provided 50 f. to support the poor and pious causes. From a later source, we learn that local commemoration custom usually involved at least four church events: at the funeral, on the 7th and 30th day following the death plus on the anniversary, each time supported by a full service and the ringing of bells.27 Over successive generations, this added up to a fair amount of masses, but – as in Counter-Reformation Europe more generally – they represent only a fraction of the religious activities centered on the church. In addition to the normal week- and Sunday program, for a start, there were numerous feasts marked by special celebrations, often also on their eve. No fewer than 52 had to be observed in the mid-seventeenth century, which started to stifle economic life in the community. In 1663, the parish asked Federico Borromeo, papal nuntio residing at Lucerne, for permission to discontinue those – venerating e.g. SS Martin, Ulrich, and Verena – adopted in the past without papal or

26  Josef Wiget, ed., “Die Turmkugel-Dokumente der Pfarrkirche Gersau,” in: Mitteilungen des Historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz 76 (1984): 161–175, nos 4–5 (1749–51); BAG, UKP (note 11), 323–4 (other donations). 27  Damian Camenzind, Geschichte der Republik Gersau, nach urkundlichen Quellen (Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1863), 22 (early traces); PAG, Pfarreibuch no. 1: Jahrzeitenbuch von 1627, p. 8 (Rigert), 31 (Huber); ibid., Pfarreibuch no. 2 of 1704, p. 15 (Nigg); BAG, Urkunden, no. 43: Pfrundbrief of 1726/62 (commemoration).

130

Chapter 5

synodal prescription, resulting in the removal of 11 days from the calendar.28 Having thus anticipated campaigns usually associated with “enlightened absolutism” in general and the reformist reign of emperor Joseph II in particular, Gersau sought a further reduction a little over a century later, probably under pressure from local silk industrialists, this time from the Bishopric of Constance.29 In a request addressed to “the most highly born and worthy” Ernest Maria Ferdinandus, vicar general of the diocese, of 2 October 1779, land mayor and council of the “free land” gave two reasons: signs of a certain “negligence” and idleness among their neighbors on the one hand, and a growing population requiring more time for gainful work on the other. They referred to a similar dispensation recently granted to Lucerne, while emphasizing that they remained committed to the other feasts, especially that of their patron St Marcellus on 16 January. A fortnight later, the episcopal commissary in the area, Josef Zeno Städelin, gave the “free region and republic of Gersau” his full backing and identified twenty-six dispensable saints’ days. Accordingly, on 27 October, Prince-Bishop Maximilian Christoph von Rodt allowed the petitioners to go ahead, while exhorting his Christ Catholic flock … to attend the [remaining] services with utmost reverence, [to beware] of all vanity, harmful idleness, suspicious assemblies, dances, gambling, immoderate drinking, swearing, blaspheming and all matters insulting to His Almighty [on pain of a punishment to be determined by their authorities]. In order to bring this mandate to the attention of everyone, we wish and order that it be pronounced publicly in the parish church of Gersau from the pulpit and [the text] affixed to the church door for a certain time. In the spring of the following year, the communal assembly duly approved a slightly smaller reduction by twenty-two feasts, leaving the more sustainable number of 19 to be observed for the remainder of the Ancien Régime, although – as we will see – this was not to everyone’s liking.30

28  Gustav Nigg, “Verzeichnis der Pfarrherren der Kirche St. Marzellus Gersau,” in: Mitteilungen des Historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz 87 (1995): 109–114, esp. 110. 29  T.  C.  W.  Blanning, Joseph II and Enlightened Despotism (London: Longman, 1970), esp. ch. 4 and documents. 30  All parts of the correspondence and quotes in EAF, A16/91, nos 1 (petition), 2 (Städelin’s endorsement of the request by the liberae Regionis et Reipublicae Gersau) and 3 (episcopal approval). The feastday reduction was thus not an “independent” assembly decision, as stated in Müller, Gersau (note 12), 65.

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

131

Gersau’s insistence on continued religious commitment is corroborated by other sources. In between the two supplications, on 11 November 1726, parson Franz Justus von Flüe and his parishioners added a “soul Sunday” to the ecclesiastical calendar, again explicitly for moral reasons. For the first time on 7 January 1727, two Capuchins came to hear confessions and deliver sermons as part of an integrated program devised with Rochus Abyberg, guardian of the friary at Schwyz, and bolstered by an official indulgence.31 In the mid-­ eighteenth century, Jost Tanner continued in the same vein, preaching against the apparent increase in vanity and luxury he associated with the rise of the silk industry and the vast wealth suddenly enjoyed by leading inhabitants. The council backed its priest with sumptuary laws against lavish dress, a measure clearly aimed at female parishioners. One lady wearing unsuitable bonnets was ordered to dispose of her most extravagant ones, ask Tanner for forgiveness, pay a fine of 3 f. and spend one hour on the shaming bench after Sunday mass. Roles appear reversed under the following parson, Johann Marzell Schöchli, who was pressed by a government delegation made up of the deputy land mayor and militia captain to invite a group of charismatic missionary fathers in May 1773. Indeed, the same autumn, a stage, benches and a large wooden cross were set up for an open-air event held outside St Marcellus which drew a vast crowd.32 This suggests enduring enthusiasm for spiritual edification, as does the fact that – according to a travel report from the 1790s – the ears of visitors “were assailed by a tumultuous noise, which proceeded from the tuneful throats of a multitude assembled in the church …, celebrating the praises of Saints Zeno and Bridget”.33 Justification by merit, through good works like mass attendance and mutual intercession, remained at the heart of popular piety even at the time when it had become unfashionable elsewhere: the tower ball chronicle of 1752, for example, still implored succeeding generations “to remember our poor souls in their prayers and ask dear God to release us …, 31  The new initiative attracted forty donations: BAG, PF: Sammlung der Pfrundbriefe, 128; Nigg, “Pfarrherren” (note 28), 110. In 1504, a Roman cardinal had granted the parish a previous indulgence of fifty days’ remission for all its benefactors: BAG, Urkunden, no. 16. Invitations to external preachers, transported and entertained at communal expense, are also documented on church dedication days, e.g. in the accounting period 1729–30: LS 1: Landseckelbuch, f. 24r. 32  Nigg, “Pfarrherren” (note 28), 110–11. In 1752, when updating the parish’s tower ball chronicle, Tanner seized the opportunity to emphasize his achievements over the previous two decades, highlighting that he prompted the extension of the church, flood prevention measures and “many other things for the benefit of the dear fatherland”, no doubt alluding to his moral crusade as well: Wiget, ed., “Turmkugel-Dokumente” (note 26), no. 4. 33  Helen Maria Williams, A tour in Switzerland; or A view of the present state of the governments and manners of those cantons (Dublin: P. Wogan, 1798), vol. 1, 94–5.

132

Chapter 5

should they still remain in Purgatory, while – in return for this good deed – we would make pleas before high God to let all inhabitants at the time proceed unimpeded to eternal joy and salvation after this mortal life”.34 A further indicator is the number of locals who dedicated their lives to the Church. A list of 1774 contains thirteen names, nearly all relatives of secular office-holders (including three sons of land mayor Johann Georg Küttel), representing a ratio of around one person per 100 villagers in holy orders. Apart from five secular clergymen – parson Johann Marzell Schöchli, assistant Johann Balthasar Camenzind and vicar Marzell Alois Nigg, all serving the parish; Andreas Küttel, chaplain at Peterzell; and Andreas Camenzind, studying in France at the time – there were four Benedictines – Beat and Meinrad Küttel, dean and theology professor at Einsiedeln; Gabriel Küttel at St Gall; and Leonzi Küttel, a novice at Muri – two Capuchin friars – Primus Camenzind at Baden and Marzell Bagenstoß at Lucerne – and two Benedictine nuns – sisters Wallburga and Mainrada, daughters of churchwarden Antoni Küttel, both based at Einsiedeln.35 Among these, Beat Küttel was approaching the pinnacle of a glittering career establishing him as the most distinguished son of the micro-republic. Born to parents Johann Georg (the later land mayor) and Maria Magdalena Camenzind, he was baptized Marzell in 1733 and took his profession (and new name) at Einsiedeln – one of the most prestigious imperial abbeys and Switzerland’s principal pilgrimage site – at the age of eighteen. Following duties associated with the monastic school and administration, he became dean of chapter and, in 1780, head of house. From that point until his death in 1808, Beat served as the last Prince Abbot of Einsiedeln, guiding the monastery through turbulent revolutionary times which threatened its very existence.36 Back at Gersau, early modern Catholicism came to pervade the entire landscape.37 Following heavy flooding in 1640, the villagers established an an34  Wiget, ed., “Turmkugel-Dokumente” (note 26), no. 4. According to Johann Konrad Füssli, confession had a stronger disciplinarian effect here than any threat of secular punishment: Staats- und Erdbeschreibung der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft (Schaffhausen: Benedikt Hurter, 1770), vol. 1, 387; indeed, during his interrogation in 1756, even a serial thief like Johann Galli Zimmermann remembered his attendance at mass and participation in sacraments very precisely: BAG, Gerichtsakten, no. 11. 35   B AG, UKP (note 11), 319–21; cf. Wiget, ed., “Turmkugel-Dokumente” (note 26), no. 5. 36  Biographical details taken from Klosterarchiv Einsiedeln, “Abtbuch,” no.  47, http:// www.klosterarchiv.ch/e-archiv_personen_detail.php?id=1537. His portrait painting from Gersau’s village hall is reproduced in Müller, Gersau (note 12), fig. 14. 37  For the state of research, with particular sensitivity to local contexts and the crossover between secular/spiritual elements, see Mark Forster, Catholic Revival in the Age of the Baroque: Religious Identity in Southwest Germany 1550–1750 (Cambridge: University Press,

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

133

nual procession to the St Anne image at nearby Steinerberg, with the communal assembly clarifying in 1693 that “one adult member of each household” should take part.38 Alongside, confraternities catered for specific devotions (like rosary prayers) or sub-groups such as the riflemen (venerating St  Sebastian, martyred by arrows) and master craftsmen (St Anne’s guild, dedicated to the provision of good Christian funerals). Most notably, after a cattle disease had ravaged the area in the late sixteenth century, herds- and dairymen set up the Sennenbruderschaft. In 1683, councilor and churchwarden Marzell Müller then provided members with their own St Joseph’s chapel on the Käppeliberg some way up the Rigi mountain (Figure 21a). The sizeable stone building received official permission to hold masses a few years later and soon prompted anniversary foundations, but also periodic disputes about maintenance duties. It still plays a central role in the brotherhood’s annual feast on St Jacob’s day (25 July), with attendance boosted by a papal indulgence of 1777.39 Another place of worship, in contrast, owes its existence to a heinous crime. According to folk tradition, the Mary Helper chapel was erected in 1570 on the very spot – along the waterfront near the boundary with Schwyz – where a father had killed his own child in a drunken stupor. It became a pilgrimage site, complete with its own guardian, administration and ecclesiastical calendar and was enlarged in 1708 (Figure 21b). In 1661, furthermore, a small wayside oratory was set up on Büöl, about half-way between the village and the old gallows site on the lakeshore, offering those about to be executed with a last chance to pray and repent.40

2001); Peter Hersche, Musse und Verschwendung: Europäische Gesellschaft und Kultur im Barockzeitalter, 2 vols (Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 2006); and Simon Ditchfield, “Catholic Reformation and Renewal,” in: The Oxford Illustrated History of the Reformation, ed. Peter Marshall (Oxford: University Press, 2015), 152–85. 38  Nigg, “Pfarrherren” (note 28), 109; BAG, UKP (note 11), 601v. 39  Albert Müller, “Zur Geschichte der Sennenbruderschaft und Sennengesellschaft Gersau,” in: 400 Jahre Sennenbruderschaft, Sennengesellschaft Gersau, ed. Robert Nigg (Gersau: Sennenbruderschaft, 1993), 5–44, and idem, Gersau (note 12), 69–71. In 1753–54, Marzell Camenzind, who had inherited the chapel, triggered a nasty row by taking his plea for maintenance contributions to the papal nuntio. Incensed by this attempt to exert external pressure (and insults hurled at the priest), the council passed an ordinance reaffirming that – in line with the founder’s wishes – Camenzind had to bear all costs himself: BAG, PF (note 31), 65–8. 40  The earliest record for the Kindli foundation story in Johann Leopold Cysat, Beschreibung deß Beru(e)hmbten Lucerner= oder 4. Waldsta(e)tten Sees (Lucerne: David Hautten, 1661), 235–6; late eighteenth-century chapel accounts yielded by a separate warden document the holding of masses, the receipt of collections (esp. on the dedication day), substantial capital assets of 848 f. and annual interest of over 30 f.: BAG, Kirchenbücher, Rechnung

134

FIGURES 21A–B

Chapter 5

Left: St Joseph’s chapel erected far above Gersau in 1683 to serve the herdsmen fraternity. Right: depiction of the Kindlimord, showing a boatman throwing a child unto a rock, a shocking deed which the foundation of the Mary Helper chapel in 1570 strove to atone for (cf. Figure 16): Johann Leopold Cysat, Beschreibung deß Beru(e)hmbten Lucerner= oder 4. Waldsta(e)tten Sees (Lucerne: David Hautten, 1661), illustration “q” between pp. 110–11.

Rural spirituality, particularly before the Reformation, used to be seen as essentially pagan and at best superficially touched by Christianity.41 This is not the picture conveyed by the preceding survey, which shows long-standing and persistent engagement with the official Churches in all villages. So was there no unorthodox or nonconformist behavior? As we know from the work of Bob Scribner, the borderlines between acceptable and unacceptable practices cannot always be clearly drawn in the pre-modern period; there was a “grey area between theological and popular notions of the holy”, for example with regard to sacramentals such as holy water or blessed candles (used for apotropaic purposes in fields and homes) and the power attributed to relics in Catholic communities.42 At Gersau, the vestments of St Marcellus – pope, martyr and

Buch für das Kapelgestift beÿ Mariahilf, 1791–98. The two lakeside chapels are pictured in Müller, Gersau (note 12), fig. 17–18. 41  The classic example is Jean Delumeau, Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire: A New View of the Counter-Reformation (London: Burns & Oates, 1977). More nuanced and congenial approaches to religious life in the countryside can now be found in e.g. C. Scott Dixon, The Reformation of Rural Society: The Parishes of Brandenburg-Ansbach-Kulmbach 1528–1603 (Cambridge: University Press, 1996); and David Mayes, Communal Christianity: The Life and Loss of a Peasant Vision in Early Modern Germany (Boston: Brill, 2004). 42  “Perceptions of the sacred in Germany at the end of the Middle Ages,” in: idem, Religion and Culture in Germany (1400–1800) (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 85–103, esp. 92.

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

135

patron saint – were believed to have healing powers, although not just by “ignorant” laymen but also parson Melchior Vogel and papal legate Oktovianius, who granted the parish a formal endorsement in 1588. Its fragment of the Holy Cross, exactly the sort of object which had raised eyebrows among reformists for centuries, still took pride of place among a set of relics officially confirmed as genuine by the Church in 1770. According to local folklore, on the other hand, the herdsmen fraternity owed its origin less to pious impulse than fear of the devil (who had reportedly been spotted in the area at the time of the cattle disease), while – apart from catering for criminals on their way to the gallows – the Büöl oratory also served locals seeking very practical help from St Apollonia (hence the nickname “toothache chapel”).43 No cases of heresy have as yet come to light in the case studies, but there is a sprinkling of evidence for disrespect towards God on the one hand and magical worldviews on the other. At Sulzbach in 1701, Agnes Petermann got into trouble for blasphemy, being first imprisoned in the village hall and then exiled, suggesting a pretty serious case, while – most embarrassingly for Gersau’s parson Johann Marzell Schöchli – his brother refused to take Easter communion in 1773.44 Over at Soden in the early 1700s, carpenter Reiff kept a record of not only constitutional documents, pastoral advice and professional information, but also healing recipes and “superstitious” charms, while a sexual offender interrogated at Gersau in the middle of the eighteenth century blamed his deeds on the agency of an “evil spirit”.45 Finally, as we have seen in Chapter 2, five Sennfeld women were associated with and eventually executed for witchcraft in the early seventeenth century, joining the tens of thousands of victims of the early modern hunt for those allegedly in league with the devil. Moving to the second part of the argument, how was religious life governed and negotiated in imperial villages? Interactions with clergy and church authorities added further dimensions to regimes which, as we have seen above, were already complex enough. In fact, in places like Gersau and Dithmarschen, parish organization preceded and enabled collective agency in worldly matters, providing neighbors with a collective infrastructure and independent 43   B AG, Urkunden, no. 27, and Nigg, “Pfarrherren” (note 28), 109 (1588); StAS, Archiv  1, Akten 1, 582.019, Nr. 179 (1770); Hans Steinegger, Schwyzer Sagen aus den Bezirken Gersau und Küssnacht (Schwyz: Riedter, 1983), 62 (herdsmen, toothache). 44   I SF, Criminalia 2.285 (according to her daughter-in-law, Agnes had used invectives like “dogsc**t”); cf. Figure 8a, MR, appendix p. 139, and Michael Geisler, Leben und Tod der Anna Katharina Duß: Die Geschichte einer Dienstmagd aus Soden (Wiesbaden: Waldemar Kramer, 2015), 9–10. BAG, RB 2: Das 2. Ratserkanntnusbuch (1771–74), 130 (Melchior Schöchli). 45  Kromer, Bad Soden (note 7), vol. 1, 268; BAG, UKP (note 11), f. 560.

136

Chapter 5

resources which could be mobilized for political emancipation.46 Throughout the long period examined here, imperial, princely, ecclesiastical, communal, group and individual agents all played important parts in local religion. The balance of power constantly evolved, but – overall and in spite of frequent challenges – imperial villages gained and preserved extensive control over their church affairs. Much, of course, resembled the structures and customs found elsewhere. In return for sacraments and pastoral care, congregations shouldered financial obligations – most notably the payment of tithes – towards the clergy, although these funds were sometimes administered or even acquired by lay impropriators. The collectors acting for the Freiherren von Erthal, tithe lords at Gochsheim, sparked many controversies about the extent and timing of the villagers’ dues.47 In incorporated parishes, particularly high proportions of resources were syphoned off by external institutions. Otherwise, churches had to be erected, maintained and furnished; administrative records were kept; clergymen required livelihoods; services needed to be held; and sacred buildings equipped for multiple uses.48 In the case studies, surviving registers of births, marriages and burials in the parish archives date from the seventeenth century, although they must have been kept before. At Sulzbach and Soden, for example, researchers find meticulous lists of confirmations (a prerequisite for first communions) from 1670, at times with children from the two villages and genders neatly separated into different columns.49 Alongside secular officials, a number of wardens acted on behalf of their congregations. At Sulzbach in 46   Beat Kümin, “Kirchgenossen an der Macht: Vormoderne politische Kultur in den ‘Pfarreirepubliken’ von Gersau und Dithmarschen,” in: Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 41 (2/2014): 187–230. Gersau’s early political agency rested on the parish, since “living in scattered manner on a mountain side, the church was their only place for assembly”: Johannes von Müller, Der Geschichten schweizerischer Eidgenossenschaft Anderes Buch, part 2 (Leipzig: M. G. Weidmann, 1786), 257 n. 1. 47  On the use of confiscation in the eighteenth century see various entries in GAG, GOAK21007-LI/36-: Johannes Ludwig, Collectanea sive Manuale, section “Chronik”; at Sennfeld in 1637, half of the respective rights were sold by Johann Philipp von Hutten to the Bishopric of Würzburg: StAW, Archivalien-Sammlung des Historischen Vereins Unterfranken, f. 416; a tithe barn is documented at Sulzbach in 1718: HHStAW, Abt. 4/338. 48  At Nieder-Ingelheim in 948, the parish church of SS Remigius and Kilian even hosted an imperial synod, presided over by Otto  I: “Synode in Ingelheim,” http://www.geschichts quellen.de/repOpus_01382.html. In 1624, Sulzbach parson Johann Metzger alerted Frankfurt to delays in payments from his flock: ISF, Ratssupplikationen, 1.624, vol. 1. 49  Sulzbach, Archiv der evangelischen Kirchengemeinde, Kirchenbücher (1670–); Achim Reis, “Konfirmation im Wandel der Zeit,” in: Kirche Bad Soden (note 5), 155–79. For Gersau see e.g. PAG, Pfarreibuch no. 3: Taufbuch 1627–1807, Ehebuch 1627–1807, Firmbuch 1693– 1807, Sterbebuch 1733–1807.

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

137

1699–1700, the main parish accounts – “heard and approved” at Neuenhain in July 1701 by the Amtskeller of Mainz together with parson Johannes Schott and senior avoyer Sartorius – recorded expenses totaling 60 f., a surplus of 34 f. and an overall balance of 61 f. Separate reckonings exist for the dependent chapel of Soden. Apart from contributions towards the new nave (built, as noted above, in 1715–16), they document e.g. payments towards minister Schott’s salary as well as expenses for communion (involving the purchase of wine and wafers), building materials, the hiring of craftsmen/laborers, clock maintenance and administrative business.50 A particularly wide range of parish posts had to be filled at Gersau. According to evidence from various points in the eighteenth century, separate wardens held assets of 3,035  f. for the fabric, 2,118  f. for the assistant priest, 1,378 f. for soul masses, 1,629 f. for the poor, 1,075 for the parish benefice (annually replenished by, among other items, tithe revenues of 136 f.) and 791 f. for the Mary Helper chapel, all alongside the “secular” treasury chest which – as we have seen in Chapter 3 – contained 3,418 f. in 1771. This suggests that, in a typical year, the land’s collective assets exceeded 13,000 f., an amount representing nearly a quarter of the 60,000 f. needed to entirely rebuild the parish church after 1800 (cf. Figure 31).51 Here as elsewhere, surplus liquidity benefitted neighbors and the local economy in the form of credit. At Gochsheim, the endowment of the medieval morrow mass survived the Reformation. When its 1558 accounts, rendered before junior bailiff Hermann Hartlaub and parson Johann Meder, showed a cash balance of over 63 f., village mayor Oswald Lutz borrowed 20 f. at the customary interest rate of 5 % p.a. Two identical records of the transaction were noted on a Kerbzettel, one half intended for the representative of the empire, the other for the incoming Frühmesse wardens Johann Berninger and Leonhard Doeb.52

50  HHStAW, Abt. 4/1038 (Sulzbach, 1699); for Soden, see the partial edition and transcription of transactions from 1715–19 in Geisler, ed., “Kirchenrechnungen” (note 13). 51   PAG, Kirchenvogtrechnungsbuch, 124 (fabric account, starting 1734), and BAG, Kirchenbücher; the latter include Pfarrhelferpfrund Abrechnungen (for the assistant priest, 1797), a “Rächnung Büöchlin” of the soul wardens (1781), “Pfrundvogtrechnungen” (benefice, 1743), the Zentenbuch “A” (tithe, 1767), Zentenbuch “C” (poor relief, 1769) and the Rechnung Buch für das Kapelgestift beÿ Mariahilf (chapel, 1775). 52  StAW, Reichsstadt Schweinfurt, Urkunden 27 March 1558, http://monasterium.net/mom/ DE-StAW/SchweinfurtReichsstadt/1558_M%C3%A4rz_27/charter. On the widespread granting of parish loans see Enno Bünz, “Kredit bei den Heiligen: Die Dorfkirche als Geldinstitut in Spätmittelalter und Frühneuzeit,” in: Zins und Gült: Strukturen des ländlichen Kreditwesens in Spätmittelalter und Frühneuzeit, eds. K. Andermann and G. Fouquet (Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2016), 41–67.

138

Chapter 5

Gersau’s control over benefice – as opposed to “just” fabric – funds as well as the absence of any routine monitoring by external authorities was unusual, illustrating the fact that – just as in the political sphere – the village enjoyed the greatest degree of autonomy within the sample. This was aided by the marginalization of Church power and growing lay influence in the Forest Cantons region more generally. Spiritual courts lost most of their jurisdiction over the course of the late Middle Ages (just like in Dithmarschen), while a high proportion of clerical benefices obtained communal patrons.53 Yet similar kinds of “micro state churches” emerged in other imperial villages, albeit under the watchful eyes – and at times outright opposition – of their bailiffs, particularly those of another confessional orientation (i.e. the Catholic Bishop of Würzburg and Elector of Mainz with regard to the Lutheran communes of Gochsheim/Sennfeld and Sulzbach/Soden respectively). As immediate entities of the Empire, the evangelical case studies benefitted from the official recognition of Lutheranism in the Peace of Augsburg (1555), the cuius regio, eius religio principle established at the same time and the guarantee of church orders as practiced in the “normal year” of 1624 by the Westphalian Treaty (1648).54 Post-Reformation Gochsheim built and maintained its own church and school, supervised all associated personnel (inclusive of visitations) and operated a separate consistory (consisting of the imperial avoyer, parson and a legal advisor), except for marriage matters (which went to Würzburg).55 Ecclesiastical ordinances and sentences for spiritual offences – ranging from small wax fines to major shaming penalties – could thus be passed locally, sometimes with the participation of secular bodies. In 1603, for example, Michael Schwartz had to 53  Carl Pfaff, “Pfarrei und Pfarreileben: Ein Beitrag zur spätmittelalterlichen Kirchengeschichte,” in Innerschweiz und frühe Eidgenossenschaft, ed. Historischer Verein der V Orte (Olten: Walter, 1990), vol. 1, 203–81; at Gersau, ecclesiastical jurisdiction became restricted to complex marriage litigation like the divorce case Camenzind-Rigert heard in Constance in 1734: EAF, HA 152: Liber Sententiarum (1712–35), 587. In Dithmarschen, the erosion of Church influence culminated in the unilateral disempowerment of the cathedral provost of Hamburg in 1523: Jörg Mißfeldt, “Die Republik Dithmarschen,” in: Geschichte Dithmarschens, ed. Verein für Dithmarscher Landeskunde (Heide: Boyens & Co., 2000), 121–66, esp. 145. 54  Immediately relevant since, as evident from Appendix 2, bailiffs attempted to impose Catholic incumbents on both Gochsheim (in the 1590s) and Sulzbach (during the latter stages of the Thirty Years War). 55  Simon Friedrich Segnitz, Staatsrecht, Geschichte und Statistik der beyden Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld (Schweinfurt: Heinrich Wilhelm Volkhart, 1802), 92, 97; cf. Jubilaeum (note  19), 259–60 (visitations); Günther Franz, Geschichte des deutschen Bauernstandes vom frühen Mittelalter bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer, 1970), 78; Georg Ludwig von Maurer, Geschichte der Dorfverfassung in Deutschland (reprint Aalen: Scientia, 1961), 381.

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

139

stand in front of the congregation half-naked, holding a candle and rod, during church services on three consecutive Sundays (as public censure for his adulterous relationship with a prostitute); in 1720, avoyer Meder, court and commune approved revised guidelines on payments to pastors; and pastor Heunisch had to promulgate new seating regulations (placing young men on one side of the gallery, strangers and servants on the other) from the pulpit in 1745.56 At eighteenth-century Sulzbach and Soden, the Kirchenkonvent of eight men consisted of two elders and two churchwardens from each village, all chosen by the communes (who could also pass ecclesiastical ordinances). This body supported the minister in all parish business, although clergymen took the lead in moral and spiritual matters. Local control, however, did not result in lax confessional regimes or even toleration. As in the parish republic of Dithmarschen, once a decision for the new faith had been taken in the 1530s, communal institutions strove for religious unity and the forging of unambiguously Lutheran identities.57 The right of advowson, one of the most prestigious parish assets, was normally in the hands of princes, nobles, ecclesiastical institutions or town councils. Few rural communities exercised decisive influence over the appointment of incumbents, apart from pockets of weak lordship such as the Central Alps.58 Among other special cases, however, we find imperial villages. Challenging the explicit grant of the privilege by Schweinfurt to Würzburg (as part of the transfer of bailiff responsibilities in 1572), Gochsheim insisted that it had been a communal prerogative since at least 1540, i.e. the beginning of the Reformation.59 In practice, judging from the cases of Kaspar Haas 1635 and Athanasius Schrickel 1644, the process involved invitations for trial sermons issued by the avoyer and court (explicitly as “patrons”), with the villagers’ preferred candidate subsequently examined and confirmed by the ecclesiastical authorities of the (Catholic) Bishopric, ordained by a (Lutheran) clergyman from the church ministry at Schweinfurt, inducted into the benefice by the local Würzburg official of Mainberg and taken under contract by the 56   G AG, GO-AK01002-BII/2B–2-(020): Gerichtsprotokoll (4 October 1720); Ludwig, Manuale (note 47), section “Chronik”, 1603 and 1745. 57   M R, 46–7 and appendix LXXXVI; cf. Ekkehard Kaufmann. Geschichte und Verfassung der Reichsdörfer Soden und Sulzbach 1035–1806 (reprint Flörsheim a.M.: Lauck, 1981), 101; and Nis Rudolf Nissen, Kleine Geschichte Dithmarschens (3rd edn, Heide: Westholsteinische Verlagsanstalt Boyens & Co., 1988), 64. 58  Dietrich Kurze, Pfarrerwahlen im Mittelalter: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Gemeinde und des Niederkirchenwesens (Cologne: Böhlau, 1966), 435 (documents a mere 107  parishes with communal patronage in medieval Central Europe); Pfaff, “Pfarrei” (note 53), 229 (extensive rights for villages and valleys in the Central Alps). 59  Segnitz, Gochsheim und Sennfeld (note 55), 91.

140

Chapter 5

village court.60 The situation at Sennfeld was similar. In 1609, “avoyer and whole commune” repeatedly wrote to the Bishop of Würzburg, requesting that their choice, chaplain Johann Zeiß from Neustadt an der Heid, be admitted to the vacant benefice as a matter of urgency, given the coming of winter and the growing difficulty of serving the cure from Gochsheim (cf. Figure 23a below). To remove any ambiguity, they formally secured the ius vocandi in 1707.61 At Sulzbach, the Abbot of Limburg – as head of the incorporating institution – exercised patronage rights until 1558, three years before the monastery’s dissolution, when the privilege passed to the Kirchenrat at Heidelberg. Given the latter’s Calvinist orientation, confessional tensions surfaced on numerous occasions (a series of Reformed incumbents being appointed from 1575) and increased further once Mainz pushed re-Catholicization measures in the area (Spanish backing during the Thirty Years War allowing the imposition of Catholic parsons in 1626 and 1637).62 From some point in the seventeenth century, though, the commune started to choose clergymen for approval by the Palatine church authorities. Lutheran backing came from the village’s longstanding protector of Frankfurt. It played an important role in the selection process, as evident from several clergymen petitions to the council for appointment to the Sulzbach benefice in 1631 (when Johann Georg Waler obtained the post).63 The city’s consistory appears to have screened candidates from the Reformation period onwards, leading to open confrontations with Mainz, which succeeded the Palatinate in 1650 and soon accused the urban authorities of forcing pastor Hieronymus Klein to pledge obedience to them “under the pretext of a pretended juris confirmandi”. After the parties’ 1656 agreement to act as joint bailiffs, Mainz assumed full responsibility for matters relating to church and school.64 Overall, as in the secular realm, the village’s rights and influence appear more precarious than at Gochsheim, an impression confirmed 60  On the patronage claim see VG, 5, 7 (attributing post-Reformation election and church administration rights to the communes) and Jubilaeum (note 19), 260–2; cf. Weber, Gochsheim und Sennfeld (note 7), 84; on the process VG, appendices 12/18 and Ludwig, Manuale (note 47), section “Chronik”, 1644 (re parson Schrickel, who went through these stages and signed a Bestallungsbrief listing mutual obligations). By 1735, the parishes installed new parsons themselves: Segnitz, Gochsheim und Sennfeld (note 55), 96. 61  StAW, Hochstift Würzburg, Geistliche Sachen, 2308 (petition of 26 October 1609); Zeiß is documented as Sennfeld parson in 1618: Matthias Simon ed., Pfarrerbuch der Reichsstädte Dinkelsbühl, Schweinfurt, Weißenburg i.Bay. und Windsheim sowie der Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld (Nürnberg: Verein für bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1962), 56; Badel, Sennfeld (note 19), 100 (1707). 62   M R, 44; cf. Eckhardt, “Sulzbach und seine Kirche,” in: Sulzbach Kirche (note 5), 17. 63   I SF, Ratssupplikationen, 1631. 64   M R, appendix XXXI; cf. Kaufmann, Sulzbach und Soden (note 57), 101.

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

141

by chronicler Löschhorn’s account of a change of incumbent in the mid-eighteenth century: On 2 May [1747], parson Decke preached his valedictory sermon on 1st  B[ook of] Moses  … On the 14th, new minister Andreaß Rothe was installed by [Mainz’s local representative, Rentmeister] Straub and his scribe Hecken Müller. Both the courts of Sulzbach and Soden had to pledge [allegiance] to him by hand. He delivered a beautiful sermon on 1 Corinthians, verses 4–5 on [the theme of thanksgiving for God’s] blessing of all my deeds.65 No such constraints had to be negotiated at Gersau, the most emphatic case of a republican micro state church. Just like their political rights in 1390, the “land mayor and common parishioners” simply purchased the advowson as their “own property” (eigen gut) in 1483 from Hermann von Büttikon. The move may have been prompted by concern over absenteeism in the preceding decades, given frequent dispensations for non-residence documented in the investiture protocols of the Diocese of Constance between 1470–81, although the problem persisted for a while.66 Early modern records yield numerous confirmations for communal patronage. In his first year as incumbent, Johann Melchior Müller from Baar in Zug noted in the baptismal register that “he had been elected … by the whole commune on 5 February 1640”, no doubt during a specially convened general assembly held in the church; in diocesan correspondence around 1720, land mayor and burghers referred to themselves as collatores (those conferring the parish benefice); and when writing a chronicle in 1752, Jost Rudolf Tanner remembered that “a very full parish community” had chosen him “as parson and administrator of the cure of souls anno 1733, when I was 35 years of age”.67 On one occasion, when the search for a new priest dragged on for months during the summer of 1651, the Forest Cantons – assembled for a confederate diet at Baden – sent a friendly letter encouraging Gersau to intensify its recruitment efforts so as not to endanger people’s spiritual welfare, suggesting that temporary cover might be found in the meantime.68 Given explicitly unanimous decisions, the choices in 1679 and 1787 must have been more 65   G RS, Tagebuch Löschhorn (note 24), 1747. 66   B AG, Urkunden, no. 12 (1483); EAF, HA 105: Protocollum Proclamationum et Investiturarum, f. 64 (1437); HA 107, f. 35r (1470), 48r (1471) and many similar entries in later years, including 1479–81, 1488–89, 1492. 67   PAG, Pfarreibuch no. 3, f. 10v (1640); BAG, Briefe 1700–1800, no.  29 (c.  1720); Wiget, ed., “Turmkugel” (note 26), 169 (1752). 68   B AG, UKP (note 11), 292 (1651–52).

142

Chapter 5

FIGURE 22 Marzell Alois Nigg, descendant of a burgher family, served as vicar, curate and (from 1787 to 1812) as parson of Gersau. His tenure spanned the final years of the republic, French occupation, integration into the Canton of Schwyz and the rebuilding of the church: oil painting in the village hall.

straightforward, but elections could be contested. In 1678, recommendations were received for Dr Johann Jakob Schneider from Lucerne (by no lesser figure than city avoyer am Rhyn) as well as for Valentin Heinrich (by the mayor and council of the small town of Ägeri on Lake Zug), but in the end the parishioners appointed Dominik Zimmermann from Unterwalden. Reflecting the overall balance of power, therefore, clergymen depended on testimonials issued by lay authorities. In support of their compatriot, for example, Ägeri stressed that Heinrich had always “comported himself in a God-fearing, priestly and proper manner”, not only with regard to masses, sermons and religious education, but also choral music, so that “none of our burghers are happy about a [possible] departure”. Surprisingly, perhaps, given how easy it would have been to slip into nepotism, Gersau’s first parson to come from a local burgher background was Johann Caspar Camenzind, taking office as late as 1729, with representatives of the Schöchli and Nigg (Figure 22) families following later in the eighteenth century.69 69   B AG, Briefe 1500–1700, no. 35 (1678); Nigg, “Pfarrherren” (note 28), 110–11 (1679, 1729, 1787). For details on election procedures used in 1774/87 see Chapter 3 above.

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

143

Given the strength of lay influence in the Lake Lucerne region, Catholic clergymen effectively became communal employees with specific contractual obligations; a situation not at all envisaged by canon law. In pre-Reformation Zug, for example, notaries drew up agreements – known as Span- or Bestallungsbriefe – between the city council and successive parsons, committing the latter to residence, daily services, celebration of all endowed soul masses, administration of sacraments and (from 1461) an obligation to bring all legal matters before the communal rather than ecclesiastical courts. These documents have been compared to imperial capitulations; just like Charles V in 1519, albeit at grass-roots parochial level, a new office-holder assured constituents of his willingness to act in line with their customs and expectations.70 The same holds true for Gersau, where eighteenth-century Pfrundbriefe still stipulate in great detail “what Mr Parson … is obliged to do and how parishioners shall comport themselves towards him”. Apart from the payment of a weekly cash salary of 3 f. and various customary dues, reference to basic clerical duties (as at Zug) and some specific local requirements – such as regular evening performances of the Salve Regina, weekly rehearsals of church benefactors, inviting friars and guest preachers on given days – the most startling passage relates to an annual performance review: on St Andrew’s day (30 November), the incumbent shall “ask for permission to keep his benefice if he desires to hold it for longer”. All this was intended to “allow us to live in … love, peace and unity, so as to maintain the good government of our estate … [Should the parson break these rules, however,] we reserve the right to take the benefice from him.” Significantly, tithe revenues – administered by a village warden – do not even get a mention here.71 On the whole, these arrangements proved viable and congenial. Alois Nigg’s report, cited at the beginning of this chapter, and surviving benefice accounts confirm that the village’s financial commitments were met and – apart from a couple of eighteenth-century disputes to be addressed shortly – lay-clerical relations seem to have been characterized by mutual respect. When Johann Marzell Schöchli, son of land mayor Josef Franz, died in 1774 after twelve years of service, the news was met “with the utmost regret of all people in the land”.72

70  Peter Blickle, “Warum blieb die Innerschweiz katholisch?,” in: Mitteilungen des historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz 86 (1994): 29–38, esp. 33 (documents from 1426 and 1461; an early rural agreement survives for Andermatt in Uri from 1481). 71   B AG, Urkunden, no. 43 (very similar examples from 1726, 1762 and 1774). 72  Just after 1800, regular benefice expenses included e.g. the weekly 3 f. to the parson, an extra quarterly allowance of 4 f., payments for a sacristan and the drawing up of accounts: BAG, Kirchenbücher, Zentenbuch B, 1; in 1807, total income amounted to 216 f. (including

144

Chapter 5

Zooming out from the parish level, archdeacons and bishops supervised conformity with church rules through an elaborate jurisdictional apparatus and the instrument of visitations.73 Although dramatically curtailed in the Central Alps with regard to anything touching on secular or political interests, ecclesiastical involvement remained appreciated in doctrinal and spiritual matters. As we have seen, Gersau obtained indulgences and official authentications of relics. The villagers also accepted responsibility for property they administered on behalf of the church. In 1512, after word had reached Constance that some rents and lands belonging to the parish benefice might have been embezzled or sold, three diocesan representatives came to investigate the state of affairs. Reassuringly, the commune was able to account for all relevant properties and revenues (with asset returns set at a rate of four per cent and all due payments made to local priests), thus “pacifying our gracious lords with this reckoning”.74 Judging from the preserved evidence, visitations appear to have been rare and very “light touch”, usually with an emphasis on offering the sacrament of confirmation (canonically reserved to the higher clergy) and an inspection of parish priests. On 14 October 1721, for example, Gersau deputies picked up the auxiliary bishop of Constance with his entourage from the nearby port of Brunnen, had him consecrate an altar at the Mary Helper chapel on the way to the village, then provided the visitors with a meal, after which the prelate confirmed a number of children in the parish church before returning by boat to Brunnen the same evening, from where representatives of the neighboring canton escorted his party on to Schwyz.75 In August 1785, on the occasion of a subsequent contact, the diocesan officials filed reports for all parish clergy in the Schwyz area, with special emphasis on their professional and moral conduct. On the 27th, it was the turn of the three Gersau priests: parson Johann Balthasar Camenzind was found diligent in his religious activities, having all the necessary books, compiling the registers, receiving 156 f. p.a., attending only honest places and being looked after by his mother and sister; Marzell Alois Nigg, then still curate but already electus as coadjutor (i.e. intended to tithes of 137 f.), with expenditure of 199 f.: ibid., 2–3; the comment on Schöchli in BAG, UKP (note 11), 321. 73  For Sulzbach, records of the pre-Reformation Sendgericht – a local court assembly for the presentation of offences – are among the holdings of the collegiate church of St Peter at Mainz: Darmstadt, Hessisches Staatsarchiv, C1 B Nr. 68–9. 74   B AG, Urkunden, no. 19. Some shadowy exchanges occurred in 1731, when Gersau co-operated with a request made by a diocesan commissary, the parson of Ingenbohl, to hide a pregnant woman in the village, apparently to prevent illegitimacy proceedings and to protect the identity of the father: ibid., UKP (note 11), 306. 75  StAS, Archiv 1, Akten 1, 574.006, Nr. 49–51: Bistum Konstanz, Visitationsberichte (1502– 1815), no. 50.

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

145

succeed to the benefice, which he duly did two years later), came across as equally conscientious and honestissimus in character, frequenting only the guest house of his sister; while Andreas Camenzind, who suffered from health problems, lived with his brother.76 All in all, the visitor assessment tallies with the positive impression of church affairs conveyed in other evidence. On two occasions during the eighteenth century, however, clergymen were at the heart of major inner-communal tensions. The first revolved around parson Josef Anton Müller from Schwyz, who clearly resented the extent of communal regulation and control. In 1720, following repeated breeches of the benefice agreement he had consented to three years earlier, Gersau alerted diocesan commissary Johann Josef Sager who bluntly advised his superiors at Constance to dismiss the priest. The vicar general, however, hesitated to go that far too quickly, arguing that Müller had not troubled the church courts before and that a stern warning might suffice. In particular, the parson was to stay at the parsonage overnight, hear confession diligently, not to leave the parish without good reason and to show his “authorities and collators due respect”, highlighting the kind of issues at stake.77 This intervention seems to have had little effect, prompting the convening of, first, a parish assembly and, subsequently, a triple village council in January  1721. A delegation from the latter informed Müller that reappointment – at the annual review – was conditional on fulfilling all obligations, regular rosary prayers and refraining from innovations; otherwise, the matter would be referred back to Constance. Evidently, all reconciliation attempts failed, as the commune then formally asked the vicar general to deprive Müller of his cure. The chosen language is strong: signed by the “land mayor, council, common landmen and collatores”, the petition denounced “the proud recalcitrance” of their parson and his “obstinate” violation of “privileges we have enjoyed for over 300 years”. Deprived of all hope of betterment, given his disregard for mediation as well as the diocesan warning, the villagers desired to be freed from an incumbent no longer offering any “spiritual or physical benefit”, while stressing that they remained “faithful and obedient children of the Holy Catholic Church”.78 It took a further five years for the spiritual council of the diocese to take action. Having considered a report from its commissary at Ingenbohl (Schwyz), according to whom the parson 76  StAS, Archiv 1, Akten 1, 577.006, Nr. 50–2: Bistum Konstanz, Visitationen (1785); that brother was possibly Kleinlandammann Josef Maria Anton Camenzind. 77   B AG, Briefe, 1700–1800, nos 30–33, 39 (quote). 78   B AG, Briefe, 1700–1800, nos. 35, 29 (quotes); in an appendix to the latter document, Müller’s habit of leaving the parish without authorization by the land mayor (even during church dedication day celebrations) re-appears as the key complaint, perceived as a “great impoliteness” triggering sustained “murmuring” among the burghers.

146

Chapter 5

proved immune to admonitions and Gersau threatened to act unilaterally (propria authoritate), the bishop’s advisors resolved to dismiss Müller officially rather than seeing him “chased away”, a decision communicated – in somewhat more neutral language – to the commune the day after. In a final twist, the parson tried to appeal to the papal nuntio, but an immediate intervention by treasurer Johann Anton Camenzind (who secured the prelate’s support) ensured that the parish could proceed to elect a new priest, renew its benefice regulations and embark on fresh spiritual initiatives like the Soul Sunday in the autumn of 1726.79 The second flashpoint provides rare evidence for confessional tension in the micro-polity, no doubt fueled by the “enlightened” calendar reform undertaken at the time. In 1780, candle warden Balthasar Müller reported slanderous words before the decisive communal assembly: “Martin Luther and Zwingli”, he heard Justus Camenzind say, “were among the noblest clerics, yet both fell from the [true] Church, and the same could happen here, for either our parson’s teaching is false or our books instruct us wrongly.” Franz Müller faced similar charges. His Landsgemeinde claim that the clergy wished to destroy Catholic Christendom was deemed most dangerous, since it cast doubt on the integrity of Gersau’s “soul shepherds” and stirred great evil, unrest and strife in the parish. By way of punishment, the – secular village – court ordered (a) a retraction of all offensive words, (b) standing on the shaming bench, with a gagged mouth, for one hour each day over a whole week; (c) an apology to the priests, delivered on bended knees; and (d) a fine of 5 f.80 Returning to the other two pairs of case studies, relations between chapels and parish churches could prove problematic. Following an unsuccessful attempt at separation in 1527, justified – not entirely convincingly – with the argument of excessive distance,81 Soden repeatedly challenged its subordinate position in the early eighteenth century. In 1701, arguments about church seating surfaced in reports submitted to Mainz officials and, in 1719–20, parson Schott disagreed with the commune about a bell-ringer appointment. Somewhat ironically, given the villages’ rhetoric in communications with external authorities, the clergyman accused his chapel of wishing to make the church “democratic” and desiring a “free hand” on all ecclesiastical matters.82 79   E AF, HA 223: Geistlicher Rat (1725–27), 240–1 (11 July 1726); BAG, Briefe 1700–1800, no. 41 (12 July 1726); ibid., UKP (note 11), 300–1 (appeal). 80   B AG, Gerichtsakten, no. 14; ibid., LB 4: Grosses Landbuch (1762–90), 708. 81  The Abbot of Limburg, impropriator of the parish of Sulzbach, contested this claim effectively. It was a near-formulaic reason used in most separation attempts: HHStAW, Abt. 4/461. 82  HHStAW, Abt. 4/465 (1701); Kromer, Bad Soden (note 7), vol. 1, 188–91 (1719–20).

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

147

A few years later, after Soden had asked the Archbishop-Elector to permit a separate minister for their place of worship, things turned really nasty for a while. On 2  February 1726, Mainz informed Sulzbach that Peter Wirwatz (1695–1741) had been appointed as “adjunct” to Schott, a title implying a right of succession. Rejecting the reason of alleged clerical neglect – even though the incumbent, due to his advanced age, struggled to maintain the customary pattern of holding alternate morning/evening services in the two villages each Sunday – the parish perceived the move as a violation of its right of advowson.83 Given the complex constitutional constellation and Sulzbach’s unrelated desire to have its new church (cf. Figure 18b) consecrated, the dispute soon widened and escalated. Apart from “running counter to our imperial privileges and custom”, the appointment was also unacceptable on the grounds that Wirwatz lacked the moral and religious prerequisites “to entrust him with the souls … so dearly redeemed through Christ’s blood”.84 The archdiocese refused to budge and disrupted the consecration, no doubt to up the pressure. On Sunday 1  September 1726, in the presence of Dr  Georg Pritius (head of Frankfurt’s evangelical ministry) and many visitors, “the Landreiter [a Mainz enforcement official] burst into the church by force … during the music, wearing boots, sword, spurs and a whip, scandalously placing himself in the parson’s seat” to declare that this service had not been properly approved. On top of much embarrassment, regret and “many 1000 hot tears”, this caused financial damage, as the congregation’s offerings towards the church-building costs could not be collected. After several unsuccessful attempts to re-schedule, the parish complained of “how badly … the evangelical religion was being treated by those who do not support it”. In return, Sulzbach refused Wirwatz entry into the parish church, prompting a Mainz commission to enter the village with armed escorts on 17 October. When instructed to summon an assembly by the ringing of bells, Sulzbach mayor Rebenstöcker claimed that he had no key to open the building. Two mounted soldiers then marshalled the neighbors under the linden tree outside the church. From there, they were called into the village hall, shown a sealed letter by the Elector and asked whether they would finally accept the new adjunct. However, the “whole commune” replied that they already had a minister and could not sanction an appointment so 83  The episode is covered in Kromer, Bad Soden (note 7), vol. 1, 272, and Kaufmann, Sulzbach und Soden (note 57), 44. 84  These and the following quotes taken from MR, appendix XLIII, 95–106. Wir(r)watz had been refused an attestation of his good name by the Frankfurt church authorities, as required by the city’s joint bailiff agreement with Mainz of 1656. To substantiate its expectations of a Lutheran minister, the commune cited scriptural evidence from “Paulo I. Tim. 3”: ibid., 95.

148

Chapter 5

blatantly against their rights. Next, Mainz ordered a full occupation of the village, placing 100 men in sixteen different houses, prompting their holders to flee among much “pitiable wailing by women and children”. Unsurprisingly, the soldiers ate and drank excessively while brandishing their weapons, causing over seventy members of the Petermann, Anthes, Mappes, Rebenstöcker and other families neatly recorded expenses of 451 f. in confiscated crops and 375 f. in catering bills. One lieutenant, furthermore, insulted Bartholomäus Mappes’ wife as “a Lutheran dog and pighead”. On Sunday 20 October, after a locksmith had forced open the doors, Wirwatz eventually entered the church under the noisy disapproval of female parishioners. Unfazed, he told them to “lick my backside” and, always according to Moser’s 1753 treatise, gave a short, confused sermon. The affair drove a wedge between the two imperial villages. Looking back, Sulzbach chronicler Löschhorn referred to Soden’s initiative as a “rebellion” leading to a military occupation of his commune, a 500 f. fine for disobedience and a demand to re-pledge allegiance to Mainz. Thankfully, from his perspective, Wirwatz then forfeited any chance of acceptance by impregnating “his old whore with another whorish child”.85 Yet the campaign for an adjunct continued “with force”, causing the elderly parson Schott much chagrin. When attempting to deliver one of his fortnightly sermons at Soden, he met with a locked chapel door and the demand that his visits should be weekly. The following year, Soden secured the services of Frankfurt student Maximilian Decke who preached every Sunday lunchtime, settled in the locality, married Schott’s daughter and eventually succeeded to the Sulzbach benefice in 1733.86 A challenge of a fundamentally different kind was the presence of a Catholic “fifth column” in Sulzbach’s midst. From at least 1662, the hospital order of St Anthony maintained a presence in the village. Linked to the monastery at nearby Roßdorf-Höchst, the Antoniterhof (leased to a local peasant and vintner) contained an oratory for the use of Catholic monks and priests. It was from this base that “Kanonicus Koch” approached Anna Katharina Duß during the notorious infanticide trial in 1754, attempting to secure her conversion to the old faith in return for a pardon by joint bailiff Mainz. Two years later, 85   G RS, Tagebuch Löschhorn (note 24), in an entry for 1739; similarly, having presented the evidence, Moser was sure that any “neutrals” would realize the adjunct’s fundamental unsuitability for the job (MR, ibid., 100). On the other hand, Wirwatz later served many years as parson of Pommersfelden in Upper Franconia: Evangelische Kirchengemeinde, ed., Kirche Bad Soden (note 5), 22. 86   G RS, Tagebuch Löschhorn (note 24), 1739; cf. Evangelische Kirchengemeinde, ed., Sulzbach Kirche (note 5), 49–50, and Evangelische Kirchengemeinde, ed., Kirche Bad Soden (note 5), 22.

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

149

following disputes about the extent of communal levies on the property, the village sued the order in the imperial cameral court.87 Mirroring the situation at Sulzbach, confessional friction with a Catholic bailiff complicated Gochsheim’s relationship with Würzburg – delicate enough given the political circumstances.88 Two prominent confrontations shall round off this survey of church affairs. In 1592, following the death of Christoph Heinrich von Erthal, the Bishopric’s regional representative at Castle Mainberg, arrangements were made for his funeral at St  Michael, Gochsheim, where the family – as tithe lords of the parish – held rights of ­burial.89 Avoyer Jonas Merz approved these plans on condition that the service be conducted by the regular Lutheran parson without any Catholic rituals. When the cortège approached the church, however, it was headed by several priests of the District of Mainberg, which startled local observers along the ceremonial route. Some of the visitors were forcibly stopped from entering the building and a noble lady, Esther von Gebsattel, suffered a blow with a pitchfork. Upon hearing about the disturbances, Prince Bishop Julius Echter, a leading Counter-Reformation protagonist, had the ringleaders arrested; one – juror Hans Merz – rather dramatically on Würzburg’s market square. Furthermore, as Gochsheim’s parson, he replaced communal appointee Balthasar Zimmerer with Pankraz Spitznagel, another Lutheran (with a lesser reputation), while commissioning Catholic priest Valentin Flurschütz to celebrate masses at St Michael’s alongside. On occasion, apparently, the two clergymen attempted

87  HHStAW, Abt. 1/1923 (Reichskammergericht case); reference to an oratory in ibid., Abt.  35/227 (1778). On the conversion attempt cf. Geisler, Soden (note 44), 64, and Chapter 4 above. For the multiple disruptions, outside interferences and legal proceedings caused by religious divisions in the imperial village of Althausen during the early eighteenth century see Anton Faber, Europäische Staats-Cantzley, vol. 58 (Nürnberg: Weber, 1731), 217–19. 88  Tensions stretched back to the Middle Ages: after Würzburg cathedral officials had initiated proceedings against Schweinfurt and Gochsheim for violating property rights of the Abbey of Ebrach, officials of the imperial free city as well as the village’s avoyer and jurors were excommunicated: StAW, Zisterzienser Ebrach, Urkunden, 3 December 1456. From the 1520s, of course, many bishops struggled to retain traditional rights in newly reformed areas; for the example of Toggenburg see Erich Bryner, “The Reformation in St. Gallen and Appenzell,” in: A Companion to the Swiss Reformation, ed. Amy Nelson Burnett and Emidio Campi (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 238–63, esp. 251–3. 89  Extensive information about the ecclesiastical situation at Gochsheim and Sennfeld, compiled – from the villages’ perspective – for an Imperial Cameral Court case in 1716, can be found in VG. For the 1592 events see also Weber, Gochsheim und Sennfeld (note 7), 97, and Leo Jäger, “Bischof Julius Echter und das Reichsdorf Gochsheim,” https://www .schweinfurtfuehrer.de/stadtrandgemeinden/gochsheim/.

150

Chapter 5

to conduct services at the same time!90 Resorting to tactics honed in secular matters, the commune secured a Reichskammergericht mandate ordering the Bishop to respect the religious peace, refrain from claiming jurisdiction over an evangelical parish and reinstate Zimmerer to his post. Issued in the name of Rudolph II, the document reflects Gochsheim’s position of immediate constitutional status and a communal right to appoint its Lutheran ministers (stretching back to before the imperial recognition of Protestantism in the 1552 Treaty of Passau). It also provides further details such as the bolting of church doors to prevent Flurschütz from entering and their forced re-opening by 200 Würzburg troops dispatched to the village. As often, however, a mandate alone failed to resolve such an entrenched conflict, neither did subsequent court proceedings.91 For several decades, the diocese ordered more reprisals, including the relocation of its Centrichter, who presided over the area’s high court at Karlsberg, into the house formerly inhabited by the morrow mass priests in 1600. Towards the end of the Thirty Years War, it even secured temporary lordship over the commune.92 Clerical appointments resurfaced as key bones of contention once the village had regained immediate status in 1649. To guide us through the thicket of arguments, we can draw on “true and genuine facts” collated by Gochsheim’s advocate Dr Johann Heinrich Heunisch in a 1716 pamphlet published as part of a flurry of memorials, complaints and ripostes associated with lengthy cameral court proceedings. Like Moser’s Reichsfreyheit treatise for Sulzbach and Soden, the text substantiates the communal point of view with reference to plentiful source materials. It reaches far back into the past, but for present purposes we can start in 1673, when Würzburg issued Athanasius Schrickel – whom Gochsheim had chosen as its new pastor – with a letter of confirmation portraying the prince-bishop as his territorial lord and diocesan ordinary. Needless to say, the parishioners objected to both. Following a period of consultations, and similar problems upon the appointment of Schrickel’s son as his successor, they teamed up with Sennfeld to petition the Reichskammergericht for 90   VG, 7 (“zu gleicher Zeit in einer Kirchen diversa Religionis exercitia getrieben”). 91   VG, appendix 4 (mandate dated 18 May 1593); a similar 1594 document called for the reinstatement of the schoolmaster who had also been replaced: ibid., appendix 5. According to Jäger, “Gochsheim” (note 89), Bishop Echter referred to the villagers’ pledge to form a court syndicate as their “Rütlischwur”, explicitly linking this communal action to the (mythical) foundation of the Swiss Confederation. Further tensions led to numerous proceedings in regional and imperial courts. 92  Walfried Hein, Reichsschultheiß und ein Ehrbares Gericht (Gochsheim: Gemeinde, 1994), 14 (1600); Gottlieb August Jenichen, Abhandlung von denen Reichs-Dörffern und Reichsfreyen Leuten (1768), 22 (territorial lordship 1637–49).

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

151

protection against ecclesiastical encroachments in 1714. Specifically, invoking relevant elements of the imperial constitution such as the Peace of Westphalia, the villages objected to the bishop’s promotion of Catholicism and pretended rights of presentation/jurisdiction.93 At the next vacancy a few months later, Gochsheim’s avoyer and court “elected” Magister Johann Elias Thaut, a move promptly contested by a Würzburg councilor who claimed the right for the cathedral chapter.94 Following clashes over baptismal doctrine, Thaut was refused diocesan confirmation, yet the parish installed him in the parsonage anyway. Possibly in a case of divide et impera, the bishop then appointed Sennfeld’s pastor Georg Caspar Buchenröder as interim incumbent, a move Gochsheim refused as unprecedented and unacceptable, given the alleged “hatred” against him in the community. A cameral mandate of March 1715, ordering the prelate to respect the religious peace and refrain from exercising jurisdiction, strengthened the village’s resolve. Opening a new front, however, Würzburg encouraged the Catholic priest from neighboring Grettstadt to administer sacraments at the Erthal castle, a bold provocation considering that “since the adoption of the Augsburg Confession in 1540 … no other than this religion had been exercised” in both Gochsheim and Sennfeld (evidently abstracting from the Flurschütz episode).95 In the middle of the village, under the protection of thirty-seven soldiers deployed to enforce Würzburg’s will, he proceeded to baptize a child of the tithe lord family in early January 1716, causing an angry crowd to assemble outside. Lieutenant Schram ordered the mounting of bayonets and struck a young man himself. Among other protesters, court juror Johann Aegidius Krug suffered injuries requiring medical care.96 Next, brandishing an episcopal order, Schram sought to drive minister Thaut from the parsonage (Figure 23b). Finding the gates locked, he made unsuccessful attempts to force entry, but returned with no fewer than 150 men on 15 January. Challenged by the imperial avoyer, jurors and a notary to respect the imperial mandate, he angrily dismissed them by exclaiming: “What do you people want/are you still refusing to surrender/it won’t make any difference.” Although a Lutheran serving in the sister village, Buchenröder remained unacceptable to the parishioners “since he had no calling” from them.97 Eventually, the soldiers broke into the parsonage and removed all of Thaut’s belongings, forcing him to seek shelter in the school, while Würzburg advised the city council of Schweinfurt 93  Unless otherwise indicated, this account follows VG, here §14–16. 94   VG, §17–18. 95   VG, §19–22 (Buchenröder), 29 (quote) and appendix 20 (1715 mandate). 96   VG, §30–1. 97   VG, §33 (quote Schram), and 36 (village resistance).

152

FIGURES 23A–B

Chapter 5

Ecclesiastical relations between Lutheran villages and Catholic bailiffs were multifaceted and often tense. Left: “Avoyer and whole commune” at Sennfeld petitioned Prince-Bishop Julius Echter for confirmation of Johann Zeiß, whom they had chosen as their new incumbent, in 1609: StAW, Hochstift Würzburg, Geistliche Sachen, no. 2308. Right: Gochsheim’s parsonage, dating from 1711, saw violent altercations when Würzburg troops removed pastor Johann Elias Thaut from the premises on episcopal orders in 1716.

that both pamphlet author Dr  Heunisch, Gochsheim’s advocate, and village scribe Johann Valentin Fuchs would be charged with inciting the two “imperial communes” to rebellion, prompting the latter to launch fresh proceedings in the Reichskammergericht.98 In the meantime, pressure on the locality was maintained by the imposition of a large fine for disobedience and usurpation of ecclesiastical rights, a continued military presence, violent intimidation – through treating “neighbors most abjectly … and committing gruesome deeds of a nature even the oldest people of Gochsheim had never experienced during the thirty years of war” – and deportation of three court officials, including the imperial avoyer, to imprisonment at Mainberg.99 Heunisch concludes Vera et genuina facti with a review and refutation of Würzburg documents submitted to Wetzlar, in turn imploring the court to pass a final verdict and prevent further abuses. In due course, two cameral sentences supporting the villagers arrived, one dated 14 May 1717 reinforcing the previous order prohibiting the bishop from exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction; the other of 28  March 1718 demanding the issuing of a letter of confirmation for parson Thaut, without any reference being made to diocesan or consistorial rights belonging to Würzburg.100 The 98   VG, §39–40; this course of events, including the use of the school as a refuge, are corroborated by entries in Ludwig, Manuale (note 47), section “Chronicle”, 1718. 99   VG, §42 (quote), 43 and 50. 100  These documents and their limited impact are discussed in Segnitz, Gochsheim und Sennfeld (note 55), 91–8.

Religious Life: Heaven and Earth

153

diocese now conceded, at least on this specific point, and the pastor resumed his ministry, to the great relief of chronicler Ludwig who noted that “the Zion of Gochsheim, which had been without minister, baptism, communion and public services for nearly 2 ½ years … was glad to have his help again”. Two years later, an oath-swearing ceremony passed peacefully; after initial fears that the new Prince-Bishop, Johann Philipp Franz von Schönborn, would expect submission to his personal lordship, it transpired that Gochsheim and Sennfeld only had to pledge allegiance to the empire.101 Alas, fundamental issues, notably those relating to patronage and rights of examination/confirmation of candidates, remained undecided. The Reichskammergericht had simply passed them on to the Reichstag for further consideration. Gochsheim duly commissioned Dr Heunisch to prepare fresh submissions to the imperial diet at Regensburg, but matters remained pending there until the end of the Ancien Régime.102 In conclusion, ecclesiastical regimes in imperial villages may be best described as variants of “Communal Christianity”.103 While contested by external powers at certain points in time, if not more generally, these peasant polities evolved and then governed “micro state churches”, just like free cities and principalities elsewhere. In both confessional contexts examined here, “Communal Catholicism” and “Communal Lutheranism”, we find strong conformity to official doctrines, adherence to prescribed practices and conscientious execution of duties right through the pre-/post-Reformation periods, albeit with a sprinkling of magical or folk beliefs. Everywhere, but particularly at Gersau, parishes provided institutional frameworks and financial resources for collective action in the spiritual and secular spheres. What Cardinal Borromeo observed during a journey through Central Switzerland in 1570 – intense popular piety and resentment of “heretics” but also extreme lay control over the local church and clergy – could easily be extended to ecclesiastical regimes in imperial villages more generally.104 Recent historiography has traced a shift away from communal towards confessional allegiance in early modern communities, particularly 101  Ludwig, Manuale (note 47), section “Chronicle”, 1718 (Thaut) and 1720 (oath-swearing ceremony). 102  Gochsheim sent two “memorials” to Regensburg around 1720, but to no avail: Segnitz, Gochsheim und Sennfeld (note 55), 97–8. For the persistence of contrasting views, according to which Würzburg exercised full lordship rights on behalf of the empire, see Johann Jakob Joseph Sündermahler; Andreas Alexander Franz Hammer, Dissertatio Inauguralis De Advocatia Imperiali Episcopatus Wirceburgensis In Binos Pagos Immediatos Gochsheim Et Sennfeld ([Würzburg]: Doctoral Dissertation, 1772). 103  The term has been coined for Upper Hessian parishes by Mayes, Communal Christianity (note 41), but fits the situation in imperial villages particularly well. 104  Printed in Quellenbuch zur Schweizergeschichte, ed. Wilhelm Oechsli (2nd edn, Zürich: Schultess, 1901), 461–9.

154

Chapter 5

in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but in our case studies the former proved resilient until the end of the old empire, perhaps due to the facts that the original decision for or against the new faith had been taken by the neighbors collectively (in contrast to most rural settings) and that the villages did not form part of larger, religiously mixed federations like the Grisons, where minority rights were actively protected.105 As in the previous chapter on external political relations, the role of bailiffs proved ambivalent: evidence for valuable support, e.g. in the form of Frankfurt’s contribution to fabric expenses at Sulzbach and Soden, contrasts with the often fierce – usually legal, but sometimes violent – conflicts involving successive Electors of Mainz and Prince-Bishops of Würzburg. Much of this tension resulted from the many overlapping, conflicting and/or insufficiently defined privileges which co-existed within the Holy Roman Empire. While Gersau and (eventually) Sennfeld had clear documentary proof, Sulzbach and Gochsheim based patronage claims on post-Reformation custom and the religious peace agreements enshrined in imperial law. Opposing the latter, Würzburg pointed to an explicit, if contested, transfer of the right of advowson by the villages’ previous protector. As long as communal tradition was respected, however, attitudes towards priests, ministers and higher clergy appear respectful, at times even cordial. The doctrinal leadership of the established Churches remained undisputed and diocesan authorities could become resources, as evident from Gersau’s requests for fewer feast days and authentications of relics. As far as tensions between villages are concerned, one important factor was the respective status of their places of worship. As efforts to increase clerical resources and augment local influence underline, Soden felt increasingly frustrated with the subordination of its chapel to Sulzbach, a commune already privileged in terms of the court hierarchy, but otherwise perceived as a partner. In any case, however, no survey of imperial villages can be complete without consideration of their rich ecclesiastical and spiritual lives.

105  Mayes, Communal Christianity (note 41); Randolph Head, “‘Nit alß zwo Gmeinden, oder Partheyen, sonder ein Gmeind’: Kommunalismus zwischen den Konfessionen in Graubünden, 1530–1620,” in: Landgemeinde und Kirche im Zeitalter der Konfessionen, ed. Beat Kümin (Zürich: Chronos, 2004), 21–57; for a similar shift from communally negotiated accommodation in the immediate post-Reformation period towards more rigid confessional identities in urban contexts see David M. Luebke, Hometown Religion: Regimes of Co-Existence in Early Modern Westphalia (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2016), esp. 201.

PART 3 Perspectives

∵

Chapter 6

Representations and Perceptions With the cultural turn in the humanities, new themes have moved to the center of political history. Rather than “just” with agents, events and diachronic change, scholarship is increasingly concerned with representations and perceptions, i.e. the way in which messages about power relationships came to be formulated, disseminated and received. Over and above the examination of written records, recent research has turned to oral, visual and material media. In terms of socio-political focus, a long-standing preoccupation with central institutions and princely courts has given way to a broader consideration of exchange at all levels, inclusive of regional assemblies and local communities, as well as in multiple spatial arenas such as town halls, parish churches and public houses.1 Among a wealth of innovative approaches to the Holy Roman Empire, two have proved particularly influential. One, drawing on anthropological models, involves studies of pre-modern “ceremonies”, understood as highly formalized sequences of action referring to a larger entity, and “rituals”, formalized chains of symbolic actions effecting transformations in the social world; with regard to meetings of imperial diets, for example, it has been argued that they “did not merely represent ‘the Empire’ as a functioning political entity but constituted it at the same time”.2 The second, influenced by Niklas Luhmann’s “systems theory”, focuses on transformations in communication structures, especially the gradual supplementation of face-to-face exchange with distance media like print and the emergence of institutionalized observation in an emerging public sphere.3

1  For a classic study of monarchical representation see Peter Burke, The Fabrication of Louis XIV (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992); the broadening of social and spatial perspectives is exemplified by Jason Philip Coy et  al., eds., The Holy Roman Empire, Reconsidered (New York: Berghahn, 2010); and Beat Kümin, ed., Political Space in Pre-industrial Europe (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009). 2   Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, “Die Symbolik der Reichstage. Überlegungen zu einer Perspektivenumkehr,” in: Der Reichstag 1486–1613, ed. Maximilian Lanzinner and Arno Strohmeyer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 77–93, esp. 80, 83; for ways of staging formal appearances of the emperor see Harriet Rudolph, Das Reich als Ereignis. Formen und Funktionen der Herrschaftsinszenierung bei Kaiserauftritten (1558–1618) (Cologne: Böhlau 2011). 3  An introduction for an Anglophone audience in Hans-Georg Moeller, The Radical Luhmann (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004396609_007

158

Chapter 6

At first sight, all this seems far removed from small rural polities with a few hundred inhabitants, limited infrastructure and introspective orientations. Indeed, compared to major cities – with their cultural institutions and farreaching networks – and the emerging territorial states – engaged in routinized long-distance exchange within administrative hierarchies – communication regimes in villages appear pretty basic, characterized by personal interaction, comprehensive mutual monitoring and few incentives for abstract reflection.4 Given the latter, furthermore, rural communes seem to hold little of interest for students of political thought in general and republicanism in particular. The respective authors’ lenses tend to be focused on Renaissance Italy and the early modern Atlantic world, with discussions on political freedom and statecitizen relations revolving around classical models and their adaptations by authors like Machiavelli in Florence and Harrington in seventeenth-century England. If the horizon widens at all, it stretches to imperial free cities and the major polities of Venice, the United Provinces and the Swiss Confederation, but not into the German countryside.5 In an attempt to redress the balance at least for imperial villages, this chapter reviews symbolic communication from four complementary angles: messages and media of self-representation; external perceptions; moments of direct interaction between neighbors and outsiders; and the phenomenon’s “after-live” in the modern period. Much of the evidence has been touched upon already, reminding us that – in any given historical situation – language, codes and signs form an inextricable part of political exchange (often involving internal and external participants simultaneously), but for analytical purposes it is helpful to assess these elements – and their specific contributions – separately here. In the light of current interests and the research questions formulated in the introduction, particular attention will be paid to the expression – and any explicit reflection – of distinct communal identities and values; the respective roles of orality, visuality, script and print; the absence or presence of wider communicative networks; and similarities/differences within our case studies. 4  Rudolf Schlögl, Anwesende und Abwesende. Grundriss für eine Gesellschaftsgeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit (Constance: Konstanz University Press, 2014), 17 and chapter II.2, proposes a three-tier model of communication systems, proceeding from “segmentary” arrangements (in villages) via network-mediated exchange (in cities) to fully integrated structures (in territorial states). 5  See in particular the discussion of neo-Roman “free state” theories in Quentin Skinner, Liberty before Liberalism (e-edn, Cambridge, 2014) and the case studies in Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner, eds., Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, 2 vols (Cambridge: University Press, 2002).

Representations and Perceptions

159

Examining self-identification in written records provides a convenient starting-point. In contrast to emperors and princes, who opened charters with a string of individual titles and possessions, imperial villages stressed their collectivity and place of belonging. At Gersau, early formulations (“the parishioners in their commonalty from Gersau” in 1359; “mayor and parishioners at Gersau” in 1436) reflect the ecclesiastical origins of the commune; most subsequent versions (“commune and [land] mayor here at Gersau” in 1510) have a more neutral/secular tone, although we also find elaborations to “We, land mayor and councilors, common landmen and parishioners of the land of Gersau” (when regulating church affairs 1686) and explicit reference to their special status as in “landmayor and council of the free land [Landschafft] Gersau” (in a petition to the Bishop of Constance of 1779).6 At Gochsheim and Sennfeld, varieties include “jurors and housefellows of the holy Empire’s village at Gochsheim” (1457); “We, the avoyers, also courts and whole commune of both imperial villages Gochsheim and Sennfeld” (1575); “avoyer and whole commune at Sennfeld” (1609); or “we, village masters and court people [acting] on behalf of the whole commune” [of Gochsheim] (1644).7 In the remaining case studies, we find “avoyer, jurors and commune of the villages of Sulzbach and Soden” (1282, 1444); “we, avoyer, jurors and common residents of the two villages and parishes Sulzbach and Soden” (1450); “we, mayors and whole commune of both Flecken Sulzbach and Soden” (1624); and “we, mayors, court, deputies and totality of residents of the Kaiserlichen free imperial village Soden” (1777).8 In spite of variations in detail, the highlighting of senior officials alongside the corporate universitas of neighbors (in both their secular and ecclesiastical guises), at times with reference to the communes’ peculiar constitutional status, forms a consistent pattern. As these examples show, writing featured in village culture from the Middle Ages. The earliest evidence derives from thirteenth-century charters, which include the protection and defense alliance between Frankfurt and its concives 6  B AG, UKP: Stiftsurkundenbuch, 297 (1359); ibid., Urkunden, no. 9 (Hofrecht constitution, 1436) and 18 (assessment of properties, 1510); ibid., PF: Pfrundbriefe, Kaplaneipfrund (1686); EAF, A16/91, no. 1 (1779). 7  Friedrich Weber, Geschichte der fränkischen Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld (Schweinfurt: Ernst Stoer, 1913), 309 (“schöpffen und husgenossen”; 1457); GAG, 04.08.2006 018 A (2) (1575); StAW, Hochstift Würzburg, Geistliche Sachen, 2308 (1609; cf. Figure 23a); VG, 23 (appointment of parson in 1644). 8  I SF, Dörfer, 526 (“scultetus, scabini et universitas”; 1282); Joachim Kromer, Bad Soden am Taunus. Stadtgeschichte, vol. 2 (Frankfurt a.M.: Waldemar Kramer, 1991), 64 (1444), 67 (1450; where, strictly speaking, Soden should have appeared as a “chapel” rather than “parish”), 193 (1777); Hildegard von Nolting, ed., Aus der Sodener Gerichtslade (Bad Soden: Arbeitskreis für Bad Sodener Geschichte, 1996), 35 (1624).

160

Chapter 6

of Sulzbach or the grant of the law of Lindau to Eglofs (both in 1282).9 Legal and administrative records, such as Gochsheim’s village ordinance of 1500 or Gersau’s property assessment of 1510, survive from the eve of the early modern period, compilations of all existing regulations (including Gersau’s small land book of 1605; cf. Figure 15) and serial minutes/accounts/parish registers (e.g. at Sulzbach the mayoral Rechnung of 1657 and the Kirchenbücher from 1670; at Soden the protocols of the lower court starting in 1665) from the seventeenth century.10 Expensive leather bindings, colored frontispieces (cf. Figures  13 + 29a–b) and the use of calligraphy testify to the fact that selected manuscripts carried “cultural capital” as communal heritage in need of careful preservation (at St Wigbert, Ober-Ingelheim, from the fourteenth century, the Haderbücher court records were stored in a dedicated tower vault secured with an iron door).11 As we have seen in Chapter 3, furthermore, Dithmarschen pioneered the use of print, when the Forty-Eight regents authorized publication of the parish federation’s land law as early as 1485, followed by Sulzbach and Soden, which – in an attempt to preserve the contents of treasured constitutional documents withheld by the City of Frankfurt – placed verbatim transcripts into the public domain in 1614, while Gochsheim’s vindication of ecclesiastical rights addressed to the Reichskammergericht followed in 1716.12 Narrative sources naturally hold the most extensive clues. From the late Middle Ages, local communities generated chronicles of their origins and evolutions, sometimes with lavish illustrations of topographical features and key episodes. Such accounts yield tantalizing insights into collective identities, mentalities and power relations, not least due to the careful selection and distinctive interpretation of material. In the Central Alps, one of the most fertile regions for the genre, city-states like Bern and Lucerne commissioned officially approved works with a view to honoring ancestral achievements 9  Printed in Friedrich Lau, ed., Urkundenbuch der Reichsstadt Frankfurt (Frankfurt a.M.: Joseph Baer & Co., 1901), vol. 1, 225; Peter Kissling, Freie Bauern und bäuerliche Bürger: Eglofs im Spätmittelalter und in der Frühneuzeit (Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2006), schemes 1–2. 10   B AG, LB 6: Das kleine Landbuch (1605); HHStAW, Abt. 4/893 (mayoral account 1657); Sulzbach, Evangelische Kirchengemeinde, Kirchenbücher (1670–); Hildegard von Nolting, ed., Protokollbuch des freien Untergerichts zu Soden 1665–1726 (Bad Soden: Arbeitskreis für ad Sodener Geschichte, 1995). 11   Historischer Verein Ingelheim, “Ingelheimer Geschichte,” http://www.ingelheimer -geschichte.de. 12   Hir heff an dat Landrecht aver Ditmarschen/ welcker vpgenamen is mit Vulwort der Acht vnd vertig/ vnd des gantzen Landes ([Schleswig] : [Stephan Arndes], [1485]); Gleichlautende Abschrifft aller Käyserlichen Privilegien und anderer Gerechtigkeitten damit beyde Gerichte und Gemeinden zu Sultzbach und Soden begnadiget sindt worden (Höchst, 1614); VG.

Representations and Perceptions

161

and legitimizing the existing political system.13 In rural Obwalden, in turn, the so-called White Book of Sarnen – a cartulary compiled by Hans Schriber c. 1470 – includes the first full account of how William Tell defied Habsburg tyranny and the Forest Cantons decided to rule themselves; a seminal foundation story which shaped Swiss self-understanding for centuries.14 This provided one important context for historiographical activity at Gersau; another is the keeping of serial parish chronicles in regions like Central Switzerland, Upper Austria and several parts of Germany. On the occasion of major works on communal buildings, especially churches, clergymen or communal scribes wrote down important local information – such as numbers of inhabitants, names of officeholders and benefactors, agricultural prices – plus details of the most significant events – plagues, wars, harvest yields, crimes and natural disasters – recorded since the date of the preceding document. These chronicles, sometimes accompanied by coins, relics and other objects, were deposited in tower balls (Turmkugel/-knauf) placed on top of spires and not opened again until the next reconstruction campaign. Over the generations, therefore, communities accumulated periodically updated collections, serving as repositories of collective memory, ways of connecting parishes with the divine and – in Catholic areas – means to solicit intercessory prayers. These fascinating sources, available in hundreds of places, await systematic analysis.15

13  See e.g. Die Luzerner Chronik des Diebold Schilling 1513, facsimile edn (Lucerne: FaksimileVerlag, 1977), which – incidentally – features Gersau on pp. 630 (confiscation of cattle during a border dispute) and 669 (arrest of landmen on charges of mocking the city). On the general utility of the genre for studies of pre-modern society and cultural change cf. Susanne Rau, Geschichte und Konfession: Städtische Geschichtsschreibung und Erinnerungskultur im Zeitalter von Reformation und Konfessionalisierung in Bremen, Breslau, Hamburg und Köln (Hamburg: Dölling und Galitz, 2002). 14   Das Weisse Buch von Sarnen, compiled by Hans Schriber (1470–71), esp.  441–65, http:// www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/list/one/staow/A02CHR0003; the recent revisionist view of a much more gradual and less deliberately planned course of events is outlined in Roger Sablonier, Gründungszeit ohne Eidgenossen: Politik und Gesellschaft in der Innerschweiz um 1300 (Baden: Hier + Jetzt, 2008). 15  Siegfried Haider, “Kirchturmurkunden vornehmlich aus Oberösterreich,” in: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 106 (1998): 1–30; Stefan Dornheim, Der Pfarrer als Arbeiter am Gedächtnis (Leipzig: Universitätsverlag, 2013), esp. 202–3, 236 and 280–4 (examples of tower ball documents of 1536 and 1666 from the parish of Leubnitz near Dresden). In 1877, seven different bundles – covering the period 1514–1734 – were discovered in the tower of St Nikolai, Berlin, containing some 287 coins and medals, several manuscripts, biographical reminiscences and a number of printed works. I am grateful to Scott Dixon, Albrecht Henkys, Ulrich Rasche and Herwig Weigl for sharing information on this type of source which I plan to research in more detail.

162

Chapter 6

The first tower ball document for Gersau dates from church repairs carried out in 1655 (cf. Figure 24a). Following factual details on the parson (Wolfgang Suter), council (presided by landmayor Andreas Camenzind), population (550 souls) and local economy (money was scarce), land scribe Anton Nigg expressed gratitude for the recent period of peace (although the next Swiss civil war would erupt only the year after …). In characteristic fashion, the concluding passages then emphasize the need for intercession and – in the wake of the acrimonious Küttel dispute discussed in Chapter 3 – communal harmony: Should this letter be opened by our successors, may the residents of our land at that time ask God Almighty [for help for] us current inhabitants as well as for all founders and benefactors of this church, with a general Christian prayer, that He will graciously forgive us all our sins and misdeeds. May this land also be graciously preserved in the true Catholic faith and in its ancient God-given liberties, acquired by our ancestors from the old emperors and kings  … and honestly preserved since, and may [it] always be governed in good peace, prosperity and concord, for what discord can do to our land, we have painfully experienced with the highest damage and loss of a precious good.16 Six such accounts survive from the Ancien Régime. For present purposes, they serve to stress the proactive role of local initiatives in the acquisition of political freedom. There is, very significantly, no reference to either the heroic deeds of Tell or the curious myth of a descent from valiant Swedish immigrants as in neighboring Schwyz.17 Rather, self-government resulted from targeted efforts by medieval ancestors (who purchased the respective rights in 1390) and imperial confirmations (Sigismund, whose charter dates from 1433, is mentioned by name in 1685). The 1752 entries, furthermore, underline the continued exercise of independent powers: appointment of a council (consisting of nine members); parish elections of clergy (regarding chaplain Schöchli and parson Tanner), and jurisdiction over the most serious crimes (stretching to the death sentence imposed on Johann Christian Rigert by a triple “blood court”). Alongside, we find the first evidence for an emerging self-perception of “the land of Gersau, [as] a free republic”. On occasion, though, the chroniclers struggled for content, as in 1784, when Kleinlandammann Josef Maria Anton 16  The originals in PAG have been edited in Josef Wiget, ed. “Die Turmkugel-Dokumente der Pfarrkirche Gersau,” in: Mitteilungen des Historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz 76 (1984): 161–175, esp. no. 1 (1655). 17  Guy P. Marchal, Die frommen Schweden in Schwyz (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1976).

Representations and Perceptions

163

Camenzind flatly admitted that “nothing particularly new [had] happened” since 1774, perhaps because of the relatively short interval between the two documents. Given the huge transformations following the French Revolution in the next decade, this was a pretty deceptive calm before the storm.18 To celebrate the completion of tower renovations at St Michael’s around the same time, Gochsheim pastor Johann Adam Schöner chose to write a poem – rather than an account of recent events – for transmission to posterity: A village, hard to compare with any other; small, yet owned by the Holy Roman Emperor; Classed as immediate, governed by itself, it is free; exercising the noble circumspection of a major city.19 Otherwise, local historiography reflected private rather than official initiative. More and more people kept “ego-documents” in the early modern period, even beyond towns and social elites, often in hybrid genres combining elements of diaries, autobiographies, letters, common-place books and chronicles.20 Gochsheim produced at least two such writers in the eighteenth century: Johann Matthäus Kirchner (c. 1714–53), a landowning commoner married to the daughter of an avoyer, compiled a “manual” with information on family events (such as his nuptials held in 1740), parish affairs (names of pastors/ schoolmasters, New Year church celebrations, consistory court cases) and general village history (including constitutional documents like the 1635 village ordinance and detailed chronicles for the years 1731–53) from the time of the Reformation, often with strong moral or patriotic undertones. In an entry for 21 May 1751, for example, justifying why a neighbor was subjected to heavy corporal punishment, Kirchner explained that he had “slandered the imperial

18  Wiget, ed., “Turmkugel” (note 16), nos 2 (Sigismund), 4 (republic, elections, blood court) and 6 (lack of events); for further uses of the term “republic” in the late eighteenth century see Chapter 3 above and the external sources discussed in the next section below. Another quasi-official chronicle kept from the 1770s by land scribe Johann Melchior Josef Rigert appears in BAG, UKP (note 6), 314–23. 19   G AG, GO-AK21007-LI/36-: Johannes Ludwig, Collectanea sive Manuale, section “chronicle”, 1783. 20  Kaspar von Greyerz, ed., Selbstzeugnisse in der Frühen Neuzeit: Individualisierungsweisen in interdisziplinärer Persepektive (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2007); a seventeenth-century example of a peasant chronicle is Caspar Preis, Bauernleben im Zeitalter des Dreissigjährigen Krieges: Die Stausebacher Chronik des Caspar Preis 1636–67, eds. Wilhelm A. Eckhardt and Helmut Klingelhöfer (Marburg: Trauvetter & Fischer, 1998).

164

Chapter 6

avoyer and court and generally led a scandalous life”.21 The other author was Johannes Ludwig (1751–1817), a remarkably well-educated and multi-lingual peasant whose father had served as a member of the communal “stool”. His extensive writings on topography, agriculture and poetry, informed by a personal book collection, also include a manual dedicated to the “immediate imperial village”. Following a historical survey, where Ludwig classes the period of subjection to Würzburg during the Thirty Years’ War as “the saddest state, into which [Gochsheim] ever fell”, he provides a chronicle of remarkable events such as the terrible pestilence (costing 405 lives in 1564), the appearance of a comet (in 1680) or a mice plague (1773), but also political and ecclesiastical episodes like the communal delegation to the Diet of Speyer in 1570, the protracted disruptions caused by the Erthal funeral of 1592, how an imperial avoyer got killed during a conflict resolution attempt in 1683, the long pastoral vacancy in the 1710s and periods of official mourning after the death of emperors in 1740/1790.22 Equivalent figures at Soden and Sulzbach were carpenter Johann Heinrich Reiff (with his multifunctional “work book” and transcriptions of village archives dating from the early and mid-eighteenth century respectively; cf. Figure 12) and peasant diarist Johann Adam Löschhorn, who kept an annual record of both personal and public affairs from the late 1730s (Figure 24b).23 Both have repeatedly provided us with “bottom-up” perspectives on issues addressed above, illustrating e.g. local attachment to imperial privileges (documented in both of Reiff’s manuscripts), Soden’s attempt to enhance pastoral provision for its chapel in the 1720s (which Löschhorn classed as a “rebellion”) or the constitutional crisis triggered by the bailiffs’ new court ordinance in 1753 (emerging as an existential threat to the communes’ immediate status in the diary entries for these years). A pervasive theme in all these discourses is communal freedom. Looking more closely at Gersau, internally produced writings address it on at least a 21   G O-LT21000-F III/43-(322): Johann Matthäus Kirchner, Manual (1747–), partially reproduced/edited in Walfried Hein, Der Chronist Johann Matthäus Kirchner (Gochsheim, 2003), esp. 7 (list of pastors), 20 (punishment of neighbor), 28–35 (the 1635 document, not otherwise preserved, appears to be an internal collation of oaths and regulations on issues ranging from the selling of wine to the holding of courts) and 38–9 (procedure for the “common meal” assembly); cf. his record of the Plantanz commemorations discussed below. 22  Ludwig, Manuale (note 19), an unpaginated late eighteenth-century manuscript also accessible through a 1997 digest/commentary by Walfried Hein); see esp. title-page and collection of “noteworthy matters” under the respective years. 23   S ABS, VI, 1, 59 (1703) and VI, 1, 64 (1751); GRS, Tagebuch des Johann Adam Löschhorn (1738–).

Representations and Perceptions

FIGURES 24A–B

165

Two examples of the lively memory culture in imperial villages. Left: Gersau’s earliest surviving tower ball document starts with references to the construction of the (then) church in 1618 and to weather damage requiring repairs to the cross on the spire in 1655: PAG, TurmkugelDokumente, no. 1. Right: Self-identification of “I, Johann Adam Leschhorn” as the author of a Sulzbach diary commenced in 1738. GRS, Löschhorn Tagebuch, title-page.

dozen occasions in different documentary genres between 1436 and 1780. For pre-modern, pre-French Revolution contexts, scholars – even of participatory cultures like the Forest Cantons – normally emphasize the predominance of concrete, tangible “liberties” conveyed on tightly circumscribed groups by higher authorities in specific transactions.24 There are glimpses of such an understanding in the case study, e.g. when – as we have just seen – the first parish chronicle mentions “God-given liberties” in 1655, alongside ambivalent phrases referring to the parish of Gersau as being “liberated” (gefreiten Kirchgangs; 1770) without specifying a reason or donor.25 Yet, most known references suggest an unambiguously abstract, general meaning, as in the motto “Freedom carries golden blossoms where won through blood” accompanying the frontispiece of the third land book of 1742 or – in the tower ball documents – the phrase “free republic” (1752) and the warning that discord “could easily cost us our golden freedom” (1774).26 These formulations mirror self-perceptions in other hubs of peasant self-government. Writing around 1600, Büsum preacher Johann Adolf Köster – who had lived through the tail end of Dithmarschen’s independence as a young boy – found plentiful evidence “from many scribes 24  Pre-revolutionary freedom was “a privilege, which rested – in exact opposition to the idea of human rights – precisely on inequality”: Benjamin Adler, Die Entstehung der direkten Demokratie. Das Beispiel der Landsgemeinde Schwyz 1780–1866 (Zürich: Chronos, 2006), 207; a similar differentiation in Andreas Suter’s postscript: ibid., 227. 25  Wiget, ed., “Turmkugel” (note 16), no. 1 (1655); BAG, Akten, no. 7 (1770). 26   B AG, LB 3: Das grosse Landbuch, title-page (1742; Aurea Florebit Libertas Sanguine Parta); Wiget, ed., “Turmkugel” (note 16), nos 4 (freyen Republic; 1752) and 5 (guldene freiheith; 1774).

166

Chapter 6

and historians” that the land’s inhabitants then were “a free people and never subject to any lords”.27 Combined with the emphasis on broad political participation/majority decisions noted in Chapter 3 and the sustained rejection of external encroachments found in Chapter 4, there seem to be outlines of an informal, bottom-up “free state” theory in these rural micro-polities, alongside and distinct from the neo-Roman, learned varieties circulating among republican theorists elsewhere. Quite in contrast to the latter, furthermore, there was no fear here of giving “the confused promiscuous body of the people” – as Marchamont Nedham warned in The Excellency of a Free State at the time of the English Commonwealth – a direct share in government.28 And yet, abstracting from Gersau (with its regionally contained legal horizon), exchange on related concepts like universitas may have occurred via the many university-trained jurists who represented rural communes in dealings with imperial courts. Roman law was on the rise in early modern Germany, just at the time when commoners launched ever more numerous suits before the Reichskammergericht and Reichshofrat. Advocates acting for Freienseen explicitly cited the medieval commentator Baldus de Ubaldis and consultants like Friedrich Carl von Moser, who compiled evidence on behalf of Sulzbach and Soden, could have easily played a mediating role. Using language understood at all levels, Moser contrasted the “darkness” of the villages’ mortgaging to Frankfurt – when the neighbors lost their freedom and thus “the greatest good a man can possess” – with the “cheerfulness” of the 1613 liberation which brought a return to “their inherited imperial freedom”.29 At the very least, 27   Johann Adolfi’s, genannt Neocorus, Chronik des Landes Dithmarschen, aus der Urschrift herausgegeben von Prof. F[riedrich]. C[hristoph]. Dahlmann (2 vols, Kiel: Schulbuchdruckerei, 1827; reprint Leer: Schuster, 1978), vol. 1, 287–8. An “overarching” notion of freedom, rather than mere accumulation of individual liberties, can be traced from as early as the thirteenth century: Hermann Aubin, “Das Schiksal der schweizerischen und der friesischen Freiheit,” in Grundlagen und Perspektiven geschichtlicher Kulturraumforschung und Kulturmorphologie, ed. Ludwig and Franz Petri (Bonn: Roehrscheid, 1965), 349–68, esp.  356–8; “freedom” figures among “the proverbial tenets of the land’s history and shapes the self-understanding of the people who live here”: Dietrich Stein und HansHarald Böttger’s preface to Verein für Dithmarscher Landeskunde e.V. ed., Geschichte Dithmarschens (Heide: Boyens & Co., 2000), 5–6. 28  Skinner, “Liberty” (note 5), 31–2. 29  Bernhard Diestelkamp, Ein Kampf um Freiheit und Recht. Die prozessualen Auseinandersetzungen der Gemeinde Freienseen mit den Grafen zu Solms-Laubach (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2012), 60; MR, 12 (das gro[e]ste, was ein Mensch  … haben kan) and 15 (ihre angeerbte Reichs=Freyheit). A recent study of imperial jurisdiction has identified “freedom” and “livelihood” as the two central concepts in litigation by subjects against their lords: Matthias Bähr, Die Sprache der Zeugen: Argumentationsstrategien bäuerlicher Gemeinden vor dem Reichskammergericht (1693–1806) (Constance: UVK, 2012), 112 and “Ergebnisse”.

Representations and Perceptions

167

notions of abstract political freedom co-existed with, and possibly built upon, local awareness of historic grants of specific rights. In contrast to the principles of Enlightenment and French Revolution, moreover, this freedom was defined in spatial-topographical rather than individual terms, i.e. as an attribute of belonging to particular places, parishes, Flecken, lands. The emphasis lay on a body of burghers rooted in a politically privileged territory, not on the “natural state” of human beings as equals or shared professional/religious/economic affiliations (although all of these could bring overlapping privileges of their own). Hence the existence of – in practice very small – groups of inhabitants with lesser rights, typically newcomers lacking long-standing association with the village, as well as substantial differences in wealth and social status (which officials swore to ignore for legal and local government purposes).30 Considering that popular literacy levels were as low as ten per cent around 1500 and rose only gradually during the early modern period, visual media remained of utmost importance.31 The single most powerful “political” images were seals and crests, which served to foster a collective identity and allegiance within the respective communities and to represent – at times even create – corporate capacity in exchanges with the outside world. Having previously “borrowed” those of individuals (like clergymen or avoyers), most imperial villages acquired distinct heraldic attributes by the 1600s, almost always in informal ways and some – it seems – on their own authority.32 Naturally, much of the imagery related to attributes of the Roman kings: the imperial eagle, orb, crown and spurs. In very straightforward fashion, the seal of one of our case studies carried the figure of an eagle surrounded with the circumscription 30  See the oaths of office at Gersau (BAG, LB 6; 1605) and Sulzbach (HHStAW, Abt. 4/405; 1657) discussed in Chapter 3; the 1447 law code of Dithmarschen, too, stressed that its contents applied to all inhabitants of the land, “whoever he may be”: Karl August Eckhardt, ed., Das Dithmarscher Landrecht von 1447, nach der Ausgabe von Andreas Ludwig Jacob Michelsen herausgegeben (Witzenhausen: Deutschrechtlicher Instituts-Verlag, 1960), preamble. 31  Robert  A.  Houston, Literacy in Early Modern Europe: Culture and Education 1500–1800, 2nd  edn (Harlow: Longman, 2002); Karl Siegfried Bader, Dorfgenossenschaft und Dorfgemeinde (Cologne: Böhlau, 1962), 394. When assenting to the termination of a lawsuit in a document of 1657, some Sulzbach villagers signed themselves, others used a simple sign of the cross: MR, appendices, 83. 32  Heidrun Ochs, “Kommunale Autonomie und Siegelführung: Das Beispiel des Rheingaus,” in: Dorf und Gemeinde. Grundstrukturen der ländlichen Gesellschaft in Spätmittelalter und Frühneuzeit, eds. Kurt Andermann and Oliver Auge (Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2012), 87–112, esp. 91 (role in identity formation); Günter Mattern, “Siegel und Wappen der Reichsdörfer. Aufnahmearbeit für die Internationale Akademie für Heraldik,” Archivum Heraldicum, 90 (1–2/1976): 44–53, esp. 45 (frequency and informality of seals); (3–4/1976): 12–19.

168

Chapter 6

“R[EICHS] D[ORF] SENNFELT” in the eighteenth-century.33 References to lords and bailiffs were added at Sulzbach, where – during the time of the village’s subjection to the city in 1508 – Frankfurt allowed the upper court to have a seal displaying the imperial eagle (on its left) and the letter “F” (on the right), surrounded by the phrase “S[IGILLVM] IVDICII IN SOLTZBACH P[ER] CONSVLATV[M] I[N] FRANCF[ORT] TRADITV[M].” In the wake of the 1656 constitution, both co-bailiffs appear in the legend, while a tripartite division of the central section allowed space for the wheel of Mainz on the far left.34 Among further options we find local topographical features – such as a mountain at Althausen in 165235 – and, where corporate quality owed much to parochial organization, depictions of the patron saints of churches. A seated St Marcellus with papal attributes and the circumscription “S[IGILLUM] COMUNITATIS: IN: GERSOW” is documented from the 1430s (Figure 25a).36 Apart from questionable instances of self-fashioning, like the “replacement” of an allegedly lost grant obtained by Freienseen in 1555,37 the only official 33  Simon Friedrich Segnitz, “Beytrag zur Geschichte und statistischen Topographie der beyden Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld in einem kurzen Entwurf,” in: Journal von und für Franken 4 (1792): 529–628, esp. 566; before the restitution of immediate status in 1649, Sennfeld appears to have used the seals of its avoyers or the sister village of Gochsheim. Mattern, “Reichsdörfer” (note 32), 14. An imperial eagle alongside a peasant hoe first appeared on the seal of Bauerbach in Baden in 1537: Erhard Nietzschmann, Die Freien auf dem Lande: Ehemalige deutsche Reichsdörfer und ihre Wappen (Wolfenbüttel: Melchior Verlag, 2013), 15; an eagle carrying a linden branch with surrounding reference to the local “civium” is documented at Eglofs in 1524: Kissling, Eglofs (note 9), figure 2. 34  Ekkehard Kaufmann, Geschichte und Verfassung der Reichsdörfer Soden und Sulzbach 1035–1806 (Flörsheim a.M.: Lauck, 1981), frontispiece with seals from 1508 and 1657. For a 1476 transaction, the court had used the seals of the parson and a juror: ISF, HolzhausenArchiv, Urkunden II, 120; an early surviving „seal of our free court at Sulzbach” with the circumscription “S[IGILLVM] IVDICII IN SOLTZBACH P[ER] CONSVLATV[M] I[N] FRANCF[ORT] TRADITV[M]” hangs on a sale charter from 1512: ISF, Holzhausen, Urkunden II.145 (Figure 25b). Reference to a separate seal of the avoyer of Soden in ISF, Dörfer, 1.087 (1565). 35  Mattern, “Reichsdörfer” (note 32), 16–17. 36  Carl Benziger, “Die Wappen der alten Republik Gersau und ihrer Bürgergeschlechter,” in: Schweizer Archiv für Heraldik 34 (1920): 97–106, esp. 100 (first appearance in 1431); cf. the imprint of the same seal on a letter sent to Lucerne in 1535: StAL, 11/290. The imperial valley of Harmersbach similarly used church patron St Gall (with his bear) and the circumscription “Sigill des Reichsthal Harmerspach” in 1698”: Mattern “Reichsdörfer” (note 32), 52; as did most parishes in medieval Dithmarschen: Karl Boie, Die mittelalterlichen Siegel Dithmarschens (Kiel: Gesellschaft für Schleswig-Holsteinische Geschichte, 1926). 37  Diestelkamp, Freienseen (note 29), cover image (showing an eagle in the upper and a swan on water in the lower half), 11 and ch. 4.3 (circumstances of the grant); cf. the aulic council’s 1659 revocation, at the Teutonic Knights’ demand, of the coat of arms Althausen had obtained from the Hofpfalzgraf seven years earlier: Wilfried Schöntag, Kommunale Siegel

Representations and Perceptions

169

conveyance of a coat of arms for an imperial village was made by the Elector Palatine Frederick III – acting as arch-steward of the Holy Roman Empire and local bailiff – to Gochsheim in 1568. Triggered by a request from “avoyer, mayor and whole commune”, probably to deflect mounting subordination pressure from Schweinfurt at the time, the beautifully drawn specimen in the awarding charter (Figure 25c and cover illustration of this book) shows an eagle with spread wings overlooking a crenellated wall. It thus features the symbol most commonly associated with the empire alongside an allusion to the fortified/ legally distinct nature of the commune.38 While the imagery on arms and seals remained identical here, this was not always the case. A separate “secular” crest – the colors blue and red appearing on the left and right of a vertically divided shield, interpreted as representations of lakeside location and imperial affiliation – emerged at Gersau around 1600. At its most lavish appearance in the small landbook of 1605, a crown and eagle hover above it, but from the mid eighteenth century this arrangement underwent significant changes to be examined further below (cf. Figures 29a–b).39 Yet further communal symbols could be used for more practical, everyday purposes such as the demarcation of territory. Imperial apples and spurs feature on eighteenth-century boundary stones for Soden and Sulzbach respectively (and now also on their modern crests).40 Village halls, just like the churches encountered in Chapter 5, also transcend the porous boundary between visual and material culture. In many ways, they can be seen as Gesamtkunstwerke fusing numerous signals into complex messages of authority, legitimacy and local pride.41 Reflecting the constitutional und Wappen in Südwestdeutschland (Osfildern: Jan Thorbecke, 2010), 102; and the comparable case of Kochendorf discussed in Chapter 4. 38  Mattern, “Reichsdörfer,” 11–12; the 1568 charter in GAG, GO-ZM25002-UI/1-(021); a corresponding seal survives e.g. on the agreement with Würzburg in 1575: ibid., GOZM25001-UI/3-(020). A very similar crest featuring an eagle over a wall is documented for Nieder-Ingelheim: Nietzschmann, Reichsdörfer (note 33), 87. 39   B AG, LB 6, 13. An external source, Andreas Ryff’s Zirkel der Eidgenossenschaft, first featured a variant of the crest in 1597: Benziger, “Wappen” (note 36), 100. For a compilation of (mostly modern) crests used by former imperial villages see Nietzschmann, Reichsdörfer (note 33). 40  Kaufmann, Soden and Sulzbach (note 34), 38; Nietzschmann, Reichsdörfer (note 33), 71, 73. 41  Extensive scholarship focuses on the architectural, social, political and cultural dimensions of communal seats of government, but overwhelmingly for urban contexts: Robert Tittler, Architecture and Power: The Town Hall and the English Urban Community c. 1500– 1640 (Oxford: University Press, 1991); Ulrich Meier, “Die Sicht- und Hörbarkeit der Macht. Der Florentiner Palazzo Vecchio im Spätmittelalter,” in: Zwischen Gotteshaus und Taverne: Öffentliche Räume in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed. Susanne Rau and Gerd Schwerhoff (Cologne: Böhlau, 2004), 229–71.

170

FIGURES 25A–C

Chapter 6

Like other immediate estates, most Reichsdörfer acquired heraldic symbols relating to the empire and/or their locality. Left: parish patron St Marcellus on a seal affixed to Gersau’s Hofrecht of 1436: BAG, Urkunden, no. 9. Right: Seal of the “free court of Sulzbach”, with imperial eagle and capital “F” for Frankfurt, on a charter of 15 January 1512: ISF, HolzhausenArchiv, Urkunden II Nr. 145: Siegel des Gerichtes Sulzbach. Bottom: in 1568, Reichserztruchsess Frederick III granted Gochsheim a coat of arms featuring the imperial eagle, as displayed and described in this charter, for “eternal” use “in all honest affairs, field camps, military campaigns, seals and pleas”. GAG, GO-ZM25002-UI/1-(021).

Representations and Perceptions

171

affinity to imperial cities, many immediate villages erected notable Rathäuser to express their capacity for self-government. At Gochsheim in the early 1560s, a major timber-frame construction replaced an earlier meeting-place in the socalled “fat tower” (Dicker Turm) located in the protective ring surrounding the church. This bigger, more elegant and more prominently situated new building, overlooking the main square with a public fountain, formed part of a wider campaign of self-assertion which included the acquisition of communal arms. In fact, the latter’s design – with the addition of a letter “G”, the initials of junior bailiff Hermann Hartlaub and the date 1561 – first appeared here in a colored stone carving facing the main road (cf. Figure 5).42 Other external features include the names of Cuntz Schreck/Merte Hagel, then serving as village mayors, on a panel facing the square as well as – separately over side windows – those of imperial avoyer Hans Dentzer, all court jurors and scribe Michael Stintzing. Most pre-modern village halls stand in close proximity to the church and/ or village inn, as part of a tripartite range of public architecture representing the religious, political and social dimensions of communal life.43 A striking example is (Burg-)Holzhausen, where the Rathaus (erected, according to a commemorative inscription, under mayors Hermann Bey and Andreas Möller), the Lutheran church (rebuilt by Johann Wilhelm Detler) and the Crown inn (to which troops of the Count of Hesse summoned the vice-avoyer and jurors during the village’s occupation in 1741) face each other almost within touching distance at the heart of the village (Figure  26).44 Similar constellations are documented at Sennfeld (a “communal house” near St Erhard from 1542), Soden (gatherings from c. 1700 opposite the chapel) and Sulzbach (where the upper court met twice a year in the hall located near the parish church in the eighteenth century). An alternative was a place on the main thoroughfare, as

42  For a larger reproduction of this stone crest see Beat Kümin, “Rural Autonomy and Popular Politics in Imperial Villages,” in: German History 33 (2/2015): 194–213, figure 4. 43  On representative village “houses” see Beat Kümin, “Rathaus, Wirtshaus, Gotteshaus. Von der Zwei- zur Dreidimensionalität in der frühneuzeitlichen Gemeindeforschung,” in: Geist, Gesellschaft, Kirche im 13.-16. Jahrhundert, ed. František Šmahel (Prague: Colloquia Mediaevalia Pragensia, 1999), 249–62. Purpose-built schoolhouses (e.g. at Holzhausen in 1739) differentiated the range further in the early modern centuries. 44  Wilhelm A. Eckhardt, “Das Reichsdorf Holzhausen,” in: Zeitschrift für hessische Geschichte und Landeskunde 92 (987): 155–70, esp. 157–8; the legal arguments for the occupation/ reclamation against rivalling claims of the Knights of Ingelheim in [Johann Adam Kopp,] Standhafte Wiederlegung der Ingelheimischen Deduction, wegen des Fleckens Holtzhausen (Marburg: Philipp Casimir Müller, 1741), esp. 104. For other examples of inscriptions commemorating village officials see Appendix 2.

172

Chapter 6

FIGURE 26 At (Burg-)Holzhausen in present-day Hesse, the early modern Crown inn (c. 1600; on the left), Lutheran church (rebuilt in the 1710s) and four-storey timber-framed Rathaus (of 1605) mark the institutional and topographical center of an imperial village whose status was heavily contested during the eighteenth century and only settled in the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss of 1803.

at Bauerbach, where the present Rathaus dates from 1585.45 The original site for Gersau’s “communal house” was on the Sternenplatz in the Wehri area near the lake, but following a flood the replacement building was moved further uphill in 1745. Now all in stone and Baroque splendor, it created a new square and focal point on the “imperial highway” at some distance from the church. Treasury and church resources helped to fund the 2,000 f. required, a sum kept down by the burghers’ extensive labor services. Just like at Augsburg and in other major cities, the four-storey Rathaus represented not only political but also jurisdictional power, having a prison cell inside and a “shaming bench” for the punishment of moral offenders outside. Together with the imposing mansions of the silk industrialists – such as the Minerva house near 45  Kromer, Bad Soden (note 8), vol. 1, 187 (Soden); MR, 30 (Sulzbach); information plaque on the Sennfeld Rathaus; Bauerbach historical information, http://www.bretten.de/stadt -rathaus-verwaltung/stadtteile/bauerbach.

Representations and Perceptions

173

St  Marcellus as well as the Kleinlandammannhaus (cf. Figure  14a) and the Hof (birthplace of Einsiedeln’s Prince-Abbot Beat Küttel), all erected in the eighteenth century – Gersau’s village center acquired a representative quality fit for a sovereign republic and a quasi-urban character which contrasted with the Alpine landscape around it.46 Moving inside, the council or court chambers served equally important communicative purposes. Large enough to accommodate around 200 neighbors at the mandatory “common meal” (for the approval of accounts, admission of new members and the sharing of food and drink, partially financed with court fines), the main upper room at Gochsheim featured extensive decorations on walls, pillars and ceiling beams. Fragmentary survival makes these difficult to interpret today. There are traces of inscriptions, references to 1599 (the date of further embellishments), carvings, ornamental columns (flanking some of the windows), heraldic symbols (a hen possibly alluding to Gochsheim’s historic association with the Henneberg bailiff dynasty, also commemorated in the vaulting of the church choir) and depictions of various objects (including a wine jug and products of local agriculture), classed – on the occasion of recent restorations – as remarkably rich ornamentation for a village environment.47 By contrast, the iconographic program at Gersau is easier to decipher. In the short period between the French Revolution and its military conquest, the land commissioned four paintings from [Josef] Martin Obersteg based at nearby Stans in Nidwalden in 1794. These sizeable canvasses in the council chamber depict two key historical moments (the purchase of political freedom in 1390 and the imperial confirmation of privileges in 1433) alongside two examples of moral instruction (the judgement of wise king Solomon from the Old Testament and the punishment of corrupt Persian official Sisamnes from Herodot; Figures 27a–b), thus echoing the “good and bad government” messages commonly conveyed in communal halls since the 46   B AG, UKP (note 6), f. 601r (1739 Gemeindehaus); Wiget, ed., “Turmkugel” (note 16), no. 4 (rebuilding); the new hall is discussed in Kulturkommission des Kantons Schwyz, ed., Das Rathaus der altfryen Republik Gersau (Schwyz: Schwyzer Hefte, 1987). For Augsburg’s shaming bench, see the painting for the month of “December” in a calendar series after Jörg Breu the Elder of c. 1531 in the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin, http://dhm .de/datenbank/img.php?img=k1000533&format=1; for “private” representative architecture at Gochsheim cf. Figure 19b. 47  For the state of architectural and art historical research see the brochure issued after renovations completed in 2011: Gemeinde Gochsheim, ed., Spurensuche: Das Historische Rathaus von Gochsheim im Wandel der Zeit (Gochsheim, no year), esp. 8, 13 (ein “Beispiel bürgerlichen Präsentationswillens” representing peasant “taste” and “pride”); specifically on the common meal cf. Georg Ludwig von Maurer, Geschichte der Dorfverfassung in Deutschland (Erlangen: Enke, 1865–66; reprint Aalen: Scientia, 1961), 384–6.

174

FIGURES 27A–B

Chapter 6

Two examples of the painting cycle in the council chamber of Gersau village hall. Created by Martin Obersteg in 1794, they show the judgement of Old Testament king Solomon (left; photograph by Roger Bürgler) and the parishioners’ acquisition of political freedom (in 1390). The bag of money placed before members of the patrician Von Moos family, burghers of Lucerne (the city’s Hofkirche is visible through the window), by Ruedi Truchseler, then the manorial Ammann, carries the number “690” (representing the sum paid in pounds at the time).

Renaissance, most famously through the Lorenzetti fresco cycle at Siena.48 By the end of the Ancien Régime, members of the leading burgher families also had their portraits taken. Apart from principal magistrates and silk entrepreneurs, surviving examples include long-serving clergyman Marzell Alois Nigg (cf. Figure 22) and at least two women: Maria Rosa Camenzind (née Küttel, 1747–1813, daughter of land mayor Johann Georg, sister of Prince-Abbot Beat and wife of Kleinlandammann Josef Maria Anton Camenzind) and Maria Anna Camenzind (née Bosshard, 1774–1835, second spouse of Grosslandammann Johann Caspar; cf. Figures a/c in Appendix 2).49 48  On the various members of the Obersteg artist family, including Josef Martin the Older/ Younger (d.  1798/1828), see the Lexikon zur Kunst in der Schweiz, http://www.sikart.ch/ kuenstlerinnen.aspx?id=9640339; the two historic paintings are reproduced in full in Albert Müller, Gersau – Unikum der Schweizer Geschichte (Baden: Hier+Jetzt, 2013), figs. 23–24. On Lorenzetti’s works see Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics, vol. 2 (Cambridge: University Press, 2002), 39–117. 49  An exceptionally early portrait of a rural officeholder dating from 1552 shows Swin Markus (a substantial yeoman and member of the forty-eight regents, aged 29) and his wife (aged 26) in the Landesmuseum Dithmarschen, inventory no. DLM 1332.

Representations and Perceptions

175

Recent research has urged historians to widen their perspective from architecture and “high art” to more mundane objects and material culture in general.50 Among an ever-expanding range of early modern commodities, clothing has received special attention. As we know from diaries and sketch books, dress emitted closely monitored, culturally specific and sometimes provocative signals relating to personal/collective identities: gowns evoked the world of learning; mercenaries accentuated their masculinity through flamboyant legwear; while the vestments of Catholic priests changed in line with the church calendar. From the sixteenth century, cloaks figured amongst the most common outer garments for men right across the social spectrum.51 One item invested with political symbolism, in imperial villages and beyond, was the coat of office, variably tailored with or without sleeves. Avoyers and jurors generally wore it on formal occasions such as processions or court sessions (cf. Figure 4), as did the councilors of major cities like Augsburg, who displayed their rank through different colors, materials and furs. In the rural republic of Appenzell, top officials faced – and indeed face – the annual assembly dressed in dark robes, flanked by beadles in the cantonal colors of black and white.52 In our case studies, imperial avoyer, jurors and members of the stool at Gochsheim appear to have worn coats of office on all official occasions, e.g. to pay their respect to the Prince-Bishop of Würzburg when the bailiff passed through village territory in 1721 to the sound of church bells. At Sulzbach, the records of an execution carried out on 25 February 1754 similarly note that four communal blood jurors surrounded the decapitation site “in black coats”, thus providing a stark backdrop to convict Anna Katharina Duß who awaited her fate dressed all in white.53 Among further “political” objects were items associated with the main communal institutions. At Berkach, a village on the Bavarian/Thuringian border claiming “free” status in a 1698 Reichskammergericht case, the argument 50  See the pioneering collection Tara Hamling and Catherine Richardson, eds., Everyday Objects: Medieval and Early Modern Material Culture and its Meanings (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010), placing strong emphasis on broad thematic/object coverage and interdisciplinary orientation. 51  Ulinka Rublack, The First Book of Fashion: The Book of Clothes of Matthaeus and Veit Konrad Schwarz of Augsburg (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 30. 52  For Augsburg see Jörg Breu the Elder, “December” (note 46); for Appenzell the anonymous painting of a late eighteenth-century assembly reproduced in Beat Kümin, ed., Politische Freiheit und republikanische Kultur im alten Europa (Vitznau: Bucher, 2015), fig. 6, http:// www.gersau-2014.ch/Buch/#49. 53  Walfried Hein, Reichsschultheiß und ein Ehrbares Gericht (Gochsheim: Gemeinde, 1994), 70; Michael Geisler, Leben und Tod der Anna Katharina Duß: Die Geschichte einer Dienstmagd aus Soden (Wiesbaden: Waldemar Kramer, 2015), 73–5.

176

Chapter 6

supporting the local court’s independence was partially based on an “ancient” metal staff in the shape of a hand with fingers raised for the swearing of oaths. Although lost in the turbulences of the Thirty Years’ War, the neighbors remembered it as a kind of “scepter”, a symbol of their “comprehensive corporate privileges” received from the empire and used to pledge loyalty to the Roman kings. The submission even mentioned occasions when the hand had miraculously prevented legal encroachments by external agents.54 At Gochsheim, the governing body commissioned ornamental jugs for the annual common meal and perhaps also diplomatic gift-giving, which would explain why two eighteenth-century specimens, both carrying the communal arms, found their way into a Schweinfurt museum (Figure  28a).55 Furthermore, as a distinct Flecken, Gochsheim – like Sulzbach (cf. Figure 6a) and Sennfeld – demarcated the nucleated village with a protective hedge or fence punctuated – in another quasi-urban feature – by gates named after the neighboring communities the respective roads connected to (Figure  28b). At Gersau, given its natural perimeter formed by water and mountains, there was no need for any such manmade device. The transformative power of rituals such as the swearing of burgher oaths, which turned residents into fully enfranchised neighbors, and religious practices like partaking in sacraments and going on pilgrimages, equipping Christians with spiritual benefits, has been repeatedly noted. Alongside, there were carefully orchestrated ceremonial occasions like the holding of assemblies in churches, halls or on squares and numerous moments of (in)formal sociability, at Gersau e.g. aided by musicians hired for the day of the Landsgemeinde.56 In addition to the common meal, both of Gochsheim’s chroniclers record the Plantanz as a second highlight of the village calendar. Literally a “dance on the main square” held over successive days in late summer, it commemorated the restoration of immediate status in 1649.57 According to the Manual of Johann Matthäus Kirchner for 1747, “the imperial avoyer and venerable court, following consultation with the two parish pastors [of Gochsheim and Sennfeld], allowed the young fellows here to stage a Plantanz on the feast of 54  Bähr, Gemeinden (note 29), 98–100. 55  A 1765 jug (Schweinfurt, Museum Altes Gymnasium, inventory no. 304 A) is reproduced in Kümin, “Imperial Villages” (note 42), fig. 5; the same collection also includes a tin gauge for liquids of 1759 inscribed with the date, communal crest and name of imperial avoyer Heim(e)rich, confirming that the village set its own measuring standards (inventory no. 310 A). 56   B AG, LS: Landseckelbuch I (1732–1802), 16 r (1728–29). 57  A print copy of the respective recess by the restitution commission of 14 August 1649, is held in GAG, 04.08.2006 034 A (2).

Representations and Perceptions

FIGURES 28A–B

177

Left: A ceremonial Ratskrug of the Gochsheim court, featuring the village arms granted in 1568 and the names of imperial avoyer Martin Bernhardt, two manorial officials (representing the Ebrach/hospital tenants; cf. Chapter 2, n. 49) as well as the five other jurors serving in 1713. Faience jug with tin lid: Schweinfurt, Museum Altes Gymnasium, inventory no. 305 A. Right: The Schwebheimer Tor, erected – according to an inscription – in 1739 under imperial avoyer Veit Heimrich, served as a base for Gochsheim’s night watchman. As at Sennfeld, there were five gates in total.

the peace [of Westphalia], as used to be customary before.”58 Preparations involved the decoration and setting up, outside the village hall, of an oak tree measuring twenty-one meters with the arms “conveyed on those of Gochsheim in 1568” as well as a flag showing the imperial eagle. Following a dedicated church service on the eve of the event, the organizing “fellows” (Platzburschen), accompanied by musicians, entered the village through the Schweinfurt gate on a Monday morning and processed to the inn of Veit Träg. From there, they re-emerged at 2 pm, one carrying a “cake with the double eagle” and another a jug of wine. Having circled the tree three times in both directions, they drank a 58  Quote and details taken from Kirchner, Manual (note 21), 229–32. For unexplained reasons, the custom had lapsed during the preceding twenty-nine years.

178

Chapter 6

toast to good health and opened the dance with their Platzjungfer in the presence of “a great crowd”. The Burschen then spent the rest of the evening until the 10 pm closing time at the inn while the girls returned home. Following an identical procedure at Sennfeld on Tuesday, the celebrations concluded with “some ridiculous acts” – clearly lots of mischief – on day three, when all publicans hired musicians and staged games “which lightened the wallets” of many participants. To locals and visitors, the Plantanz made a series of important statements: Gochsheim’s imperial connections, which no-one could have missed, the paternal goodwill of local officials, the involvement of all inhabitants (young and old, men and women), pride in distinctive cultural traditions and the strengthening of social bonds within the community. Having surveyed the villages’ own representations, how were their multimedia messages perceived by outsiders and what images did external observers generate themselves? While it would be futile to strive for comprehensive coverage, a few pointers shall be explored in this section. Starting with peer perspectives, we have noted in Chapter 4 how other rural communities knew of – and often desired – the self-determination and privileges associated with immediate status. Berkach, Freienseen, Kochendorf and Nordrach attempted to gain similar rights through court proceedings, while Weggis appealed to the Swiss Diet, all to little avail. At the other end of the imperial hierarchy, generations of chancellery officials issued royal charters to the “faithful” villages requesting confirmations at the beginning of each new reign, with a particularly impressive sequence surviving for Soden. In the jurisdictional sphere, Reichskammergericht and Reichshofrat personnel handled countless petitions and complaints regarding political and ecclesiastical ­encroachments.59 In the early modern period, legal scholars like Ernst Ludwig Wilhelm von Dacheröden, Johann Jacob Moser, Gottlieb August Jenichen or Simon Friedrich Segnitz discussed the precise status of imperial villages or “special republics” within the Reichspublizistik genre.60 In spite of a lack of institutionalized representation at the Diet, the political and legal elite was thus widely aware of immediate rural communes, also given their acknowledgement in key constitutional documents right up to the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss of 1803.

59  Searches in RI, a calendar of official transactions of kings and emperors, and the “Datenbank Höchstgerichtsbarkeit”, a steadily growing online catalogue of lawsuits in the highest central courts, produces dozens of references to Reichsdörfer. In Sigismund’s confirmation of privileges of 1434, for example, he referred to Sulzbach and Soden as “parishes … faithful to me and the Empire”: RI, XI/2, no. 10203. 60  The latter phrase is used in Johann Nicolaus Hertius, De specialibus Imperii RomanoGermanici rebus publicis (PhD, Giessen 1698), 98–9.

Representations and Perceptions

179

A further indicator of recognition is the inclusion of Dörfer in the so-called Reichsquaternionen, a standardized visualization of the Empire, possibly rooted in the Council of Constance’s insistence that members of any status were obliged to defend the Church. Widely disseminated from the fifteenth century in various formats encompassing books, flysheets, playing cards and glass panels, the scheme arranged the various estates – dukes, counts, cities etc. – into groups of four, typically in a symmetrical pattern on the spread wings of a double-headed eagle wearing the imperial crown. The emphasis lay on the hierarchical structure, overall harmony and Christian allegiance of all constituent parts rather than on constitutional accuracy. Some units, like the “Duchy of Swabia”, had long disappeared, others carried mysterious names such as the Burggraf of Strandeck, while ecclesiastical princes were simply ignored and Dörfer represented by urban communes.61 On a late sixteenthcentury Reichsadlerhumpen, a richly enameled drinking vessel, preserved at Schweinfurt, for example, the four “villages” – positioned between “knights” and “burghers” alongside a large crucifix which marked the diagram’s central axis – are Bamberg, Ulm, Hagenau and Sélestat. The only, if any, connection of these cities to actual Reichsdörfer was their location within the Franconian, Upper German and Alsatian clusters of political freedom, in the case of Hagenau also the eponymous imperial bailiwick.62 Whatever the reasons for these curious choices (perhaps that burghers and peasants formed part of the same third estate, that their communal organization had many parallels and that few would have recognized specific villages anyway?), the Quaternionen alerted a general audience to the fact that there were Dörfer among the immediate members of the empire. The same impression – basic familiarity with imprecisions in detail – emerges from early modern cartography. One problem here was scale which needed to be small enough to allow the depiction of imperial villages as separate entities. This was the case e.g. for Gochsheim and Sennfeld in the Schweinfurt area map included in Johann Kaspar Bundschuh’s description of the city published in 1802 (cf. Figure 1), but unrealistic for any surveys of the whole empire, fragmented enough at its higher levels. We also need to bear in mind that pre-modern maps served purposes beyond precise geographic orientation 61  Ernst Schubert, “Die Quaternionen: Entstehung, Sinngehalt und Folgen einer spätmittelalterlichen Deutung der Reichsverfassung,” in: Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 20 (1993): 1–63, esp. n. 223 (absence of genuine Reichsdörfer). 62  “The Holy Roman Empire and its Members” (Bohemia, 1583): Schweinfurt, Museum im Alten Gymnasium, inv. no. M – 229 A. These glasses, used on ceremonial occasions for toasts and the pledging of healths, were suitably tall: a similar one from 1571 in the British Museum, registration no. S.836, measures 26.8 cm in height: https://tinyurl.com/ztr5hnw.

180

Chapter 6

and territorial demarcation, reflecting notions about the order of the universe, overlapping rights, political agendas, aesthetic tastes and the desire to project power all at the same time. As cultural artefacts they need decoding with period-specific “carto-literacy” skills.63 Imperial villages themselves produced visual records of land ownership, settlement plans, local landmarks and contested boundaries rather than grand canvases of their wider surroundings, thus leaving the latter to political authorities and commercial publishers with distinct objectives.64 In the eighteenth century, for example, many maps for the Frankfurt or Nassau region show Sulzbach and Soden as belonging to the nearby imperial free city, disregarding the constitutional stake of joint bailiff Mainz, not to speak of the communes’ long-standing affiliation to the empire.65 “Gochsain” makes an early appearance, without Sennfeld or any specific territorial attribution, on Abraham Ortelius’ depiction of Franconia in 1570; later on, Johann Heinrich Seyfried’s 1670 map of Würzburg, published well after the restoration of their immediate status, shows “Goxham” and Sennfeld as parts of the Bishopric’s territory outside the boundaries of the bailiwick of Schweinfurt. Conversely, only Sennfeld can be seen, alongside a regular village/ church symbol, above the inscription “Wurtzburg” on a survey of three dioceses produced by Daniel Adam Hauer in 1787.66 All in all, Bundschuh’s smallscale 1802 map emerges as the most detailed and – to modern eyes – “accurate” representation of the situation on the ground. How about Gersau, located in an area increasingly detached from the empire? Arguably yet more complexities confronted cartographers in this region. Given separate associates and dependent territories, Protestant and Catholic cantons disagreed about the exact extent of the Swiss Confederation, while foreign powers brought yet different understandings to the map-drawing table. Before 1538, furthermore, political boundaries do not appear at all and, for 63  Jeremy Black, Maps and History: Constructing Images of the Past (New Haven, 1997), 15. 64  See e.g. the prospect of the village and salt works at Soden in 1615: Otto Raven, Neuenhain im Taunus. Geschichte eines Dorfes (Neuenhain: Gemeinde, c.  1971), 532; the drawings of agricultural holdings in GRS, Ackerbuch über des Hochlöbl: Kornambts=Geländ zu Sultzbach (1721); and the village plan of Gochsheim in GAG, GO-AK21007-LI/41A-: Johannes Ludwig, Topographische Vorstellung von Gochsheim (1798). 65  The villages appear – with the gallows symbol for the Hochgericht Diefenwegen but their territories shaded in the Frankfurt color – e.g. in Johann Baptist Homann, “Abbildung der Keys. Freyen-Reichs-Wahl-und-Handelstatt Franckfurt am Mayn mit ihrem Gebiet” (1700) and – correctly encircled yet explicitly labeled as “Frankfurtisch” – in Johann Jacob Stetter’s “Nassovia Principatus” (1708). 66  Full details and digital versions of these maps are accessible in the University of Würzburg’s Topographia Franconiae database, under “Historische Karten,” http:// franconica.uni-wuerzburg.de/ub/topographia-franconiae/maps.html.

Representations and Perceptions

181

most of the Ancien Régime, attributions via the coat of arms of individual Orte remained more prominent than topographical demarcation lines (especially for “special cases” like the allied cities of Rottweil, Mulhouse and Geneva).67 Probably the first cartographer to note “Gerisow” was Antonio Salamanca in 1555, although without any explanatory symbols or comment.68 More information derives from three seventeenth-century examples. At the request of the city council, scribe Renward Cysat and painter Hans Heinrich Wägmann produced an ink drawing of the territory of Lucerne in 1613. Near the bottom left-hand corner, Gersau appears with its church, a cluster of houses and forested mountain slopes just outside its neighbor’s boundary. In contrast to Buochs or Beckenried across the lake, furthermore, a color version of its blue and red crest is added, lifting Gersau above “normal” villages almost to the rank of Stans, the capital of Nidwalden, except that the latter is clearly shown as ­larger.69 Yet greater detail characterizes Johann Leopold Cysat’s map of the Forest Cantons in Merian’s Topographia Helvetiae of 1654. The scale allows the display of several groups of houses and reference numbers for Gersau, identified in the key as designating its westernmost “red shoe” area (no. 80), the main settlement or Flecken (83) – separated from the “lower” village (81) by a brook (82) – as well as the sites of the Hochgericht (84) and Mary Helper chapel (86) further south towards Brunnen. A separate prospect of Schwyz in the same tome, furthermore, features Gersau – with its hall, parish church, chapel and execution site – on the left margin.70 Next, our case study is categorized as an oppidum/Flecken, i.e. just one level below the  XIII cantons, additionally highlighted with their crests, in Hans Conrad Gyger’s 1657 map of Switzerland. Moving to the eighteenth century, Johann Jakob Scheuchzer showed Gersau – this time with its coat of arms – as a bourg catholique romain in 1720, again an only marginally inferior classification than the petites villes 67  Andreas Würgler, “Which Switzerland? Contrasting Conceptions of the Early Modern Swiss Confederation in European Minds and Maps,” in: Political Space, ed. Kümin (note 1), 197–213, esp. 197, 206, 211. 68  Unless otherwise indicated, the Gersau maps can be found in Georges Grosjean and Madlena Cavelti, eds., 500 Jahre Schweizer Landkarten (Zurich: Orell Füssli, 1971), e.g. nos 5 (Salamanca 1555), 16 (Gyger 1657), 21 (Scheuchzer 1720), 23 (Meyer/Weiss 1796) and/ or Zentralbibliothek Bern, “Kartensammlung Ryhiner,” http://www.digibern.ch/katalog/ kartensammlung-ryhiner-ryhiner-map-collection, e.g. Ryh 8608 60 (Cysat 1654) and Ryh 3216 11 (Seutter c. 1740). 69  Online edn of the original kept in the Zentralbibliothek Bern: Renward Cysat and Hans Heinrich Wägmann, “Luzernerkarte,” https://staatsarchiv.lu.ch/index/schaufenster/ karten_stadtansichten/kantonskarte_cysat.htm. 70  This prospect is reproduced in Beat Kümin, The Communal Age in Western Europe c. 1100– 1800 (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2013), figure 2, and on the cover of Müller, Gersau (note 48).

182

Chapter 6

of the main confederates. Twenty years later, on his Pagus Helvetiae Suitensis, the German engraver Matthäus Seutter added a bold red boundary, demarcating Gersau’s territory clearly from Schwyz and Lucerne. He also allocated it the same “major Flecken” symbol as e.g. Uri’s capital Altdorf, as opposed to the lower-grade parish church icon used for neighboring villages like Beckenried and Weggis. Finally, on the “Forest Cantons” page of a 1796 atlas published by Johann Rudolf Meyer and Heinrich Weiss just before the Helvetic Revolution, we find the village itself marked by a cluster of black dots, the territorial border with a precise line running across the lake and along the mountain ridges, some landscape features and a couple of topographical inscriptions. This work approaches the scientifically “exact” standards modern users have come to expect (except for the Mary helper chapel symbol placed on Schwyz ground). All in all, awareness of the micro-republic as a distinct topographical and political entity grew over the course of the early modern period. To differentiate it from surrounding villages/parishes on the one hand, and the confederate allies on the other, most cartographers considered the term/sign for Flecken the most appropriate denomination. Europe’s first encyclopedias offer another kind of bird’s-eye perspective. Compiled in the Enlightenment period, the main French, German and Swiss works all have entries for Gersau. As seen in Chapter 3, the Encyclopédie described it as a “small sovereign republic”; Zedler’s Lexicon as a “free spot”, with privileges gained by purchase and secured through a protective alliance; and Leu’s Schweitzerisches Lexicon – naturally most extensively – as an “entirely free” Flecken surrounded by high mountains and sustaining 900 inhabitants mainly on animal husbandry, with some further remarks on historical and administrative features.71 In the British Isles, compilers of the related survey genre of gazetteers prove equally conscious of Gersau, highlighting its location, government system, silk industry and status as the “smallest republic” in Europe.72 As for the German case studies, Zedler lists them both collectively and individually. The generic entry “free imperial villages” identifies the absence of intermediate lordship as the key defining feature, notes their appearance 71  [Jaucourt, Louis de,] “Gersaw,” in: Encylopédie, ed. Denis Diderot et al., vol. 16 (Lausanne/ Berne: Sociétés typographiques, 1782), col. 106–7; Johann Heinrich Zedler, ed., Grosses vollständiges Universal=Lexicon aller Wissenschaften und Künste, vol. 10 (Leipzig: Zedler, 1735), col. 1168; Johann Jacob Leu, Allgemeines Helvetisches, Eydgenössisches, Oder Schweitzerisches Lexicon, part VIII (Zurich: Hans Ulrich Denzler, 1754), 448. 72  Richard Brookes, The General Gazetteer (11th edn, London: Bye and Law, 1800), sub “Gersau” (unpaginated); similar information in Clement Cruttwell, The New Universal Gazetteer; or, Geographical Dictionary (Dublin: John Stockdale, 1800), 304; both reflecting the pre-1798 situation.

Representations and Perceptions

183

in constitutional documents and sends readers to scholar Melchior Goldast for specific examples, albeit with reference to some cryptic place names like Chambs – possibly Gams – and Ulethies. Gochsheim and Sennfeld appear jointly as “considerable imperial communes” of Lutheran faith specializing in the cultivation of vegetables and running their own affairs in separate courts, with protector Würzburg levying taxes for the Reich and exercising high jurisdiction. In addition, the article rehearses the 1715–16 dispute about clerical appointments and ecclesiastical rights (discussed above) in some detail, advising readers that important matters await resolution by the diet. Three distinct entries for Soden and Soltzbach/Sultzbach, in contrast, highlight the powersharing agreement of Frankfurt and Mainz in the seventeenth century, but not the villages’ immediate status.73 Thus, while the political freedom of Gersau, Gochsheim and Sennfeld was widely acknowledged in these summaries of eighteenth-century knowledge, the position of Sulzbach and Soden again appears more tenuous. Digging deeper into printed discourse, the variety and volume of chorographies, histories, travel reports, literary works etc. grew exponentially over the course of the early modern period. Reflecting its heyday – and the startling victory over noble opponents at Hemmingstedt – Dithmarschen stakes an early claim for rural communes in these genres. Hardly two weeks after the battle on 17 February 1500, a carnival play at Lübeck ridiculed the princely defeat by a peasant army so mercilessly that the king of Denmark officially complained to the city council. These extraordinary news – as well as previous exploits – became standard components of subsequent historical writings on the region. Songs and poems similarly celebrated Swiss military achievements at around the same time, especially against the Burgundian knights of Charles the Bold and mighty Habsburg opponents, attributing the surprising outcomes to the troop’s bravery and their intense religious devotion.74 On the other hand, when dealing with lowly commoners and provincial politics, elite authors could express condescension and ridicule. Sixteenth-century chronicler Diebold Schilling, for example, contrasted Gersau’s self-perception as the “freest” confederate with its minute size of hardly more than twenty households, 73  Zedler, Lexicon (note 71), vol. 9, col. 1865 (“Freye Reichs-Dörffer”); vol. 11, col. 37 (Gochsheim and Sennfeld); vol. 38, col. 322 (Soden, with brief reference to the salt works and mineral fountain); vol. 38, col. 647 (Soltzbach) and vol. 41, col. 224 (Sultzbach), the latter two providing almost identical information under two different spellings. 74  Eckehard Simon, Die Anfänge des weltlichen deutschen Schauspiels 1370–1530. Untersuchung und Dokumentation (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 2003), 257 (carnival play); Paul H. Freedman, Images of the Medieval Peasant (Stanford: University Press, 1999), 200–1 (songs/poems celebrating Swiss as well as Dithmarschen victories).

184

Chapter 6

while German novelist Jean Paul satirized the “free” immediate market of Kuhschnappel [cow snaps] with its contrived constitution as a sleepy backwater run by ponderous officials averse to any new ideas.75 During the Enlightenment and Romantic periods, more positive portrayals predominate. Early on, Johann Leopold Cysat praised the villagers of Gersau as “strong and manly people, having a well-ordered regiment, …  a beautiful church and a finely built … Flecken, wholly surrounded by mountains.”76 By the late eighteenth century the micro-polity had become the “darling” of a group of writers disillusioned by the absolutist regimes, incessant warfare and rigid social discipline pervading other parts of Europe. Drawing inspiration from period discourses about natural law and original states of human association, they came to view the Alpine region in general – and rural republics in particular – as ideal pastoral alternatives to political tyranny and stifling mores.77 Strong appreciation of small scale, favorable location, introspection and inclusive government emerges from Johann Conrad Fäsi’s chapter dedicated to “the small republic of Gersau” in his Description of the Swiss Confederation (1766): The Flecken, together with a few houses scattered around it, constitutes the entire state…. The landscape offers  … an abundance of fruit and wood … [but also brings] severe flooding. The inhabitants possess complete freedom. The highest power rests in the communal assembly, which meets annually … with the participation of some 300 men. The head of this small republic, which resembles the free = state of St Marino in the papal lands in several respects, is the land mayor. He … is chosen by the assembly. … Thus this state has almost the same constitution as the cantons of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden. [Fäsi then approvingly quotes an extensive passage from another work, Anton Büsching’s Erdbeschreibung, first published in the 1750s:] 75   Luzerner Chronik (note 13), 630 (1513); Jean Paul, “Siebenkäs [1796],” in Werke, vol. 2, ed. Gustav Lohmann (Munich: Hanser, 1959), 7–565, esp. 70–6. The latter stands in a long literary tradition of inadequate communal officials, exemplified most memorably by comically inept constable Dogberry and his hopeless night watchmen in Shakespeare’s Much Ado about Nothing (c. 1598), e.g. Act III, Scene 3. 76   Beschreibung deß Beru(e)hmbten Lucerner= oder 4. Waldsta(e)tten Sees (Luzern: David Hautten, 1661), 234. 77  For the wider context and specific examples see Marysia Morkowska, Vom Stiefkind zum Liebling: Die Entwicklung und Funktion des europäischen Schweizbildes bis zur Französischen Revolution (Zurich: Chronos, 1997), 205; a particularly influential voice in the re-interpretation of the Swiss mountains, previously seen as an inhospitable if not hostile environment, was a poem by the universal scholar and statesman Albrecht von Haller: “Die Alpen” (1729), http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/die-alpen-5457/1.

Representations and Perceptions

185

This free = state [!] may be the smallest in Switzerland, perhaps in the entire world, … yet it is by no means the unhappiest; much rather, it is happier than the largest. Little gets said and written about it compared to France or England. This forms part of its good fortune. As Rousseau writes in his Contract Social: a small state is stronger than a big one. Here he does not refer to military might and fortitude (for in this respect Gersau could not compete with the tiniest of the Swiss cantons), but the inner prosperity enjoyed by members of such a state. Those of Gersau have no enemies. Who even knows anything about them? … There are thousands of Swiss who have never heard of them. [If anyone raised a claim of lordship] how could [it] succeed? They are in the middle of Switzerland, [protected by] the lake in front and the Rigi = Mountain at the back … [and have another strength:] They do not meddle with foreign nations; they have no need for the French, Austrians, Spaniards … or Dutch; they have no alliances … with them … No ambassadors call on them, but in turn they never have to attend on such lords to beg for favors. They just look after themselves and when they receive what God offers them in terms of pastures, cattle and fish, they are content. Is a citizen of such a state not fortunate? And how big is the state of Gersau in its constitution …, too! … All the judges are known to their peers, who can assess their qualifications. Trials are short and not very expensive…. Compare this with bigger states! How many advocates, sub-judges, officials, commissions … How fortunate are those of Gersau, having no such [legal agents] and plenipotentiaries!78 In his widely-read history of Switzerland, in turn, scholar and statesman Johannes von Müller emphasized the importance of the alliance with the Forest Cantons. “Since the eternal treaty was kept as faithfully with Gersau as with Bern, [the village] has now enjoyed unlimited freedom and unaltered democracy for four hundred years. … Without memories of a former – and without fear of future – oppression they look after their cattle, cultivate the land and labor diligently; hence the people of Gersau live on their moderate work 78  Johann Conrad Fäsi, Genaue und vollständige Staats= und Erd=Beschreibung der ganzen helvetischen Eidgenoßschaft, vol. 2 (Zurich: Orell, Geßner & Co., 1766), ch. 35: “Die kleine Republik Gersau,” esp. 350–3; the integrated extract taken from [Johann Konrad Füssli?], “Anmerkungen” [on Büschings Erdbeschreibung], in: Freymüthige Nachrichten (1763), 340– 2; explicit reference to Gersau as a “small free state” (ein kleiner Freystaat) also in Johann Konrad Füssli, Staats- und Erdbeschreibung der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, vol. 1 (Schaffhausen: Benedikt Hurter, 1770), 383.

186

Chapter 6

with natural pleasure, free, secure, uncoveted and perhaps worthy of envy.”79 Probably the highest-profile acknowledgement – albeit posthumously and on a characteristically modest scale – came in Schiller’s William Tell. Published after the French invasion, this dramatic interpretation of the Swiss foundation myth mentions the village as a staging-post on a journey from Schwyz to Lucerne (Act  I, Scene 2) and also features a minor character “Kunz from Gersau”, a boatman who witnesses the hero’s capture by the Habsburg viceroy (Act IV, scene 1).80 Given that none of the case studies had major sights or visitor attractions, the burgeoning genre of travel writing proves less fertile than for other locations. Still, a few authors mention Gersau in passing, almost invariably with reference to its topographically sheltered location and distinction of being Europe’s smallest republic. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, sadly, appears to have stopped on the other side of the lake during his boat trip on 19 June 1775, but twelve years later, Christian Gottlieb Schmidt – somewhat inaccurately – noted that this separate “small republic has no links to other cantons and appears to have been forgotten by the common alliances”, while – in 1814, the year in which Gersau temporarily regained its independence – Samuel Rogers commented on the presence of a textile industry and the “enchanting” character of the place, where he stayed at a comfortable inn and encountered wellbehaved children.81 The one critical voice here is Helen Maria Williams. As we have seen in Chapter 3, she pointed to weaknesses of “extensive” government, especially its failure to prevent a growing social chasm between the mansions of the silk barons and the “wretched cabins” of less prosperous inhabitants.82 Abstracting from some sceptical and derisory voices, however, most encyclopedic, constitutional, historical and literary works foreground the remarkable freedom and staunch resilience of immediate communes, most prominently 79  Johannes von Müller, Der Geschichten schweizerischer Eidgenossenschaft Anderes Buch, part 2 (Leipzig: M. G. Weidmanns Erben, 1786), 258. 80  Friedrich von Schiller, Wilhelm Tell (Tübingen: Cotta, 1804). 81  Müller, Gersau (note 48), 79 (reinterprets Goethe’s mention of a meal at a lakeside inn as refering to Treib in Uri rather than the Sun at Gersau); Christian Gottlieb Schmidt, Von der Schweiz: Journal meiner Reise vom 5. Julius 1786 bis den 7. August 1787 (Bern: Haupt, 1985), 60; Samuel Rogers, The Italian Journal, ed. J. R. Hale (London: Faber & Faber, 1956), 149; on 23 August 1814, a boat party including Romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley and his wife Mary caused a “most comical scene” when they “went to the wrong inn” at Gersau: Kenneth Neill Cameron, Shelley and his Circle: 1773–1822 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), 365–6; for further extracts from travel reports and related sources see the database “Ortsnamen.ch,” https://search.ortsnamen.ch/record/16001653. 82   A Tour in Switzerland; or A View of the Present State of the Governments and Manners of those Cantons, 2 vols (Dublin, 1798), vol. 1, 95–6.

Representations and Perceptions

187

for Gersau towards the end of the Ancien Régime. The stress on inward orientation, self-determination and good government echoes themes highlighted in the villages’ self-perception. There were occasions when internal and external representations intersected more directly, be it in face-to-face encounters or through some form of long-distance exchange. As observed in Chapter 4, imperial events like the beginning and end of reigns were noted in Sulzbach, i.e. in close proximity to the coronation city of Frankfurt, but the same is true further afield. Upon the death of Charles VI on 20 October 1740, Gochsheim – “as a Reichsflecken” – honored the deceased with a commemoration on the twenty-second Sunday after the Feast of the Trinity (13 November). After a first sounding of bells during morning service, a second peal was rung at noon, when a procession – presumably made up of clergy – started to move from the church through the gate of the surrounding Kirchengaden onto the main square. There, outside the village hall, avoyer, court and stool stood waiting in their coats of office. Once the “entire neighborhood” had assembled and a first hymn was sung, the festive cortège moved back to St Michael’s for a rousing rendition of “When my hour comes”, the minister’s address and further musical adornment “of the most touching kind”. Five years later, the election of the Duke of Lorraine (Francis I) was marked by a sermon on the theme of “See ye him whom the LORD hath chosen” (1 Samuel 10:24). At the end of the century, after the death of Joseph II on 20 February 1790, the village observed a four-week period of mourning “like other imperial cities [sic]”. Bells were rung for half an hour each lunchtime, all entertainments ceased, official letters carried black seals and the church was draped in the same color. Ahead of the official sermon delivered on 21 March, “the venerable court and stool, dressed in their coats, and all the neighbors” assembled outside the village hall to embark on another procession, only to repeat the procedure in the autumn to mark the accession of Leopold II. Those celebrations unfolded pretty much along the same lines, except that the pastor preached a sermon of thanksgiving and the congregation sang “We praise you, o Lord”.83 In diplomatic exchanges, external authorities addressed imperial villages as corporate entities (universitates), just like towns. A Frankfurt charter of 1321 refers to the “avoyers, jurors and commune of the villages Sulzbach [and] Soden”; in 1510, the council of Zug sent an arbitration verdict to the “honorable, modest mayor and common parishioners and whole commune at Gersau”; and a cameral court sentence of 1597 went to the “imperial avoyer/village master 83  Ludwig, Manuale (note 19), entries for 1740, 1745, 1790.

188

Chapter 6

and court” of Gochsheim.84 Moving from titles to contents, written communications reveal some common ground, but above all distinctive perspectives and contrasting expectations. As directly interested parties, bailiffs viewed the commune’s privileges rather less benignly than the distant observers and enlightened idealists surveyed before. Apart from the occasional legal protection or financial support, the early modern period saw growing tensions. The War of the Austrian Succession, to adduce one more example, involved sustained troop movements across the Rhine-Main region; in July 1745, the army of the Duke of Lorraine stood just outside Sulzbach.85 Large volumes of letters document the heavy impact on local communities expected to supply vast numbers of men with food, quarter and ancillary services. To ensure compliance, bailiff officials imposed fines and arrested reluctant neighbors. In February 1746, Sulzbach and Soden sent a characteristically blunt complaint directly to the Mainz government, pointing to their “time-honored exemption from any burdens imposed by the circles” (the administrative and military enforcement units of the Empire, usually without any direct power over immediate villages) and the fact that they had suffered greater charges than localities without comparable privileges. In annotations intended for superior decisionmakers, office clerks advised that local colleagues curb excessive impositions, but also censured the villages’ “questionable writing style [as] strongly exceeding what was commensurate with the humble respect and obedient acceptance owed by subjects to His Electoral Grace as their joint lord”, ultimately recommending that the petition be rejected.86 Within less than a month, the communes followed up, asking why they had not heard back. Carefully styling themselves “most humbly faithful protection=kin”, village mayors Georg Petermann (Sulzbach) and Heinrich Christian (Soden) insisted that they owed it to the Roman kings as well as their descendants to uphold the rights preserved for many centuries and renewed the request for “treatment in line with imperial law”, failing which they would have to seek assistance directly from the emperor.87 Sulzbach and Soden have supplied us with some of the most tangible illustrations of face-to-face interaction with bailiffs. Following the restoration of immediate status in 1613, highly charged moments – suffused with political, visual and spatial symbolism – included late May/early June 1657, with 84  Raven, Neuenhain (note 64), 25 (1321); Salzmann, Martin, ed., Die Rechtsquellen des Kantons Luzern, part 2, vol. 1 (Aarau: Sauerländer, 1996), 126 (1510); VG, appendix 8 (1597). 85   G RS, Löschhorn Tagebuch (note 23), 1745. 86  HHStAW, Abt. 4/255, 305r (2 February 1746; part of a large file relating to billeting matters). 87  Ibid., 307v–308r (9 March 1746; “unterthänigst getreue Schutz=Verwandte”).

Representations and Perceptions

189

protracted maneuverings to get all villagers to accept the joint Frankfurt-Mainz agreement on the one hand and to reclaim key constitutional documents from the imperial city on the other; February to October 1726, when ecclesiastical conflicts divided both Sulzbach and Soden as well as Sulzbach and Mainz, the latter culminating in military occupation; and the years 1753–54, seeing furious reactions to claims of territorial lordship and disagreements over blood court procedures. At Gochsheim, the two – rather more extensive – flashpoints involved the reprisals following the Erthal funeral from 1592 and the controversies surrounding the deposition of pastor Thaut in the early 1700s, although the – scarcely documented – period of temporary subjection to Würzburg between 1637–49 must have been fraught with difficulties as well.88 A reminder of lower-level, everyday tensions comes from a dispute about precedence at Gochsheim in 1731. Ahead of an elaborate oath-swearing ceremony in front of the Prince-Bishop of Würzburg as imperial protector, the communes wanted their avoyers to appear in front of the clergy, but the bishopric’s officials insisted that it should be the other way round.89 Recapitulating what emerges in terms of representations, these conflicts reveal fundamentally diverging self-perceptions of the two parties: bailiffs used signals of superiority, e.g. by asking villagers to “come up” to see them at Sulzbach in 1657, and demonstrations of their own power, in terms of adapting regimes, withholding evidence and controlling church regimes; the communes, in contrast, cared about constitutional custom, above all their direct link to the empire (implying merely protective roles for Frankfurt, Mainz and Würzburg), inclusive government (involving very “public” displays of consultation during encounters with bailiffs) and symbols of their political freedom (hence the importance of recovering archives and of village jurors pronouncing blood court verdicts). At Gersau, of course, Lucerne’s aspirations of overlordship had been thwarted as early as the 1430s. For about three hundred years, the empire then provided the sole overarching, if increasingly remote, framework, with the confederates offering more tangible protection. As the European state system evolved in the wake of the Peace of Westphalia, with – as emphasized in Bodin’s influential work – territorial sovereignty a precondition of playing a full part on the international stage, many Swiss cantons came to perceive imperial subordination as a disadvantage and a sign of inferiority compared to leading powers like France or England. Following the explicit exemption from any obligations towards the Reich gained in 1648, the major cities of Bern and Zurich – just like the Dutch provinces – gradually turned to classical models, 88  See the detailed discussions of all these episodes in Chapters 4–5. 89  Ludwig, Manuale (note 19), entry for 1731.

190

Chapter 6

re-imagining themselves as independent polities legitimized by adherence to civic virtues. Thomas Maissen conceptualized this shift as the “birth of the Republic”, i.e. a regime ruled by the many without a monarchical head and thus a radical departure from medieval tradition.90 In this context, the proliferation of this very term in internal and above all external discourses – diplomatic correspondence, historical works, travel reports, encyclopedias – relating to Gersau gains added significance. From about the mid-eighteenth century, the micro-polity clearly embarked on a similar trajectory, albeit without erasing its imperial past or undue political ambitions. Just like before, no delegates attended Swiss Diets or treaty negotiations with foreign powers, but this reflected Gersau’s distinct position as an allied “neighbor”, inward orientation and insufficient clout rather than a lack of sovereign status.91 Most revealing is the shift in visual representation, with traditional imperial imagery on its crest superseded by elements from Roman Antiquity, especially the “liberty cap” as a classical symbol of political freedom (Figures 29a–b). In the surviving documentation, the old style last adorns the big land book of 1742, with the first example of the new arrangements appearing in the Landgemeindebuch of 1784.92 By that point, Gersau was presented and recognized as an independent rural republic. A few years later, “old Europe” collapsed under the revolutionary fervor of all-conquering French armies. In 1798, the loose Swiss Confederation became the centralized Helvetic Republic, with Gersau absorbed into the new District of Schwyz, while German imperial villages underwent mediation and

90   Die Geburt der Republic: Staatsverständnis und Repräsentation in der frühneuzeitlichen Eidgenossenschaft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), esp. fig. 33: Joseph Werner’s 1682 painting “Allegory of the Republic of Bern” featuring personifications of virtues like faith, fortitude and wisdom. 91  For the implausible claim of a post-1800 “invention” and back-projection of Gersau’s republican status see André Holenstein, “Die Erfindung der Republik Gersau im Zeitalter der Revolution,” in: Politische Freiheit, ed. Kümin (note 52), 37–43; a more nuanced assessment of the polity’s evolution in Maissen, Republic (note 90), esp. 527. 92   B AG, LB 3, frontispiece (1742); LG 1: Landgemeindebuch, title page (1784), reproduced in Beat Kümin, “Vom Reichsdorf zur Republic. Grundlagen und Entwicklung der politischen Freiheit in Gersau,” in: Politische Freiheit, ed. idem (note 52), 93–98, esp. fig. 21. A transitional variant featuring just the shield appears in the big land book of 1762: ibid., LB 4. On the use of the (originally Phrygian) liberty cap as a symbol of territorial sovereignty in the Ancien Régime see Thomas Maissen, “Der Freiheitshut. Ikonographische Annäherungen an das republikanische Freiheitsverständnis in der frühneuzeitlichen Eidgenossenschaft,” in: Kollektive Freiheitsvorstellungen im frühneuzeitlichen Europa, eds. G. Schmidt et al. (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006), 133–44.

Representations and Perceptions

FIGURES 29A–B

191

Left: Gersau’s majestic coat of arms in the small land book of 1605 shows two mirror images of its red-and-blue shield under the imperial attributes of eagle and crown: BAG, LB 6, 13. Right: the version placed in the great land book of 1792, by contrast, now features a lion and the distinctly “republican” symbol of the liberty cap (the color in the blue half of the shield has faded): ibid., LB 5, title-page.

integration into various principalities in 1803.93 Is this the end of the story? Not quite. The dozen or so communes affected showed no sign of acquiescing to changes they had opposed so vigorously over the previous centuries. Sulzbach and Soden reacted most quickly and strongly. Having received their latest confirmation of privileges from Francis II just ten years earlier, the villages fired off a joint petition to the prince of Nassau within a matter of months. The language conveys feelings of injustice nurtured by a sense of entitlement: The communes of Soden and Sulzbach humbly request to be graciously maintained in the possession of their long-standing rights. Since time immemorial, we have held no other relationship to German estates than 93  See Müller, Gersau (note 48), 92–107; Helmut Neuhaus, Das Reich in der Frühen Neuzeit, 2nd edn (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2003), 38.

192

Chapter 6

the recognition of the imperial free city of Frankfurt and the Electorate of Mainz as our protectors. The only benefit they derived from this was the annual fee of 250 f. … We owed no further tax, rent or service and the admission of neighbors remained our sole prerogative. When the latest peace with France [transferred the respective rights to the House of Nassau], not only government councillor Hut  …, but also His most gracious Majesty himself, assured us of the preservation of our existing privileges. Hence we were all the more surprised to be burdened with seigneurial [labor?] services and prohibited from accepting new neighbors and residents ourselves. This procedure, so evidently contrary to our status, restricts our rights too strongly for us not to petition Your gracious Lord … for a revocation of these pressing orders.94 This could not go down well with central bureaucrats interested in a level playing field. A special commission worked towards full integration of the villages, but prefaced its report with a look back at how “this former small state … with its very peculiar constitution” had been run. Highlighting the many faults, inadequacies and negative features – allegedly an “addiction to lawsuits” and a widespread “immorality” among the inhabitants – the document sought to prepare the ground for administrative improvements benefiting the common weal.95 In the early nineteenth century, resentment of subordination can also be traced at Gochsheim and Eglofs, possibly even in Dithmarschen where it had started way back in 1559.96 Gersau seized the moment when Napoleon’s demise nurtured desires for a return to pre-revolutionary regimes. On 2 February 1814, in the parish church, the land mayor updated all burghers on the latest political developments and their auspicious implications. The specially convened Landsgemeinde resolved 94  HHStAW, Abt. 4/571: Privilegien der Gemeinden Soden und Sulzbach, 19r–v (22 July 1803); on the tenacity of the villages see also Kromer, Soden (note 8), vol. 2, 208; and Kaufmann, Soden und Sulzbach (note 34), 7. 95  HHStAW, Abt. 4/571, 233r–234r (11 November 1805). 96  Comments like “now being subjects [of Bavaria], we have to accept [external decisions]” illustrate frustrations at Gochsheim: Ludwig, Manuale (note 19), entry for 1812 (made by a descendant of the original author). In Dithmarschen, traces of an attempted breakaway from Denmark in 1810 – albeit via the somewhat incongruous route of establishing a duchy under French protection – came to nothing: Joachim Krause, “Vor 200 Jahren: als Dithmarschen versuchte seine Unabhängigkeit wieder zu erhalten” (2011), http:// www.dithmarschen-wiki.de/. In 1827, Eglofs wrote to the King of Bavaria, complaining that it was treated less favorably than subjects in other previously immediate communities: Peter Blickle, “Die freie Republik Eglofs,” in: Im Oberland: Kultur-Geschichte-Natur. Beiträge aus Oberschwaben und dem Allgäu 5 (2/1994): 7–15, esp. 7.

Representations and Perceptions

193

“that we declare ourselves in favor of the freedom and independence held before the year 1798, if we can ever attain it, and of a detachment from the Canton of Schwyz”.97 The council then approached its former allies at a meeting in the local Sun inn on 2 March, asking for their approval and the reestablishment of the old protective relationship. Over the following months, all responded positively. On 22 April, for example, the City of Lucerne wrote to its “faithful dear confederates and neighbors”, expressing understanding for their “yearning for the happy days of the past” and a return to “the republic of Gersau”. A few weeks later, following consultations with the other cantons, the highest city authority “solemnly declared” its recognition of the “restoration of the former free state of Gersau on the basis of the original federal alliance of 1359”.98 Yet, although Schwyz had – somewhat reluctantly – done the same, it changed tune as soon as further shifts in the international context – following the Congress of Vienna, which envisaged Switzerland in the borders of 1813 – and a new confederate treaty of 1815, making no mention of Gersau, raised the prospect of reintegration. Possibly for the first time ever, the villagers resorted to print, commissioning assistant parson Johann Caspar Rigert to put the historical case for continued independence. Supported by numerous documents, he presented Gersau as one of the co-founders of the confederation, thus deserving of as much freedom as the others, emphasized hundreds of years of self-government and rejected any reference to the Conference of Vienna, since the peace negotiators had not dealt with the matter explicitly.99 However, in utter disregard of Gersau’s increasingly desperate resistance, Schwyz persisted and eventually succeeded at a meeting of the Diet on 22  July  1817, with the decision taking effect on 1 January 1818.100 The restoration, a romantic rather than a realistic move in Europe’s incipient age of nationalism, had lasted for just over three years. Gradually the emphasis shifted towards accommodation and commemoration. Amidst all the constitutional, social and economic transformations of modernity, traditions of political freedom were not forgotten. All of the case studies have attracted interest from local historians, starting with two members 97   B AG, LG 1, 92 (“Daß wir uns für die vor Anno 1798 gehabte Freÿheit u. Unabhängigkeit, wenn wir immer zu derselben gelangen können, declarieren, und von dem Kanton Schwÿz looß stellen wollen”). 98   B AG, UKP (note 6), 333–4 (2 March), 7 (22 April) and 9 (1 June 1814); the original letters of all allies are kept ibid., Urkunden, no. 50. 99   Memoriale des Freystaates Gersau ([no place]: B.  Blunschi, 1817) and Nachtrag zur Geschichte des Freystaates Gersau (Zug: Blunschi, 1817). 100  For the text of the resolution regarding the Flecken Gersau and further details on the dramatic events see Müller, Gersau (note 48), 102.

194

Chapter 6

of the Camenzind family: Josef Maria Mathä (1816–83), assistant priest at Gersau, used his local base to compile source materials, produce numerous thematic surveys (ranging from ecclesiastical life via civic associations to property ownership), conduct genealogical research, gather a vast parish library of several thousand books and write a three-volume account of the village (which remained in manuscript until the 1950s); while Damian (1828–1912), whose career took him from law studies and the district mayorship at Gersau all the way to the position of governing Landammann of Schwyz, published the first extended history (with source appendices) in 1863.101 Cultural events reinforced local awareness of a “special” past. To mark the 500-year-anniversary of the 1390 purchase, the commune commissioned both an epic poem, sponsored by a local bank, and a historical play to be staged by amateur actors.102 Early on in the twentieth century, the village hall of 1745 received its current ornamentation, featuring key dates and the crests of the twelve burgher families, while in 1979, in a half-joking/half-political move, a local group calling itself the “Gersauer Republikaner” issued the first note of congratulation to the new Canton of Jura, which had just separated from Bern after a long and acrimonious process.103 The Camenzinds, first documented in an early fourteenthcentury land transaction and arguably Europe’s longest-serving local “dynasty”, continue their startling prominence in all walks of life: apart from running silk factories, serving on the district council and filling a fair share of Gersau’s phone directory, the name inspired a nobel-prize-winning novelist and one of their number became world cycling champion in 1998.104 By the early twenty-first century, the tourist board used the term Erlebnisrepublik (republic of adventures) to market its leisure attractions and the bicentenary of the 1814 restoration inspired a whole year of celebratory activities which included a Landsgemeinde in the church on the anniversary of the decision, several exhibitions/concerts/excursions to historic sites, a scientific conference dedicated 101  Franz Auf der Maur, “Camenzind, Damian,” in: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz, ed. M. Jorio (2003), http://www.hls-dhs-dss.ch/textes/d/D5709.php; see the bibliography for full details, also regarding the works of Doris Badel (Sennfeld), Walfried Hein (Gochsheim), Ekkehard Kaufmann (Sulzbach/Soden), Joachim Kromer (Bad Soden), Albert Müller (Gersau) etc.; the most recent addition is a microhistorical study by Michael Geisler. 102  Printed without indication of authors as Ein Gedenkblatt zur Erinnerung an die Gründung der Republik Gersau 1390, der hiesigen Jugend gewidmet von der Sparkassagesellschaft Gersau 1890 (Gersau, 1890) and Die Republik Gersau – Ein Volkschauspiel bearbeitet nach der Geschichte der Republik Gersau (Gersau, 1890). 103  Kulturkommission, ed., Rathaus Gersau (note 46); Müller, Gersau (note 48), 112. 104  Hermann Hesse, Peter Camenzind (Berlin: Samuel Fischer, 1904); for a video portrait of Oscar Camenzind, now the local postman, see http://www.gersau.ch/de/ich-bin-gersau/ oesi-camenzind.html.

Representations and Perceptions

195

to “political freedom” and a range of branded souvenirs such as a specially minted currency and red/white “republic wine”.105 Similar long-term repercussions can be observed in modern Germany, where a first list of imperial villages was compiled in 1836.106 Here, commemoration was affected by the wider prism of scholarly and popular conceptions of the old empire, broadly evolving from critical views – as a failed nation state – in the nineteenth century towards a more positive appreciation of its federal structure and complementary legal services over the last few decades.107 The historical coming and passing of two further German empires complicates the picture further, with the period 1933–45 in particular raising problematic issues. In Dithmarschen, support for the Third Reich was nurtured by purported affinities between historic peasant strength and the Nazi “blood and soil” ideology, while ignoring the specific historic circumstances and decentralized structure of the medieval parish federation.108 In the present-day Federal Republic, the fostering of imperial village tradition intersects with wider interests in local history and heritage, often actively encouraged by communal and regional authorities. At Gochsheim, memories are kept alive through information signs on historic houses as well as the nearby motorway, alerting drivers to the proximity of two “Kaiserlich freie Reichsdörfer”, the resurrection of the imperial avoyer office as an honorary position, the annual Plantanz festivities on the first Sunday in September (held also at Sennfeld, where there is a street named Reichsdorfstraße), a carefully looked-after archive and the collections of a Reichsdorfmuseum.109 At Sulzbach and Soden, both parishes marked anniversaries of eighteenth-century church building with collaborative Festschriften, the former has a lively history society (Geschichtsverein Reichsdorf Sulzbach 1979 e.V., issuing occasional publications), while Bad Soden retains a Kurpark around the old mineral spring, even though salt works and spa facilities have

105  These initiatives are documented on http://www.gersau-2014.ch/. It should be disclosed that the present author played an active part in the planning and delivery of the programme; see e.g. Kümin, ed., Politische Freiheit (note 52). 106   L.  Hugo, “Verzeichnis der freien Reichsdörfer in Deutschland,” in: Zeitschrift für Archivkunde, Diplomatik und Geschichte 2 (1836): 446–76. 107  A concise survey of developments and debates in Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire 1495–1806, 2nd edn (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2011). 108  Martin Gietzelt and Ulrich Pfeil, “Dithmarschen im ‘Dritten Reich’ 1933–45,” in: Geschichte Dithmarschens, ed. Verein für Dithmarscher Landeskunde e.V. (Heide: Boyens  & Co., 2000), 327–60; William L. Urban, Dithmarschen: A Medieval Peasant Republic (Lewiston: E. Mellen Press, 1991), xi. 109  Website at https://reichsdorfmuseum.byseum.de/, featuring a video tour emphasizing the “great past” – and “civic pride” – of the village.

196

Chapter 6

FIGURE 30 While unauthorised and accompanied by a modern political symbol, the slogan “For Freedom” sprayed on a wall at Bad Soden’s train station in 2013 strikes a historically meaningful chord.

long disappeared.110 Politically, too, affinities for local self-government have persisted (Figure 30). When the land of Hesse embarked on a reorganization of communal boundaries in 1974: Sulzbach, according to these supra-regional plans, was earmarked for integration into Bad Soden. Yet, both for historical reasons … and its economic as well as administrative strength, the people of Sulzbach could not warm to the prospect. An almost unparalleled joint campaign of officials, burghers, societies and organizations managed to prevent the Hessian planners from realizing the fusion at the last minute.111 110  Festschriften edited by the Evangelische Kirchengemeinden in 1974 and 2016; cf. the archival sources listed under GRS. In Dithmarschen, the Heider Marktfrieden society stages biannual open-air performances of a historical play commemorating the land’s freedom and the peasant assemblies held on the village’s market square from the fifteenth century: https://www.heider-marktfrieden.de. 111  Information from the communal website: Gemeinde Sulzbach, “Sulzbacher Geschichte,” http://www.sulzbach-taunus.de/Gemeinde/Sulzbacher_Geschichte/Geschichte_Teil5.

Representations and Perceptions

197

In conclusion, this chapter has underlined the strength of local identities in the pre-modern period.112 Compared to other villages and parishes, however, immediate status provided a pervasive and distinctive element in all case studies. Disseminated in a variety of media, self-representations reflect a spatialtopographical notion of political freedom encompassing all neighbors within the communal boundaries, in implicit contrast to the subjects of territorial lords beyond. Taken together, the respective articulations reveal outlines of an informal “free state” theory, emphasizing corporate organization, self-government, broad political participation, majority decisions and determined resistance against external encroachments, not just in sovereign republican polities like late eighteenth-century Gersau but also mixed regimes with a monarchical head, aristocratic governing body and democratic base as at Gochsheim. This kind of pragmatic political thought – of peasant rather than urban or scholarly origin – deserves greater attention alongside neo-classical theories and human rights discourses based on natural law. Outside perceptions in encyclopedias, maps, treatises and literary works suggest widespread awareness of the existence of imperial villages and their general attributes, albeit with limited knowledge about specific rights and circumstances. While critical and derogatory at times, comments from “neutral” observers tended to become ever more positive towards the end of the Ancien Régime, when Gersau in particular served as an ideal for authors yearning for less authoritarian and exclusive regimes. Among directly interested parties such as bailiffs and imperial courts, on the other hand, the early modern centuries saw a decreasing willingness to respect and uphold customary arrangements, especially in the cases of Sulzbach and Soden. In line with recent scholarship, the Holy Roman Empire emerges as a framework commanding much loyalty and prestige, particularly at the level of immediate communes lacking power of their own. Even more than higher-up the political hierarchy, oral, ritual and symbolic exchange (e.g. in oath ceremonies and other face-to-face encounters with allies or bailiffs) mattered for these largely illiterate societies. Yet the growing role of writing should not be overlooked. In contrast to assumptions of a merely sedimentary character of rural communication, the sources suggest more complex, networked and integrated structures involving different media and types of correspondents. Charters dominate among medieval documentation, but the use of script in administrative and jurisdictional matters increased from around 1500, not just for archival or commemorative purposes – as in the recording of rights or the villages’ lively 112  Axel Gotthard, In der Ferne: Die Wahrnehmung des Raums in der Vormoderne (Frankfurt a.M.: Campus, 1997), 80–2.

198

Chapter 6

historiographical cultures – but also to solicit responses, mobilize support and influence processes, not least in the context of near-permanent litigation. Egodocuments (such as the Gochsheim manuals) as well as officially commissioned “propaganda” (like Moser’s Reichsfreyheit) testify to engagement with and reflection of wider political issues. Print, perhaps, played a lesser part than in larger polities striving to overcome the pre-modern “tyranny of distance”, yet a peasant federation like Dithmarschen published its fundamental laws already in the late fifteenth century, while Sulzbach and Soden did the same with regard to their constitutional privileges in the early seventeenth. Given their embedding in the wider framework of the empire, our case studies had to balance introspective preferences with a degree of institutionalized outside liaison. Does this, from a communicative point of view, make them “special cases” or should historians revise prevailing assessments of rural political cultures more generally? All villages, of course, formed part of supralocal/-regional economic and ecclesiastical networks, so – pending further research – the working hypothesis must be an assumption of differences in degree rather than principle.

Chapter 7

Conclusions Imperial villages – rural communes without an intermediate political ruler – were the smallest constituent parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The preceding chapters have traced their origins and evolution, moving from inner organization via external relations and metaphysical dimensions to representations. By way of an outlook, these final remarks set Reichsdörfer in a broader comparative framework, recapitulate the main findings and offer some thoughts on the study’s wider relevance within and beyond early modern studies. Between c. 1300 and c. 1800, the porous chronological boundaries of this investigation, the default position of the peasantry involved subordination to feudal and territorial lords. Alongside external constraints and appropriations, however, recent research has pointed to ways in which villagers gained socio-economic agency, exercised local government functions and influenced major political and religious processes.1 While this is now widely accepted, even for areas associated with serfdom and absolutist regimes,2 pockets of rural autonomy – of various roots, types and sizes – afforded further opportunities in several parts of the empire. Apart from immediate constitutional status, the focus of enquiry here, conducive factors included secluded topographical locations,3 high concentrations of freemen,4 environmental in-

1  See Chapter 1 and – for a case study – Katherine Brun, The Abbot and his Peasants: Territorial Formation in Salem from the later Middle Ages to the Thirty Years War (Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 2013), esp. 420. 2  William Hagen, Ordinary Prussians: Brandenburg Junkers and Villagers 1500–1840 (Cambridge: University Press, 2002); Sheilagh C. Ogilvie, “Village community and village headman in early modern Bohemia,” in: Bohemia 46 (2/2005): 402–47. 3  At Cavajone, a remote summer settlement near Brusio in the Grisons, vague political and ecclesiastical boundaries prevented effective outside control until a formal state treaty clarified the situation in 1874: Adolf Collenberg, “Cavajone,” in: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz, ed. M.  Jorio (September 1st, 2003), http://www.hls-dhs-dss.ch/textes/d/D8100.php. I am grateful to Jon Mathieu for alerting me to this case. 4  In the Hümmling region of Lower Saxony, assertive freeholders strove for greater autonomy through association with nearby Frisia (in the thirteenth century, to no avail), repeated risings (in the late Middle Ages, with mixed outcomes) and imperial court proceedings against the Prince-Bishop of Münster (during the 1700s, with some success): Matthias Bähr, “Widerstand vor dem Reichskammergericht: Als die ‘freien Hümmlinger’ nach Wetzlar zogen (1739–1768),” in: Emsländische Geschichte 15 (Haselünne: Studiengesellschaft, 2008): 468–577.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004396609_008

200

Chapter 7

centives for co-operation5 and the active pursuit of fiscal or jurisdictional privileges, be it through military force, seigneurial concessions or monetary ­purchase.6 Very often, furthermore, rivalling external interests – which could be played out against each other – created space for the enhancement of local ­control.7 Similar windows opened beyond the German lands. The royal village of Kingsthorpe in the English midlands may have been the closest “foreign relation” of our case studies. From the thirteenth to seventeenth century, its inhabitants farmed this ancient demesne directly from the crown in return for an annual fee. Attributes of self-government included a common seal, toll exemptions, the leasing of mills and the right to pass ordinances, reflected in extensive manorial records. Ecclesiastically, though, the chapel of St John the Baptist remained subject to the parish of St Peter in the county town of Northampton and, politically, Tudor and Stuart monarchs gained a much firmer grip on rural communities than the kings and emperors of the Romans.8 A range of auspicious local circumstances boosted village powers elsewhere, including in southern Europe, albeit – again – for various reasons, to uneven extents and for different lengths of time. A short-lived comune rurale with formal village involvement in consular elections emerged at Rivalta di Reggio (Reggio Emilia) in the thirteenth century; along the river Vésubie in the French Alps, villages effectively emancipated themselves from seigneurial control around the same time, but then underwent gradual integration into the territory of Savoy from the fourteenth century; and on the Habsburg/Croatian border, early modern peasants secured special political, jurisdictional and religious privileges in return for military services.9 From the thirteenth century, most notably, the 5  The fostering of collective capacity through collaborative dyke construction is emphasized in Inge-Maren Wülfing, “Dithmarschen,” in: Lexikon des Mittelalters, 10 vols (Munich: Artemis, 1980–99), vol. 3, col. 1130–2, esp. 1131. 6  Military action and alliances played important roles in the early history of the Forest Cantons: Roger Sablonier, Gründungszeit ohne Eidgenossen: Politik und Gesellschaft in der Innerschweiz um 1300 (Baden: Hier + Jetzt, 2008), 200. Examples for concessions of rights include the terre separate, made up of communes like Vico Morcote and Ponte Capriasca in the present-day Ticino, where privileges granted by the Dukes of Milan in the Middle Ages survived under Swiss overlordship: Oscar Camponovo, “Terre con franchigie nel Sottoceneri,” in: Archivio Storico Ticinese 9 (1962), 443–450. I thank Marco Schnyder for this reference. 7   Argued for Franconia in Rudolf Endres, “Stadt- und Landgemeinde in Franken,” in: Landgemeinde und Stadtgemeinde in Mitteleuropa. Ein struktureller Vergleich, ed. Peter Blickle (Munich: Oldenbourg 1991), 101–18, esp. 114–16. 8  J. Hulbert Glover, ed., Kingsthorpiana, or, Researches in a Church Chest (London: Elliot Stock, 1883). 9  Antonella Campanini, Il villaggio scomparso: Rivalta di Reggio nei secoli 9.–14. (Bologna: Clueb, 2003); Jean-Paul Boyer, Hommes et communautés du haut pays niçois medieval: La Vésubie (XIIIe–XVe siècles) (Nice: Centre d’etudes medievales, 1990); Alexander Buczynski,

Conclusions

201

six parishes of Andorra carved out substantial autonomy vis-à-vis their joint territorial lords. Medieval documents reveal remarkable inclusivity, with some initiatives carrying the signatures of hundreds of villagers. Exceptionally, their federation weathered centuries of political transformations and remains a distinct political entity in the present.10 Across Scandinavia, of course, the relative weakness of feudalism went hand-in-hand with strong communal structures in secular and religious life more generally. Privileged skattebönder, forming around half of the population in central and southern parts of Sweden, owed taxes to the monarch only. Over and above local and regional influence, the peasantry even gained institutionalized representation in the imperial diet.11 Two important conclusions emerge from this brief tour d’horizon: the ability to govern with few external constraints was no elite prerogative and German imperial villages formed part of a broader landscape of rural autonomy in premodern Europe. The fragmented structure and overlapping rights of the Holy Roman Empire, however, provided a particularly congenial framework, offering niches for peasant leagues as well as immediate villages. Zooming in on the Reichsdorf experience, how can the findings of this study be summarized? A first point to note is quantitative significance: Appendix 1 lists over 300 places possessing or claiming immediate status at some point before 1803, a surprisingly large figure giving the phenomenon critical mass, especially in areas like Upper Germany, the Alsace, Franconia and the RhineMain region. The chronological heyday was the (high) Middle Ages, when royal possessions were at their most extensive and valuable, with documented cases dwindling to just over ten by the end of the eighteenth century. Imperial impecuniousness, prompting the mortgaging and loss of ever more properties, centralization processes associated with the emerging territories and – eventually – a certain trial-fatigue in imperial tribunals all hastened this erosion, against the fierce resistance of the communes themselves. By relentlessly challenging any encroachment, however small, stalwarts like Gochsheim, Sennfeld, Soden and Sulzbach managed to contain mounting pressures right up to the “Freiheitsvorstellungen an der kroatischen Militärgrenze,” in: Kollektive Freiheitsvorstellungen im frühneuzeitlichen Europa (1400–1850) (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006), 251–66. 10  Paul  H.  Freedman, Images of the Medieval Peasant (Stanford: University Press, 1999), 184–6. 11  Tom Scott, “The agrarian West,” in: The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern European History, ed. Hamish Scott (Oxford: University Press, 2015), vol. 1, ch. 15, esp. 417 (skattebönder); Nils Stjernquist, ed., The Swedish Riksdag in an International Perspective (Stockholm: Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation, 1989). For extensive self-determination in rural Denmark cf. Tore Iversen et  al., eds., Peasant Relations to Lords and Government: Scandinavia and the Alpine Region 1000 to 1750 (Trondheim: TAPIR Akademisk Forlag, 2007), esp. x.

202

Chapter 7

Reichsdeputationshauptschluss of 1803; for most others, though, insignificant size (typically less than a thousand inhabitants within a few square miles), inadequate resources, isolation and inner tensions rendered defiance unsustainable in the long term. What “cultures of political freedom” emerged on the ground? No ruler or polity, of course, can ever hope for unimpeded command. Shifting power balances, socio-economic imperatives, the demands of custom, religious obligations and sheer force all restricted the room for self-determination, from princely courts right down to village councils.12 Yet on a constitutional spectrum ranging from utter subjection to full control, Reichsdörfer clustered nearer the latter end. Theirs was not an individual and positive liberty, investing all inhabitants with human rights and permission to do whatever they like, but a spatial and negative type of freedom, exempting a closely circumscribed local area (Flecken) from the constraining demands of territorial lords and emerging states.13 Key constitutional documents and the early modern Reichspublizistik recognized their immediate status. We have seen that the resulting scope for self-government, however large or small in each specific case, became a cherished collective asset and pillar of local identity, highlighted and celebrated in communal representations such as books of laws, chronicles, seals/crests, civic buildings, religious art, pamphlets, paintings, oath ceremonies and processions. In all these media, imperial villages articulated a bottom-up “free state” concept built on political autonomy, communal rights and public service, in other words a theory nurtured by everyday practice.14 While informal, unsystematic and at times illusory, these observations and reflections reveal intriguing affinities – and perhaps certain contacts – to neo-Roman and republican political thought documented at the time. With fewer of the usual external filters in place, historians get a clearer view of village politics and the variety of “popular” government systems (cf. Figures  9–10). The most common Reichsdorf regime involved a local court presided by an imperial avoyer (exercising at least lower jurisdiction alongside extensive legislative/executive functions), an assembly of all neighbors (electing certain officials and admitting new members) and general oversight 12  Karl Siegfried Bader, Dorfgenossenschaft und Dorfgemeinde (Cologne: Böhlau, 1962), 327. 13  Political freedom was thus compatible with feudal obligations deriving from manorial organization, lesser forms of tenure (other than freehold) as well as personal serfdom (in a socio-economic sense). 14  As Peter Arnade has argued with regard to the Dutch Revolt of the late sixteenth century, its “civic republicanism … gleaned less from learned treatises than from the stuff of popular politics”: Beggars, Iconoclasts, and Civic Patriots: The Political Culture of the Dutch Revolt (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2008), 332.

Conclusions

203

by an imperial bailiff drawn from other immediate estates (to represent the empire and offer protection). By period standards, decision-making was inclusive, with relatively low proportions of adult male residents barred from political participation. Ideals like “freedom” and “custom” guided the conduct of all public affairs, although not always within the desired consensual atmosphere. The chapters feature repeated clashes of interest and factional divisions, triggering acrimonious conflicts over resources and rights with external authorities as well as among the neighbors themselves, necessitating protector and imperial involvement. In the absence of territorial taxation, which was ever-increasing elsewhere, the Römermonate defense contributions and bailiff fees constituted the sole external levies, while imperial villages had significant fundraising powers of their own. The financial situation was thus favorable, allowing the accumulation of reserves for major communal initiatives, not least public buildings and costly legal proceedings. Over time, some of these mixed regimes – combining monarchical, aristocratic and popular elements – acquired a more exclusive flavor, as village jurors started to monopolize decisions and fill vacancies themselves. The Swiss case study followed a different trajectory. Surrounded by confederate republics gradually drifting away from the empire, Gersau evolved the most participatory and self-sustained system in the sample. Owing their original collective capacity – and the ability to buy all feudal/political rights in 1390 – to parish organization, the newly “emancipated” villagers adopted the Landsgemeinde constitution of their rural neighbors. A periodic meeting of nearly all men over the age of fourteen became the sovereign institution and a council-cum-court, sometimes doubled or tripled for the most serious matters, served as the governing body between full assemblies. Untroubled by imperial taxes/judges on the one hand, and integration pressures on the other (having struck an early defensive alliance with the Forest Cantons), this micropolity became Europe’s most autonomous rural commune, complete with its own militia. Having set a kind of freedom gold standard, it positioned itself – and gained recognition as – a sovereign republic by the end of the Ancien Régime, a shift mirrored in political language and imagery. In fact, although period knowledge about Reichsdörfer tended to be limited, as evident from imprecisions in maps and the Reichsquaternionen, Gersau became something of a beacon for Enlightenment writers disillusioned with Europe’s authoritarian regimes. While embedded in (supra-)regional economies, kinship networks and wider cultural movements, immediate villages tended towards political introspection. Absent from imperial/confederate diets, distinct in terms of their status and conscious of minimal power, the communes prioritized self-defense

204

Chapter 7

and abstained from aggressive moves, quite in contrast to larger rural republics like Schwyz. Depending on the situation, bailiffs could act as protectors as well as predators; in the early modern period, they tended to blur the distinctions between imperial representatives and territorial lords, seeking greater competences of their own, while the villagers – faithful custodians of the Reichsverfassung – policed razor-sharp boundaries. In the spiritual sphere, in contrast, local attitudes proved more ambitious. Subject to regular ecclesiastical constraints such as external patrons and impropriators in the Middle Ages, the case studies increased their influence from around 1500. Through the appointment of parsons, a right acquired by purchase or through Reformation change, sustained financial investment and proactive management of parish – at Gersau even benefice – affairs, they established communalized “micro state churches” within the Catholic or Lutheran fold. As estates of the empire, the German villages benefited from the ius reformandi and the religious guarantees of the Westphalian treaty, in turn accepting their supervisory and protective duties regarding the Church. In terms of worship and doctrines, the evidence suggests conscientious fulfillment of religious duties, a flourishing devotional life and an overwhelmingly orthodox orientation, albeit with stronger local control than in other period contexts and traces of concurrent folk beliefs. Many tensions arose with bailiffs of contrasting confessional affiliation, especially around issues like presentments and church jurisdiction, some of which could be resolved by negotiation or litigation, others escalated to the use of violence and even military occupation. Recapitulating these results in the light of the principal research questions, imperial villages shared many structural features with other rural communities: householder-based regimes involving peasant representation in courts or councils with certain administrative, legislative and jurisdictional functions.15 Yet the distinctive attribute of Reichsdorf status was the institutionalized absence of intermediary lordship, conveying “state prerogatives” like excise levies and church control. Local autonomy became most extensive at Gersau, while Sulzbach and Soden slipped into a precarious position after their bailiffs’ attempted “coup” of 1753. In all case studies, the system weathered the challenges of early modern change: religious cohesion could be preserved, and socio-economic polarization contained, not least through access to communal resources, helping to explain why they survived until the end of the Ancien Régime. Regarding insights into “popular politics” more generally, the desire for self15  Peter Blickle, Kommunalismus: Skizzen einer gesellschaftlichen Organisationsform, 2 vols (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2000).

Conclusions

205

determination in rural society is amply confirmed. Judging from our microlaboratories, bottom-up regimes valued local traditions, broad participation, majority decisions, collective agency (especially in times of crisis), officer/ clergy accountability, “thinking small”, legal titles, metaphysical reassurance (through parish engagement and control), self-reflection/-­representation (in seals, chronicles, pamphlets etc.) and the custodial framework of the empire, while not being immune to period trends like oligarchization and the pursuit of greater social and confessional discipline. Historiographically, the book reinforces recent reassessments of the Holy Roman Empire away from notions of a failed nation state towards recognition of its tangible and lasting significance as an overarching authority. Key values like political representation, peace and the rule of law commanded enduring respect, not least in its smallest constituent units, where ubiquitous imperial symbols testified to the villagers’ loyalty. Here as elsewhere, early modern transformations like centralization or confessionalization involved negotiation with the population at large. To the widely-documented process of state building “from below” we may now add the consolidation of single-unit polities without a prince. As the case studies show, tiny political organisms proved viable (sometimes over many centuries), institutionally innovative (“Communal Catholicism/Lutheranism”) and accommodating of socio-economic development (as in the case of Gersau’s silk industry). In terms of communication regimes, furthermore, imperial villages transcended the limits of face-to-face interaction and merely “sedimentary” structures often associated with rural environments. As members of a vast political organism, with institutionalized contact to bailiffs, chancelleries and central jurisdiction, writing complemented oral and ritual media from the late Middle Ages, although there were fewer incentives to utilize print. Dealings with cameral court and aulic council, in particular, required complex long-distance exchange with delegates, agents and bureaucratic institutions where writing acquired structuring rather than just archival functions. Widening the perspective, imperial villages should not be reduced to constitutional footnotes. More numerous than immediate cities, they punctuated the German political landscape, particularly in the Middle Ages, and deserve greater attention than they have hitherto received. A systematic analysis of their legal battles in the context of state formation could shed further light on conflicting pre-modern notions of local government and political freedom. In many ways, Reichsdörfer form part of a larger story about center-­periphery relations. From the Antique Greek polis to the self-declared micro-nations of the present, small has often appeared most beautiful, with central or superior authorities

206

Chapter 7

(like distant emperors) allocated subsidiary roles at most.16 In February-March 1798, to touch on a few further examples, a short-lived independent republic of Riva San Vitale surfaced in the Southern Alps during the turmoil of the French Revolutionary Wars and, in the 1960s, the village of Seborga on the Italian Riviera unilaterally cut ties with Rome arguing that it had not been formally included in the country’s unification of 1861. At the time of writing, apart from high-profile separation referenda held in Catalonia, Scotland and the UK, a Reichsbürger movement is gaining notoriety in Germany. With thousands of supporters rejecting the post-WW2 settlement as an external imposition in the state of Bavaria alone, some of whom gathering in “self-governing” cells with their own norms and symbols, law enforcement agencies are starting to take notice.17 Such initiatives, inspired by heterogeneous and at times ominous ideologies, form powerful counter-currents to the process of globalization running alongside.18 By way of explanation and corroboration, scientists point to self-determination as an important factor in human “well-being” and limited group size – ultimately down to a single local community – as most congenial for social exchange. In our case studies, too, there were attempts to turn the clock back in the early nineteenth century (Figure 31) and, even in the twentyfirst, memories of past independence remain a notable and actively-nurtured part of collective identities.19 All in all, from the high Middle Ages to the dawn of modernity, hundreds of villages tasted political freedom in the German lands, sometimes over many generations and in defiance of subordination pressures. Tens of thousands of commoners gained experience of civic decision-making, public office and ecclesiastical affairs; well away from major centers, Gersau’s Camenzind “dynasty” has demonstrated republican virtù for seven centuries.20 Imperial avoyers and land mayors (cf. Appendix 2) interacted with monarchs, nobles and prel16  On pre-modern visions of political freedom see also Peter Bierbrauer, Freiheit und Gemeinde im Berner Oberland 1300–1700 (Bern: Historischer Verein, 1991), 365, and Andrew Bradstock, ed., Winstanley and the Diggers 1649–1999 (London: Frank Cass, 2000). 17  Sibylle Heusser, “Riva San Vitale”, in: ISOS-Ortsbilder (Zurich: Bundesamt für Kultur, 2002), 13; The Sunday Telegraph (19 March 2017): 18 (Seborga); http://www.verfassungss chutz.bayern.de/weitere_aufgaben/reichsbuerger/index.html (Reichsbürger). 18  See also projects to establish floating micro-cities in international waters, allowing inhabitants to forge new kinds of communities independent of state control: www.sea steading.org. 19  On these aspects, see notes 34–5 in the Introduction, Chapter 6 and Figure 30 above. 20  On the significance of commoner involvement, values and agency for socio-economic and political development see most recently Deirdre M. McCloskey, Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World (Chicago: University Press, 2016), esp. part VI.

Conclusions

207

FIGURE 31 The former imperial village of Gersau – depicted on the eve of its (temporary) restoration as an independent republic in the early nineteenth century – with the main settlement on the lakeside, scattered housing on the mountain slopes and the newly-rebuilt church on the right: extract from Damian Rigert, “Prospect of Gersau” (watercolor drawing, 1813).

ates, provided leadership and dealt with matters of life and death. Contrary to the fears of political theorists, furthermore, such participatory regimes did not result in anarchy and a world turned upside-down; much rather, peasant republics guarded the constitution and protected the Church. Examining the Reichsdorf phenomenon thus affords a fresh and complementary view of early modernity; one of minute polities (rather than expansive principalities), rural self-government (rather than absolutism) and communal Christianity (rather than confessionalization). However indirect and broken, these practices belong to the lines of tradition linking the Ancien Régime with the democratic regimes of the present.21 Further case studies await examination, as does the European landscape of local autonomy as a whole.22 Among contemporaries, the desirability and extent of collective freedom was debated and contested; for historians, thanks to the wealth of resulting evidence, imperial villages offer unusually sharp insights into the micro-politics of pre-modern society.

21  For a differentiated assessment of continuities and change see Andreas Suter, “Vormoderne und moderne Demokratie in der Schweiz,” in: Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 31 (2004): 231–54. 22  Helpful starting points include Hermann Aubin, “Das Schiksal der schweizerischen und der friesischen Freiheit,” in Grundlagen und Perspektiven geschichtlicher Kulturraumforschung und Kulturmorphologie, ed. Ludwig and Franz Petri (Bonn: Roehrscheid, 1965), 349–68; Kai-Henrik Günther, Sizilianer, Flamen, Eidgenossen: Regionale Kommunen und das soziale Wissen um kommunale Conjuratio im Spätmittelalter (Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 2013); Duncan Hardy, “Associative Political Culture in the Holy Roman Empire: The Upper Rhine, c. 1350–1500” (DPhil thesis, Oxford, 2015). The Centre européen des études républicaines (https://www.univ-psl.fr/fr/etudes-republicaines-CEDRE), founded in 2016, could play a facilitating role here.

Appendix 1

Communities Possessing, Claiming or Attributed Imperial Village Status (Pre-1803) Incorporating information from Hugo 1836, Nietzschmann 2013 and Köbler 2015, the following alphabetical list includes further Reichsdörfer documented in the sources consulted for this project (with indication of major clusters discussed in Chapter 2). For places in italics, the identification and/or geographical location remains doubtful, others might more strictly be termed Reichstäler (imperial valleys, e.g. Harmersbach), Reichsweiler (hamlets like Gebolsheim) or Reichshöfe (imperial farmsteads, e.g. Lustenau), with additional research needed to clarify the situation. Such a compilation can only ever be “work in progress” and additions or corrections would be gratefully received. At the time of going to press, the preliminary number of immediate communities was 312 (counting the Bauern of Eglofs and the Gerichtsfreie of Leutkircher Heide, both spread over numerous settlements, as two single entities and excluding multi-unit peasant federations like Dithmarschen and the rural cantons/associates of the Swiss).

Places/variants, location (cluster) [comment]

Present-day Land/country

References (cf. bibliography & list of abbreviations)

Achalm/Acholm nr Reutlingen

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Aeschach nr Lindau [Reichshof]

Baden-Württemberg Jenichen 1768:12–13

Altdorf nr Ravensburg

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Althausen nr Bad Mergentheim [Freidorf]

Baden-Württemberg Staatsarchiv Ludwigsburg, B249/B 254; Wegelin 1755, vol. 1:39; Moser 1774:532; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Altenhain/Altheim

Hesse

Hugo 1836; Kaufmann 1981:6

Altingen

?

Hugo 1836

Altshausen / A(l)schhausen nr Ravensburg

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015; http://www.wikiwand .com/de/Altshausen

Altstadt/Altenstadt nr Wissembourg

Alsace/France

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Auersbach

?

Hugo 1836

Aufkirchen nr Dinkelsbühl [traces of imperial city status?]

Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Auhausen

Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004396609_009

210

Appendix 1

(cont.) Places/variants, location (cluster) [comment]

Present-day Land/country

References (cf. bibliography & list of abbreviations)

Bachenau nr Wimpfen

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Bafel

?

Hugo 1836

Baldwile/Baldenwil nr Herisau

Appenzell/ Switzerland

Hugo 1836

Balgau

Alsace/France

RI VI,1 n. 2188

Bärnau

Bavaria

RI VI,2 n. 707

Barre/Barr

Alsace/France

RI, Regg. Pfalzgrafen 2, n. 5291; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Bärstein/Börstingen

?

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Batzendorf (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Eyer 1939

Bauerbach nr Bretten

Baden-Württemberg RI VII H. 2 n. 101; Hugo 1836; Bähr 2012:138; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Beienheim nr Reichelsheim in the Wetterau

Hesse

Darmstadt, Hessisches Staatsarchiv, S2; Eckhardt 1987:155

Bellheim

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013

Bengel, Kröver Reich (RhineMain Region)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Bergheim

Alsace/France

RI, Regg. Pfalzgrafen 2, n. 5291

Berkach nr Meiningen

Bavaria

Munich, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, RKG 4024; Bähr 2012

Bernhardsweiler

Baden-Württemberg RI VIII n. 1286

Bernolsheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Eyer 1939

Berstheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Biburg nr Nennslingen

Diocese of Eichstätt

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Billigheim nr Landau

Rheinland-Pfalz

RI VIII n. 3764; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Bilwisheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Bingen

Baden-Württemberg Josef Deschler, “Bingen”, in: Hohenzollerische Heimat 23 (1973)

Birkweiler

Rheinland-Pfalz

Nietzschmann 2013

Bitschhofen (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Eyer 1939

Blauen nr Laufen

Solothurn/ Switzerland

Sigrist 1953:183–4

Böckingen nr Heilbronn

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Böhl/Bühl nr Neustadt (Pflege Hassloch)

Rheinland-Pfalz

RI V,1,2 n. 5066; Hugo, Verzeichnis; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Bönigen nr Interlaken

Bern/Switzerland

RI VI,1 n. 446

Communities Possessing, Claiming Imperial Village Status

211

(cont.) Places/variants, location (cluster) [comment]

Present-day Land/country

References (cf. bibliography & list of abbreviations)

Bossendorf (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Eyer 1939

Brackel/Brakel nr Dortmund [Reichshof ]

Nordrhein-Westfalen Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Brislach nr Laufen

Solothurn/ Switzerland

Sigrist 1953:183–4

Brissago/Bresag

Ticino/Switzerland

Rechtswörterbuch XI 2003–7, 594

Bubenheim, Ingelheimer Grund (Rhine-Main Region)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Canel (Lower Rhine Circle)

?

Hugo 1836

Dachstetten (Ober-/Mittel-/ Nieder)/Dachstadt (Franconia)

Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Weiß 1957:57; Köbler 2015

Dangolsheim (Bailiwick Hagenau) Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Daxweiler, Ingelheimer Grund (Rhine-Main Region)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Nietzschmann 2013

Dettingen on the Erms

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Dettwang nr Rothenburg

Bavaria

RI VI,2 n. 649

Dexheim nr Oppenheim (Rhine-Main Region)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Dienheim nr Oppenheim

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Dierbach/Direnbach nr Bergzabern Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Dingsheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Dittenheim nr Dinkelsbühl

Bavaria

Franz 1970:78

Dittingen nr Laufen

Solothurn/ Switzerland

Sigrist 1953:183–4

Dornbüren/Dornbirn nr Bregenz [?] Vorarlberg/Austria

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Dornheim nr Groß-Gerau

Nietzschmann 2013

Hesse

Dornhennebach/ (Dürren)Hembach Bavaria nr Nuremberg

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Dörrenbach/Dorrenbach nr Bergzabern [= Dierbach?]

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo; 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Dortelweil nr Frankfurt (RhineMain Region)

Hesse

Mattern 1976:48

Dossenheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Dottenheim/Tottenheim/ Totemheim (Franconia)

Bavaria

Weiß 1957:57

Dreis nr Wittlich

Rheinland-Pfalz

Köbler 2015

Dunningen nr Rottweil

Baden-Württemberg Nietzschmann 2013

212

Appendix 1

(cont.) Places/variants, location (cluster) [comment]

Present-day Land/country

References (cf. bibliography & list of abbreviations)

Duttenberg/Tutemburg nr Wimpfen

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Egersheim/Ergersheim

Alsace/France

Eglofs, free people of (Upper Swabia) [Bauern in den Stürzen, not the Bürger with Lindau city law]

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Kissling 2006; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Elmenhorst/Frohlinde nr Recklinghausen [Reichshof ]

Nordrhein-Westfalen Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Elsenz

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Elsheim, Ingelheimer Grund (Rhine-Main Region)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Embs/Ems nr Hohenems

Vorarlberg/Austria

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Eppingen

Baden-Württemberg http://www.leo-bw.de/web/guest/detail-gis/-/ Detail/details/ORT/labw_ortslexikon/1912/ Eppingen

Erden/Erlen/Erdwe, Kröver Reich (Rhine-Main Region)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Ergersheim in the Rangau nr Ansbach

Bavaria

Franz 1970:76–7

Erlenbach/Erlebach

Rheinland-Pfalz

RI VIII n. 3764; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Erlendorf/Ervendorf/Erbendorf nr Nuremberg

Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Eschbach (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Eyer 1939; Nietzschmann 2013

Ettendorf (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Nietzschmann 2013

Felben nr Frauenfeld

Thurgovia/ Switzerland

RI, Chmel n. 3203

Forst (Bailiwick Schweinfurt)

Bavaria

Stein ed. 1875:143

Forstheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Nietzschmann 2013

Freckenfeld nr Karlsruhe

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Frei-Weinheim, Ingelheimer Grund (Rhine-Main Region)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Freienseen nr Laubach

Hesse

Hugo 1836; Diestelkamp 2012; Nietzschmann 2013

Freisbach nr Landau

Rheinland-Pfalz

Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Gams/Gambs/Gamß nr St Gall

St Gall/Switzerland

Goldast 1609; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

RI, Chmel n. 1068

Communities Possessing, Claiming Imperial Village Status

213

(cont.) Places/variants, location (cluster) [comment]

Present-day Land/country

References (cf. bibliography & list of abbreviations)

Gebolsheim, Imperial Hamlet (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Gebsattel on the Tauber

Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Geilweiler in the Siebeldinger Valley [a lost village]

Rheinland-Pfalz

Nietzschmann 2013

Geislingen/Geiselheim nr Uffenheim in Franconia

Bavaria

Franz 1970:76

Geltersheim/Geldersheim (Bailiwick Schweinfurt)

Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Stein ed. 1875:189; Köbler 2015

Gersau on Lake Lucerne (Central Alps)

Schwyz/Switzerland

BAG; Camenzind 1953–59; Müller 2013; Kümin 2014/2015

Gertweiler/Gertewilre/Gertwiler nr Sélestat

Alsace/France

RI, Regg. Pfalzgrafen 2, n. 5291; Köbler 2015

Gettelmare [Reichshof]

Thurgovia/ Switzerland

Hugo 1836

Ginsheim nr Mainz (Rhine-Main Region)

Hesse

Köbler 2015

Gnodstadt in Franconia

Bavaria

Weiß 1957:61

Gochsheim/Gochßheimb (Bailiwick Schweinfurt)

Bavaria

GAG; Segnitz 1792; Hugo 1836; Weber 1913; Hein 1994; Nietzschmann 2013

Godramstein [briefly with imperial city status?]

Rheinland-Pfalz

RI VIII n. 3764; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Gommersheim nr Landau

Rheinland-Pfalz

Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Gondertheim/Geudertheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Hugo 1836; Becker 1899; Köbler 2015

Goxweiler/Goxwilre/Goxwiler

Alsace/France

RI, Regg. Pfalzgrafen 2, n. 5291; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Grafenstaden nr Strasbourg

Alsace/France

RI XI,1 n. 613; Köbler 2015

Grassendorf (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Gressweiler nr Mutzig

Alsace/France

RI VI,1 n. 2207

Grettstadt (Bailiwick Schweinfurt) Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Griesbach in Diocese of Regensburg Bavaria

RI VI,2 n. 707

Groß-Winternheim, Ingelheimer Grund (Rhine-Main Reg.)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Großgartach nr Heilbronn

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Gründau

Hesse

RI XIII, H. 8 n. 130

Grundesbach/Griesbach

Alsace/France

RI, Regg. Pfalzgrafen 2, n. 5649; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

214

Appendix 1

(cont.) Places/variants, location (cluster) [comment]

Present-day Land/country

References (cf. bibliography & list of abbreviations)

Günsbach/Grussersbach

Alsace/France

RI, Regg. Pfalzgrafen 2, n. 5649; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Gunstett (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Eyer 1939; Nietzschmann 2013

Habkern/Habcheren nr Interlaken Bern/Switzerland

RI VI,1 n. 446

Harburg [also referred to as a “market”]

Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Harmersbach (Ober-/Unter-) [Reichstal]

Baden-Württemberg Hillenbrand 2003; Nietzschmann 2013

Haseloch/Haslach/Haßloch (Pflege Rheinland-Pfalz Hassloch nr Neustadt)

RI V,1,2 n. 5066; Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Hegeney (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Heichelheim/Heyenheim in the Wetterau

Hesse

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Heidingsfeld nr Würzburg (Franconia) [with town status?]

Bavaria

Weiß 1957:59; Köbler 2015

Heiligenstein between Strasbourg and Sélestat

Alsace/France

RI, Regg. Pfalzgrafen 2, n. 5291; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Heimersheim/Heimerzheim/ Heymersheim

Rheinland-Pfalz

RI VIII n. 1963; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Hellerkirch/Heller/Hollar in the Wetterau

Hesse

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Hembach/Dürrenhembach/ Dornhennebach nr Nuremberg

Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Hemmendorf

Bavaria

RI VI,2 n. 649

Herdren

?

RI, Chmel n. 3203

Hernsheim/Hemmersheim (Franconia)

Bavaria

RI VIII n. 5315; Weiß 1957:57

Hilgersdorf/Hilpersdorf (Bailiwick Bavaria Schweinfurt)

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Hochfelden

Alsace/France

RI VI,1 n. 2211

Hochstetten (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Hoffstetten/Hofstätten/Hofstetten Rheinland-Pfalz nr Annweiler

Hugo 1836; ; Köbler 2015

Hofstetten nr Laufen

Solothurn/ Switzerland

Sigrist 1953:183–4

Hohenstaufen nr Göppingen

Baden-Württemberg Nietzschmann 2013

Communities Possessing, Claiming Imperial Village Status

215

(cont.) Places/variants, location (cluster) [comment]

Present-day Land/country

References (cf. bibliography & list of abbreviations)

Hohenthan/Hohenthann

Bavaria

RI VI,2 n. 707

Holzhausen/Burgholzhausen (Rhine-Main Region)

Hesse

Hugo 1836; Eckhardt 1987; Köbler 2015

Horbach nr Bergzabern

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Hoßkirch between Saulgau/ Pfullendorf [city status?]

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Huttendorf/Hüttendorf (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Eyer 1939

Huttenheim/Hüttenheim

Alsace/France

Hugo 1836

Idenheim

?

Nietzschman 2013

Iffigheim/Uffencheim/Uffenkeim (Franconia)

Bavaria

Weiß 1957:60

Iggelheim (Pflege Hassloch)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Köbler 2015

Iggingen

Baden-Württemberg Julius Breyer, “Iggingen,” in: Ostalb – Einhorn 12 (1985): 170–2

Illkirch nr Strasbourg

Alsace/France

RI XI,1 n. 613; Köbler 2015

Illwickersheim nr Strasbourg

Alsace/France

RI XI,1 n. 613; Köbler 2015

Impflingen/Imphingen nr Landau

Rheinland-Pfalz

RI VIII n. 3764; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Innenheim

Alsace/France

RI Chmel n. 1068

Kahldorf/Kaldorf nr Wissembourg

Alsace/France

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Kaichen

Hesse

RI XIII H. 8 n. 53

Kandel [?]

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Karben (Gross-/Klein-)

Hesse

RI XIII H. 8 n. 53

Katzental nr Wimpfen

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Keffendorf, Imperial Hamlet (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Kinderbeuren/Kinheimerburen, Kröver Reich (Rhine-Main)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Kindweiler/Kindwiller (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Kinheim/Kindel, Kröver Reich (Rhine-Main Region)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Kintingen in the Siebeldinger Valley [a lost village]

Rheinland-Pfalz

Nietzschmann 2013

Kirchheim nr Wasselnheim

Alsace/France

RI VI,1 n. 583

[Ingelheim see Ober-/NiederIngelheim]

216

Appendix 1

(cont.) Places/variants, location (cluster) [comment]

Present-day Land/country

Kirchheim on the Neckar

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Kleinfrankenheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Klingen nr Landau

Rheinland-Pfalz

RI VIII n. 3764; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Kochendorf

Baden-Württemberg Schöntag 2010:100–1

Kolberg/Kohlberg/Colberg nr Zwiefalten/Zell

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Königshofen nr Strasbourg

Alsace/France

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Koßweiler/Kotzweiler/Lotzweiler/ Alsace/France Botzweiler

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Kriegsheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Becker 1899; Eyer 1939

Alsace/France

References (cf. bibliography & list of abbreviations)

Kriessern nr Altstätten [Reichshof] St Gall/Switzerland

Hugo 1836; Langenegger 1979

Kröv/Cröwe, Kröver Reich (Rhine-Main Region)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; http://www.RHRdigital.de/alte pragerakten.3.2512; https://de.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Kr%C3%B6ver_Reich; Nietzschmann 2013

Külsheim (Franconia)

Bavaria

Weiß 1957:59

Kuttolsheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Nietzschmann 2013

Lauberberg nr Höchstadt [Reichshof]

Bavaria

Franz 1970:78

Lenkersheim in the Rangau

Bavaria

RI V,1,1 n. 126; Schnurrer 1987:359

Leutkircher Heide, free people on (Upper Swabia)

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; De Kegel Schorer 2007; Nietzschmann 2013

Lindelbach/Lyndelbach (Franconia)

Bavaria

Weiß 1957:57

Lixhausen (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Eyer 1939; Nietzschmann 2013

Lotzweiler near Waßlenheim

Alsace/France

Hugo 1836

Lustenau nr Höchst [Reichshof ]

Vorarlberg/Austria

Hugo 1836; Welti 1930

Lützelfeld /Lutzelenvelt, Reichshof Bavaria (Franconia)

Hugo 1836; Weiß 1957:57

Mainbernheim/Bernheim nr Kitzingen [city status?]

Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Marlenheim nr Wasselnheim

Alsace/France

RI VI,1 n. 583

Martinsheim (Franconia)

Bavaria

Weiß 1957:61

Melbach in the Wetterau

Hesse

Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Communities Possessing, Claiming Imperial Village Status

217

(cont.) Places/variants, location (cluster) [comment]

Present-day Land/country

References (cf. bibliography & list of abbreviations)

Metzerlen nr Laufen

Solothurn/ Switzerland

Sigrist 1953:183–4

Michelbach nr Merzig

Saarland

Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Minfeld nr Landau

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Minversheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Eyer 1939; Nitzschmann 2013

Mittelschäffolsheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Nietzschmann 2013

Mittelschefflenz

Baden-Württemberg RI VII H. 1 n. †1

Mommenheim (Bailiwick Hagenau) Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Morschwiller (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Mossaw/Mosau

Rheinland-Pfalz ?

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Mühlhausen a. d. Enz [imperial knight’s village?]

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Mulach nr Constance [Reichshof ]

Thurgovia/ Switzerland

Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013

Mundeslacht/Minderslachen [?]

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Mutzenhausen nr Strasbourg (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Nietzschmann 2013

Nenzlingen nr Laufen

Solothurn/ Switzerland

Sigrist 1953:183–4

Nesselbach (Ober-/Unter) in the Rangau (Franconia)

Bavaria

Weiß 1957:57

Neuenhain

Hesse

Kaufmann 1981:6, 13

Neuenreuth/Nuwenreuthe/Nerreth nr Nuremberg

Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Neuhausen nr Zwiefalten

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Newfarn

?

RI, Chmel n. 3203

Nieder-Burgheim nr Sélestat

Alsace/France

RI, Regg. Pfalzgrafen 2, n. 5291; Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013

Nieder-Ingelheim, Ingelheimer Grund (Rhine-Main Region)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Petry 1964; Köbler 2015

Niederlindach nr Höchstadt [Reichshof]

Bavaria

Franz 1970:78

Niederschäffolsheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Nietzschmann 2013

Niederweiler/Unterweiler nr Hoßkirch/Saulgau

Baden-Württemberg Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

218

Appendix 1

(cont.) Places/variants, location (cluster) [comment]

Present-day Land/country

References (cf. bibliography & list of abbreviations)

Nierstein nr Oppenheim (RhineMain Region)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Nordheim nr Wasselnheim

Alsace/France

RI VI,1 n. 583

Nordrach nr Zell am Harmersbach [Landstab or valley]

Baden-Württemberg Franz 1970:75

Nurite/Neurod/Nauert

Rheinland-Pfalz ?

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Ober-Burgheim nr Sélestat

Alsace/France

RI, Regg. Pfalzgrafen 2, n. 5291; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Ober-Ingelheim, Ingelheimer Grund (Rhine-Main Region)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Petry 1964; Köbler 2015; https:// de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingelheimer_Grund

Oberehrenbach nr Forchheim

Bavaria

Franz 1970:77; Zimmermann 1935; Endres 1991:114–16

Obergriesheim nr Wimpfen

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Oberhasli [Reichstal]

Bern/Switzerland

Brülisauer 2011

Oberickelsheim in Franconia

Bavaria

Weiß 1957:61

Obernbreit in Franconia

Bavaria

Weiß 1957:61

Oberreitnau nr Lindau [Reichshof] Baden-Württemberg Jenichen 1768:12–13 Oberrheinfeld/Oberrenfeld (Bailiwick Schweinfurt)

Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Stein ed. 1875:189; Köbler 2015

Oberschefflenz nr Mosbach

Baden-Württemberg RI VII H. 1 n. †1; Hugo 1836; Roedder 1928; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Oberweiler nr Hoßkirch/Saulgau

Baden-Württemberg Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Ockstadt in the Wetterau

Hesse

Odenheim nr Bruchsal

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Odratzheim/Odersheim

Alsace/France

Offenau nr Wimpfen

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Offenheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Ohlungen/Nieder-Ohlungen (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Eyer 1939

Otterbach nr Bergzabern

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836

Petersbach nr Saverne

Alsace/France

Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013

Petersbuch, with Heiligenkreuz

Bavaria

http://www.wikiwand.com/de/Petersbuch

Pföffingen/Pfäffingen

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836

Pfullingen on the Echaz nr Reutlingen

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015 RI, Chmel n. 1068

Communities Possessing, Claiming Imperial Village Status

219

(cont.) Places/variants, location (cluster) [comment]

Present-day Land/country

References (cf. bibliography & list of abbreviations)

Prießerstatt/Priestenstett/ Prichsenstadt (Franconia)

Bavaria

Hugo 1836

Pussenhaim/Püssensheim (Bailiwick Schweinfurt)

Bavaria

http://monasterium.net/mom/DE-StAW/ SchweinfurtReichsstadt/1556_Januar_21/charter

Rankweil nr Feldkirch

Vorarlberg/Austria

Hugo 1836

Ratershausen/Rottershausen (Bailiwick Schweinfurt)

Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Stein ed. 1875:128

Raubersried/Robesreuth

Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Rechtenbach

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836

Reichartshausen nr Amorbach

Bayern

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Reitzel/Reihel/Reil, Kröver Reich (Rhine-Main Region)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Richen b. Eppingen

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Rickenbach/Rickarbach nr Lindau [Reichshof]

Baden-Württemberg Jenichen 1768:12–13

Rindal/Rinnthal

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836

Ringeldorf nr Strasbourg (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Ringingen nr Blaubeuren

Baden-Württemberg Bader 1962:104; Franz 1970:77

Rinsheim/Ringsheim in the Ortenau

Baden-Württemberg http://www.wikiwand.com/de/Ringsheim

Rodheim/(Burggräfen-)Rode nr Friedberg/Bad Homburg

Hesse

RI XIII H. 8 n. 53; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Rohrbach/Rorbach nr Landau

Rheinland-Pfalz

RI VIII n. 3764; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Rorschach [Reichshof]

St Gall/Switzerland

Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013

Rottelsheim nr Strasbourg (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899: Eyer 1939; Nietzschmann 2013

Rumersheim, (Bailiwick Hagenau) [Reichsweiler]

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Rumolsweiler/Romansweiler

Alsace/France

RI XI,1 n. 5871; Hugo 1836

Sauer-Schwabenheim, Ingelheimer Grund (Rhine-Main)

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Scherlenheim nr Strasbourg (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Nietzschmann 2013

Schleythal/Schleithal nr Wissembourg

Alsace/France

Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Schlierbach nr Eschwege

Hesse

Franz 1970:77

220

Appendix 1

(cont.) Places/variants, location (cluster) [comment]

Present-day Land/country

References (cf. bibliography & list of abbreviations)

Schneidhain/Schneidenhain

Hesse

Kaufmann 1981:6

Schönau nr Lindau [Reichshof]

Baden-Württemberg Jenichen 1768:12–13

Schwabsburg nr Nierstein & Mainz Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhine-Main Region)

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Schwarzenberg/Schwertzenberg in the Bregenzer Forest

Vorarlberg/Austria

Hugo 1836; Moosbrugger 2009; Nietzschmann 2013

Schweigen/Swigen/Schwügen nr Wissembourg

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Schwinghof(f)en/Schweighofen nr Rheinland-Pfalz Wissembourg

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Seebach nr Seltz

Alsace/France

Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Seinsheim/Sawensheim (Franconia)

Bavaria

RI VIII n. 5315; Weiß 1957:57

Selbold/Langenselbold nr Hanau

Hesse

RI XIII, H. 8 n. 130

Sennfeld, Sentfeld (Bailiwick Schweinfurt)

Bavaria

Segnitz 1792; Hugo 1836; Weber 1913; Badel 1997; Nietzschmann 2013

Sentheim/Sondheim (Franconia) [?] Bavaria

Köbler 2015

Sickershausen (Franconia)

Bavaria

Weiß 1957:61

Siebeldingen, Siebeldinger Valley

Rheinland-Pfalz

Nietzschmann 2013

Soden/Bad Soden am Taunus (Rhine-Main Region)

Hesse

SABS; HHStAW, Abt. 4; Moser 1753; Hugo 1836; Kaufmann 1981 etc.

Sommerhausen/(Bartholomäi-) Ahusen (Franconia)

Bavaria

Weiß 1957:57; Köbler 2015

Steft (Franconia)

Bavaria

Weiß 1957:61

Steinweiler/Steinwiler nr Landau

Rheinland-Pfalz

RI VIII n. 3764; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Stödtlen nr Ellwangen [Reichshof]

Baden-Württemberg Franz 1970:79

Sufflenheim/Suffelnheim/ Zuffenheim (Bailiw. Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Sulmetingen (Ober-/Unter) nr Biberach

Baden-Württemberg RI XIII, H. 22 n. 277

Sulzbach am Taunus (Rhine-Main Region)

Hesse

HHStAW, Abt. 4; Moser 1753; Hugo 1836; Kaufmann 1981; Köbler 2015; GRS

Sulzfeld nr Kitzingen (Franconia)

Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Surburg nr Wissembourg (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Nietzschmann 2013

Swenberg/Schwemberg

St Gall/Switzerland ? Hugo 1836

RI XIV, 2 n. 6381; Becker 1899

Communities Possessing, Claiming Imperial Village Status

221

(cont.) Places/variants, location (cluster) [comment]

Present-day Land/country

References (cf. bibliography & list of abbreviations)

Thann/Dann

Alsace/France

RI XI,1 n. 5871; Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Tiefenbach b. Bruchsal

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Tiefenbach [Reichshof ]

Thurgovia/ Switzerland

Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Türkheim

Bavaria

RI VI,2 n. 308

Überach (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Eyer 1939

Ulethies / Unegcze [?]

Thurgovia/ Switzerland ?

Zedler, vol. 9, col. 1865; Hugo 1836

Untergriesheim nr Wimpfen

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Unterschefflenz

Baden-Württemberg RI VII H. 1 n. †1

Urfersheim/Urversheim/ Uffenheim (Franconia)

Bavaria

RI VIII n. 5315; Weiß 1957:57; Köbler 2015

Urzwile/Uezwile/Uzwil nr St Gall [?] St Gall/Switzerland

Hugo 1836

Vorbach

RI VI,2 n. 649

Bavaria

Wackernheim, Ingelheimer Grund Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhine-Main Region)

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Wahlenheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Waibstadt [at times an imperial city?]

Baden-Württemberg 1200 Jahre Waibstadt. Waibstadt 1995

Waldolwisheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Walk, Die/La (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899

Walldorf/Waltdorf nr Heidelberg

Baden-Württemberg Hugo 1836; Nietzschmann 2013; Köbler 2015

Warspach/Warsparch nr Wissembourg

Alsace/France

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Weidenheim/Wigenheim/ Weigenheim (Franconia)

Bavaria

Weiß 1957:57

Weinolsheim nr Alzey

Rheinland-Pfalz

Nietzschmann 2013

Wengen/Wangen (Franconia)

Bavaria

Hugo 1836

Westheim (Franconia)

Bavaria

Weiß 1957:57; Köbler 2015

Westhofen on the Ruhr nr Dortmund [Reichshof ]

Nordrhein-Westfalen Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Widehr/Wideho

Rheinland-Pfalz ?

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

Wiesbach nr Homburg

Rheinland-Pfalz

Nietzschmann 2013

Wilgartswiesen nr Annweiler

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hugo 1836; Köbler 2015

222

Appendix 1

(cont.) Places/variants, location (cluster) [comment]

Present-day Land/country

References (cf. bibliography & list of abbreviations)

Winden nr Nassau

Rheinland-Pfalz

Büsching 1765: 330

Wingersheim nr Strasbourg (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Nietzschmann 2013

Winterhausen/(Nikolai-)Ahusen (Franconia)

Bavaria

Hugo 1836; Weiß 1957:57; Köbler 2015

Wintershausen (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Nietzschmann 2013

Wittersheim (Bailiwick Hagenau)

Alsace/France

Becker 1899; Nietzschmann 2013

Witterswil nr Laufen

Solothurn/ Switzerland

Sigrist 1953:183–4

Wolferborn nr Büdingen

Hesse

RI XIII, H. 8 n. 130

Appendix 2

Senior Officials and Clergymen in Five Imperial Villages c. 1300–1800 The following tables list the names of the most senior secular and ecclesiastical office­ holders appearing in the sources relating to Gersau, Gochsheim, Sennfeld, Soden and Sulzbach consulted for this project. Dates refer either to years of appointment or documented presence and the term “parson” covers different legal categories of parish clergymen. As with Appendix 1, this is work in progress, with many archival holdings awaiting systematic perusal. Any additions/corrections would be gratefully received. Alongside, at each point in time, dozens of further individuals served as ju­ rors, councilors, churchwardens, chaplains etc. For the respective village constitutions see Chapter 2 and especially Figures 9–11.

1 Gersau Century Landammänner/Land Mayors

Catholic Parsons (with place of origin)

13th 14th

1243: Arnold

15th

16th

1345: Rudolf an der Wurzen* 1390: Ruedi Truchseler* 1394: Heinrich Camenzind 1412: Kaspar Camenzind

1528: Walther Rigert 1536: Hans Camenzind 1538: Walther Rigert 1572: ? Camenzind

1596: ? Schöchli

1453: Peter 1490s: Jörg**, Eustachius & Hans Mösli 1500: Nikolaus Stürz

1588: Melchior Vogel 1595: Leodegar Atziger (Hochdorf)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004396609_010

224

Appendix 2

(cont.)

Century Landammänner/Land Mayors 17th

1618: Johannes Nigg 1625: Balthasar Camenzind 1627: Walther Rigert

c. 1633: Walther Rigert c. 1634: Andreas Camenzind

1655: Andreas Camenzind 1659: Andreas Camenzind 1662: ? Nigg 1665: Kaspar Camenzind 1670: Felix Schöchli

18th

1680: Antoni Nigg 1690: Heinrich Camenzind 1710: Johann Baltzer Camenzind 1711: Marzell Schöchli 1712: Hans Balthasar Camenzind 1714: Antoni Nigg

Catholic Parsons (with place of origin)

1626: Jakob Andermatt (Baar) 1628: Johann Däschler (Lucerne) 1632: Johann Schuhmacher (Lucerne)

1640: Johann Melchior Müller (Baar) 1644: Melchior Krafft (Lucerne) 1649: Karl Moseralt, Melchior Räber 1651: Melchior Bisling & vacancy 1652: Joh. Wilhelm Koller (Lucerne) 1653: Wolfgang Suter (Lucerne) 1657: Johann Franz Hager (Schwyz)

1666: Kaspar Blättler (Unterwalden) 1678: Dominik Zimmermann (Unterw.) 1679: Johann Sebastian Reding (Arth)

1717: Josef Anton Müller (Schwyz) 1720: Johann Marzell Rigert 1724: Johann Sebastian Nigg 1726: Johann Melchior Nigg 1726: Franz Justus von Flüe (Sachseln) 1727: Hannes Camenzind 1728: Johann Antoni Camenzind 1729: Johann Caspar Camenzind***

Senior Officials and Clergymen in Five Imperial Villages

225

(cont.)

Century Landammänner/Land Mayors 1730: Hans Kaspar Küttel 1732: Andreas Camenzind

Catholic Parsons (with place of origin)

1733: Jost Rudolf Tanner (Arth) 1734: Johann Antoni Camenzind 1738: Josef Franz Schöchli 1742: Johann Anton Camenzind 1744: Johann Anton Camenzind 1748: Josef Franz Schöchli 1750: Johann Martin Baggenstoss 1752: Josef Franz Schöchli 1753: Johann Martin Baggenstoss 1759: Josef Franz Schöchli 1762: Johann Martin Baggenstoss 1762: Johann Marzell Schöchli (son of land mayor Josef Franz) 1764: Josef Franz Schöchli 1766: Johann Martin Baggenstoss 1768: Johann Georg Küttel 1770: Johann Balz Camenzind 1772: Johann Georg Küttel 1774: Johann Balthasar Camenzind 1774: Johann Balz Camenzind 1776: Josef Maria Anton Camenzind 1778: Josef Maria Anton Camenzind 1780: Josef Bernard Rigert 1782: Josef Maria Anton Camenzind 1784: Josef Maria Anton Camenzind 1786: Josef Bernard Rigert 1787: (Marzell) Alois Nigg**** –1812 1788: Josef Maria Anton Camenzind 1790: Josef Kaspar Camenzind 1792: Josef Maria Anton Camenzind

226

Appendix 2

FIGURES APPENDIX 2A–C Left and Right: Portraits of Johann Caspar Camenzind (1754–1831), silk entrepreneur and holder of multiple offices, known as the Grosslandammann (the Kleinlandammann being fellow magistrate and kinsman Josef Maria Anton Camenzind) and his second wife Maria Anna (née Bosshard, 1774–1835): extracts from partially damaged portraits in the BAG/Rathaus. Middle: Signature of parson Aloÿs Nigg on a questionnaire of the Helvetic Republic (1799). StAS, Archiv 1, Akten 1, 582.019, no. 180v (cf. Figure 22). (cont.)

Century Landammänner/Land Mayors 1794: Johann Caspar Camenzind**** 1796: Josef Maria Anton Camenzind 1798: Josef Maria Anton Camenzind (last) 1798: Andreas Camenzind (‘President’)

Catholic Parsons (with place of origin)

Senior Officials and Clergymen in Five Imperial Villages

227

(cont.)

Century Landammänner/Land Mayors

Catholic Parsons (with place of origin)

Sources: – BAG, Camenzind, “Beiträge zur inneren Geschichte” and various other holdings – Leu 1754, part VIII, 448 (and supplement of 1787, part II, 484) – Wiget 1984

– Nigg 1995 – BAG, PAG and other documents

* Ammann (a seigneurial office to 1390) ** Likely the first communal election

*** First Gersau burgher in post **** Figures App. 2a–b

2 Gochsheim Century

Reichsschultheißen/Imperial Avoyers

15th

1460: Andreas Crantz

16th

1500: Peter Heymbrich

1559: Hans Dentzer 1572: Andreas Frank 1583: Sebald Schreck* 1585: Jonas Merz 1592: Jonas Merz

1595: Hans Ludwig (Würzburg appointee; removed by imperial mandate) 1596: Jonas Merz

Parsons (Lutheran from 1540s)

1511: Hans Turck 1540: Johann Spangenberg (Lutheran) 1545: Johann Hassum/Hess 1548: Nicolaus Mayer 1552: Mag. Johann/Hans Meder* 1567: Peter Zimmerer

1586: Balthasar Zimmerer (son of Peter) 1592: Zimmerer replaced by Pancratius Spitznagel (imposed by Bishop), acting alongside Catholic priest Valentin Flurschütz

228

Appendix 2

FIGURES APPENDIX 2D–E Two stone inscriptions in St Michael’s parish church. Top: commemoration of 1583 building works overseen by imperial avoyer Sebald Schreck (line 5) and other village officials. Bottom: parson Hans Meder (1552) appears on the chancel arch.

Senior Officials and Clergymen in Five Imperial Villages (cont.) Century

Reichsschultheißen/Imperial Avoyers

17th 1635: Lorenz Habner/Hahn 1637: Simon Schultheiß (Würzburg appointee) 1655: Lorenz/Laurentius Hann/Hahn 1683: Nikolaus Vögler (killed on duty) 1684: Matheus Geyer 1694: Martin Bernhardt (Würzburg appointee) 18th

1713: Martin Bernhardt

1720: Johann Meder 1739: Veit Heim(e)rich 1759: Veit Heim(e)rich (to 1774) 1784: Johann Egidius Moll 1796 (?): Peter Ludwig Sources:

–  G AG, village ordinances & Ludwig, Manual – schweinfurtfuehrer.de; inscriptions – Museum Altes Gymnasium, Schweinfurt – Mattern 1976, 13 – Segnitz 1802

* Figures Appendix 2d–e

Parsons (Lutheran from 1540s) 1601: Veit Ulrich Zink 1631: Johann Körner 1635: Mag. Kaspar Haaß 1644: Athanasius Schrickel 1660: Mag. Kaspar Konrad Will(ius) 1673: Johann Athanasius Schrickel t.E.

1708: Johann Athanasius Schrickel t.Y. 1714: Mag. Johann Elias Thaud/Thaut (challenged by Würzburg candidate Georg Caspar Buchenröder of Sennfeld) 1720: Georg David Heunisch 1748: Johann Friedrich Heunisch (son) 1762: Johann Adam Schöner 1789: Johann Christoph Schöner – – – –

Jubilaeum 1738, 260 Simon 1962, 57 VG, 5 Church inscriptions

229

230

Appendix 2

FIGURE APPENDIX 2F

Stone inscription on Sennfeld’s churchyard wall commemorating imperial avoyer Johann Veit Siebenbürger and village mayor Johann St. Siebenbürger (late 18th century).

3 Sennfeld Century

Reichsschultheißen/Imperial Avoyers

15th

1493: Klaus Ludwig

16th

1503: Heinz Mulich 1525: Jörg Pfeiffer 1542: Jörg Meder 1554: Kilian Gromann 1570: Hans Metzler 1578: Hans Hesselbach

Parsons (Lutheran from 1539)

[to 1540: chaplains subject to Gochsheim] 1539: Johann [first evangelical minister] 1549: Peter Körner 1569: Martin Hörch

Senior Officials and Clergymen in Five Imperial Villages (cont.) Century

Reichsschultheißen/Imperial Avoyers

1588: Hans Schirmer 1598: Kunz Brandt 17th

1606: Endres Riegel 1615: Endres Schreck 1620: Klaus Kuhn 1636: Martin Hoffman 1649: Hans Jörg/Georg Naß 1682: Bernhard Kantzler

18th

1701: Kaspar Breitenbach 1703: Georg Moll 1721: Cosman Siebenbürger 1740: Johann Adam Hillmann 1758: Georg Friedrich Baumhämmel 1762: Johann Martin Reuter 1765: Johann Veit Siebenbürger* 1790: Johann Cosmann Siebenbürger

Sources:

– Badel 1997, 114 – StAW, various holdings

* Figure Appendix 2f

Parsons (Lutheran from 1539) 1579: Georg Müller [ordered by Bishop to step in at Gochsheim in 1592] 1597: Georg Partachius 1598: Andreas Lesker 1609: Johannes Reusch 1618: Johann Zeiß 1620: Johann Kimmel 1639: Johann Bocritius 1658: Christoph Macht/Magdt 1669: Johann Erhard Simon 1689: Georg Kaspar Buchenröder (1714 also at Gochsheim; disputed)

1725: Daniel Wolfgang Haas 1734: Johann Christian Englert

1786: Johann Wilhelm Englert 1788: Johann Georg Konrad Walther – Simon 1962, 56

231

232 4

Appendix 2

Sulzbach and Soden

Century

(Ober-)Schultheißen/(Senior) Avoyers of Sulzbach

13th

1282: Frankfurt charter mentions scultetus of Sulzbach

14th

[1381-: a series of noble Frankfurt officials appointed to defend Sulzbach, Soden and other villages in the region] 15th

Schultheißen/Avoyers of Soden

Sulzbach Parsons (also responsible for chapel at Soden; after 1546 Lutheran unless stated)

1304: Theodorus Frys 1339: Dypoldus 1361: Friedrich Schirmer 1370s: Peter von Wachenheim (1380: Abbot of Limburg)

1411: Gottfried ? 1433: Henne Schoderang 1433: German 1433: Becker Henne 1435: Gervin ? 1435: Henne Holzsmid/Baltz Henne 1435: Kuno Keiser 1438: Friedrich Bernleger [?] 1450: Conze Husenstad 1450: Snyder Henne 1457: Henne Ganß 1459: Friedrich Bernberg (from Ober-Rosbach) 1474: Henne Rorich 1474: Henne Hultzesmit 1476: Hermann Prick 1476: Sordanck German 1480: Adam von Mauchenheim 1481: Dietrich Rammingk 1482: Hermann Bircke [1482–84: Chapel of Soden built] 1486: Konrad Schwicker 1488: Konrad Berer [?] 1488: Konrad Schott 1489: Johann Schauffer 1494: Roland Cuntz 1498: Peter von Harnauwe (reisiger Schultheiß/mounted avoyer)

Senior Officials and Clergymen in Five Imperial Villages

233

(cont.) Century

16th

(Ober-)Schultheißen/(Senior) Avoyers of Sulzbach

Schultheißen/Avoyers of Soden

1506: Augustin Schott 1507: Georg Scheppe

1506: Contz Schrott 1507: Henne Baumer 1519: order to appoint reisige Schultheißen (mounted warrior avoyers)

1522: Kaspar Reiff, reisiger Knecht 1524: Hans von Zunschen, reisiger Knecht 1530: Adam von Helbergen, reisiger Knecht

1541: Hans Weirich

1560: Urban Lohr (a mercenary)

1594: Philipp Wolf von Praunheim

1500: Jacob Schrott 1506: Johannes Walthari

1521: Johann von Ortenberg

1534: Peter ?/Jacob ? 1535: Niklas Bleichenbach 1537: Johann Blingenheimer (1553: last Abbot of Limburg) 1542: Wolfgang Conrad 1558: Hans Groß 1565: Hans Groß 1581: Claus Peter

1585: Adolf Strassenheimer, reisiger Knecht

Sulzbach Parsons (also responsible for chapel at Soden; after 1546 Lutheran unless stated)

1546: Hermann Ruelmann/ Rühel (first Lutheran) 1558: Athanasius Magnus 1575: Gelmerus Canter (Reformed) 1584: Rutger Spey (Lutheran) 1587: Michael Ansbach (Reformed)

234

Appendix 2

(cont.) Century

(Ober-)Schultheißen/(Senior) Avoyers of Sulzbach

Schultheißen/Avoyers of Soden

17th 1605: Claus Baum/ Nicolas Anthes 1606: Johann Maier

1613: Theobald Schenck 1615: Philipp Dietz

1626: Johann Keul

1625: Claus Baune 1626: Johann Martini

1627: Joann Erb

1601: Theobald Meusch (Reformed) 1605: Wilhelm Hanson (Reformed) 1606: Wilhelm Speitzius (Reformed) 1608: Wilhelm Hachenburg (Reformed) 1612: Johannes Pfarrius (Reformed) 1617: Johannes Manderbach (Reformed) 1620: Mag. Ludwig Riselius/ Rießler 1623: Johann Lorius 1624: Johannes Metzger 1625: Heinrich Wächter 1626: Christian Ephippiarius (Catholic) 1631: Johann Georg Waler

1634: Hieronymus Ulrich Neuhaus

1635: Heinrich Wächter (returns)

1636: Hans Heinrich Dahlen/Dohl 1637: Georg Steinbrenner

1645: Georg Steinbauer [=Steinbrenner?] 1649: Johann Balthasar Kalbach (explicitly gemeinschaftlicher Oberschultheiß)

Sulzbach Parsons (also responsible for chapel at Soden; after 1546 Lutheran unless stated)

1637: Christian Ephippiarius (Catholic) 1640: Johann Georg Gereuhmius/Grimm 1643: Hieronymus Klein

1650: Wolbert Diehl

Senior Officials and Clergymen in Five Imperial Villages

235

(cont.) Century

(Ober-)Schultheißen/(Senior) Avoyers of Sulzbach

Schultheißen/Avoyers of Soden

1653: Hans Georg Bleichenbach 1656: Hartmann Fritz 1657: Christian Albrecht Meisch 1663: Johan Philippus Kämmerling 1667: Christian Albrecht Meisch 1670: Ernst Casimir Bassy

1670: Philipp Burchard Godaecus 1671: Johann Philipp Zickwolff 1689: Johannes Schott (to 1733!)

1691: Johann Sartorius 1692: Nicolas Rudolf 1698: Jacob Bender 18th

1701: Johann Sartorius 1703: Peter Petri 1704: Simplicius Benedictus Erstenberger* 1725: Anton Christian Jtter

1726: Peter Petri

1747: Johann Georg Streit

1750: Johann Paul Gabler 1753: Johann Adolf Triebert 1765: Johann Wendel Feldmann 1789: Johann Balthasar Schäfer 1790: Heinrich Joseph Catta

Sources:

– HHStAW, Abt. 4, passim – Various holdings in ISF, e.g. Dörfer, Ratssupplikationen (petitions) – GRS, Löschhorn Tagebuch – Geisler 2015

* Figure Appendix 2g

Sulzbach Parsons (also responsible for chapel at Soden; after 1546 Lutheran unless stated)

1749: Ernst Wilhelm Roth 1750: Ludwig Karl Hartwig 1765: Lorenz Kern

[1726: Johann Peter Wir(r)watz at Soden] [1727: Johann Maximilian Decke at Soden] 1733: Johann Maximilian Decke 1747: Johann Andrea(s) Rothe [to 1781]

1781: Otto Cretzschmar

1793: Johann Peter Hartwig (son of Karl-L.) – HHStAW, Abt. 4, passim –  I SF, various files & documents – Geisler 2015

–  Evangelische Kirche 1974, 49–50 –  Evangelische Kirche 2016, 183–4

236

Appendix 2 FIGURE APPENDIX 2G Signature of Sulzbach’s Oberschultheiß Simplicius Benedictus Erstenberger in a survey of lands belonging to the Kornamt of the City of Frankfurt: GRS, Ackerbuch (1721), f. 219v. In 1715, Sulzbach und Soden had accused him of violating their privileges in a complaint made to the Elector of Mainz, the joint bailiff who had appointed him: SABS, I, 1, 4.

Bibliography The materials consulted for this book are divided into archival holdings, printed / digital primary sources and secondary literature in print / digital format. All web addresses were last accessed on 30 January 2019.



Archival Sources



Bad Soden, Stadtarchiv (SABS)



Bern, Staatsarchiv Bern



Frankfurt am Main, Institut für Stadtgeschichte (ISF)

I, 1, 4: Supplik an Mainz wegen Privilegienverletzung (1715) VI, 1, 18: Schreibbuch von Johann Henrich Anthes, inkl. Gemeinderechnung (1727) VI, 1, 59: Arbeitsbuch des Johan Heinrich Reiff, Zimmermann zu Soden (1703–) VI, 1, 63: Gerichtsbuch des gemein-herrschaftlichen Schultheißen Lorentz Kern (1768–1806) VI, 1, 64: Abschrift der Bestätigungen der Reichsfreiheit von Johan Henrich Reiff (1751) VI, 1, 83: Protokollbuch des Sodener Untergerichts (1665–1726) VI, 1, 84: Bestätigung der Privilegien Sigismunds durch Ferdinand II. (1630)

Urkunden, Äusseres Archiv, C 7: Fach Luzern: Ernennung von Rudolf Hofmeister zum Obmann in einer Streitsache zwischen den Waldstätten (17 March 1431)

(For further details see the archive’s online catalogue: http://www.ifaust.de/isg/) Chroniken S5, 283, vol. 1: Pfarramtsprotokolle Bornheim (1653–1728) Criminalia, 2.285 / 6.877: Gerichtsakten zu Soden (1701 / 1753–54) Dienstbriefe, 1.203, 1.224 etc.: Amtmann zu Bonames …, Sulzbach und Sodin (1381, 1418) Dörfer, nos 526: Schutzbrief (1282); 527: Kopialbuch mit Briefen und Akten zu Sulzbach und Soden (1282–1612); 548: Pfandbrief-Korrespondenz (1580); 554: Schriftwechsel Frankfurt-Mainz (18. Jh.); 1.088: Delegation zu Kaiser Matthias  I. (1613); 1.089–91: Privilegienbestätigungen durch Kaiser Karl VI. / VII. und Franz II. (1712/42/93) Höchst, Orte, 6/33: Kopie der Privilegienbestätigung von Leopold (1659); 6/37: Quittungen Hofgericht Rottweil, 282: Vorladung des Schultheissen von Sulzbach (1488) Holzhausen-Archiv, Urkunden II.120: Verkaufsurkunde (1476); II.145: Verkaufsurkunde (1512); II.533: Notariatsinstrument (1427) Privilegien, 340: Privilegienbestätigung von Friedrich III. (1444); 406: Privilegienbestätigung von Maximilian II. (1566); 423: Privilegienbestätigung von Rudolf II. (1582);

238

Bibliography

449 / 449a / 449b: Kaiserliche Bestätigung / Vergleich / Nebenrezess betreffend die Einigung zwischen Frankfurt und Mainz über Sulzbach und Soden (1656–57) Ratssupplikationen, 1.632, vol. 1; 1.633, vol. 3; 1.669 etc.



Freiburg i.B., Erzbischöfliches Archiv (EAF)



Gersau, Bezirksarchiv (BAG)

A16, Schweiz, Specialia, no. 91: Bitte um Dispens einiger Feiertage (1779) HA, Amtsbücher des Bistums Konstanz, nos 105/107: Protocollum Proclamationum et Investiturarum (1436–) “, no. 152: Liber Sententiarum (1712–35) “, no. 223: Geistlicher Rat (1725–27)

AB: Artikelbücher, II: Eidesformelnbuch (late 18th century) Akten, no. 7: Verschiedenes, u.a. Fremde Dienste und Salzhandel (1758, 1770) “, 10: Landgemeinde-Entscheid über Beisässen (1738) Briefe, 1500–1700, no. 35: Ammann und Rat von Ägeri an Gersau (1678) Briefe, 1700–1800, no. 29: Gersauer Schreiben an Weihbischof von Konstanz (c. 1720, copy) “, 30/33: Briefe des bischöflichen Kommissars Johann Joseph Sager (1720) “, 35: Beschluss eines dreifachen Landrats (1721) “, 39: Brief des Generalvikars des Bistums Konstanz (1722; recte 1720?) “, 41: Brief des Bistums Konstanz (1726) “, 131: Dankesbrief des Abts von Einsiedeln (1773) Camenzind, Josef Maria Mathä. “Beiträge zur inneren Geschichte,” trans. Robert Nigg. Manuscript (mid-nineteenth century) Gerichtsakten, no. 1: Verhör von Melchior Sigrist von Meggen etc. wegen Diebereien (1641) “, no. 5: Verhör von Johann Marzell Müller von Gersau wegen Paternität etc. (1752) “, no. 7: Verhör von Johann Christen Rigert von Gersau wegen Diebstahl (1752) “, no. 8: Verhör mit Magdalena Ammenn/Ammann von Gersau wegen Paternität (1753) “, no. 10: Verhör mit Josef Müller von Gersau wegen Holzfrevel (1752) “, no. 11: Verhör von Johann Galli Zimmermann von Weggis wegen Diebstahl (1756) “, no. 14: Kundschaften, inkl. von Kerzenvogt Balthasar Müller (1780) “, no. 16: Verhör mit Sebastian Melchior Müller von Gersau wegen Schmähworten (1752) GST: Stammbuch der bürgerlichen Geschlechter und Familienglieder der Gemeinde Gersau (1627–1870, compiled by J. M. M. Camenzind) Kirchenbücher, Pfrundvogtrechnungen (1684–) “, Pfarrhelferpfrund Abrechnungen (1797) “, “Rächnung Büöchlin” des Seelenvogts (1781) “, Rechnung Buch für das Kapelgestift beÿ Mariahilf (1775–)

Bibliography

239

“, Zentenbuch “A”/ “B” (1767–) “, Zentenbuch “C” / Armenbuch (1769) KST: Kirchensteuer (1810) LB: Landbücher, no. 1: Landbuch (1659–1710) “, 1b: Landbuch (Abschrift von J. M. Camenzind) “, 2: Das grosse Landbuch (1711–41) “, 3: Das grosse Landbuch (1742–62) “, 4: Das grosse Landbuch (1762–90) “, 5: Das grosse Landbuch (1792–1833) “, 6: Das kleine Landbuch (1605) “, 7: Abschrift von wichtigen Verordnungen (1759) LG: Landgemeindebücher, I: (1784–1836) LR: Landrecht-Erneuerungs-Register (1784–1812) LS: Landseckelbuch, no. 1: (1723–1802) PF: Sammlung der Pfrundbriefe, Stiftungen und Obligationen der Geistlichen, Sigristen etc (1684–) RB: Ratserkanntnusbuch, no. 1: (1756–71) “, 2: (1772–74) “, 3: (1774–80) “, 4: (1780–94) “, 5: (1794–1809) “, 6: (1809–18) UKP: Stiftsurkundenbuch / Protokoll der Haupturkunden (18th century) Urkunden, no. 2: Bundesbrief der 3 Länder mit Luzern (1332, fifteenth-century copy) “, 3: Bundesbrief der 4 Waldstätte mit Gersau (1359) “, 6: Kaufbrief um die Freiheit und Rechte von Gersau von der Junkerfamilie von Moos (1390) “, 8: Bestätigungsbrief durch Kaiser Sigismund (1433) “, 9: Hofrecht (1436) “, 10: Eherecht (1436) “, 12: 2 Urkunden zum Kirchensatz (1483) “, 16: Ablassbulle von Rom (1504) “, 17: Landmarchbrief zwischen Gersau und Luzern (1507) “, 18: Güterschatzung für das Land Gersau (1510, copy) “, 19: Pfrundrechnung zwischen Gersau und dem Dekan des Kapitels von Luzern (1512) “, 27: Verordnung des päpstlichen Nuntius wegen des St. Marzellen Messgewandes (1588) “, 29: Spruch- und Vertragsbrief zwischen Gersau und dem Geschlecht der Küttel (1635) “, 43: Pfarrpfrundbriefe (1726/1762/1774)

240

Bibliography



Gersau, Genossame Archiv



Gersau, Pfarreiarchiv (PAG)



Gochsheim, Gemeindearchiv (GAG)

UK I: Marchenbuch (1726)

Kirchenvogtrechnungsbuch: Rechnungsbuch für das Pfarrkirchengestift zu Gersau (1733–) Pfarreibücher, no. 1: Jahrzeitenbuch (1627) “, no. 2: Jahrzeitbuch (1704) “, no. 3: Taufbuch / Ehebuch / Firmbuch / Sterbebuch (1627–1807) Turmkugel-Dokumente, nos. 1– (1655–)

GO-AK01002-BII/2b–2-(020): Gerichtsprotokolle (1720–) GO-LT21000-F III/43-(322): Kirchner, Johann Matthäus, Manual (1747–) GO-ZM25001-UI/3-(020): Schutzvertrag zwischen Herrn Bischofen von Würzburg und den beiden Reichsdörfern Gochsheim und Sennfeld (11 January 1575) GO-ZM25002-UI/1-(021): Wappenbrief des Reichsdorfs Gochsheim (1568) Holdings on permanent loan from Gochsheim, Archiv des evangelischen Pfarramts: GO-AK21007-LI/36-: Johannes Ludwig, Collectanea sive Manuale (late eighteenth-century manuscript chronicle) GO-AK21007-LI/41A-: Johannes Ludwig, Topographische Vorstellung von Gochsheim (1798)



Luzern, Staatsarchiv (StAL)



Schweinfurt, Museum im Alten Gymnasium



Schwyz, Staatsarchiv (StAS)

Akt 11/290: Gersau, Akten (1359–) TA 88-: Tagsatzungsabschiede (1635–) Urkunden 64/1187: Gersauer Landrechtsbrief (1528) “ 113/1713: Bund mit Kirchgenossen von Gersau und Weggis (1359) “ 220/3106: Spruchbrief von Obmann Bartlime Stocker (1507)

Inventory no. M – 229 A: Reichsadlerhumpen (drinking vessel; Bohemia, 1583) “, no. 304 A: Gochsheimer Ratskrug (faience with tin lid, 1765) “, no. 305 A: Gochsheimer Ratskrug (faience with tin lid, 1713) “, no. 310 A: Gochsheimer Maßkrug (tin, 1759)

Archiv 1, Akten 1, 267.001, Theke Gersau, Brief von Gersau an Schwyz (1620) “ 574.006, nos. 49–51: Bistum Konstanz, Visitationsberichte (1502–1815)

Bibliography

241

“ 577.006, nos. 50–2: Bistum Konstanz, Visitationen (1785) “ 582.019, nos 178–88: Pfarreien A-G: Gersau (1770–1821)



Sulzbach, Geschichtsverein Reichsdorf Sulzbach (GRS)



Wiesbaden, Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv (HHStAW)

Ackerbuch über des Hochlöbl: Kornambts=Geländ zu Sultzbach (1721) Tagebuch des Johann Adam Löschhorn (1738–)

Abt. 1: Reichskammergericht, no. 1923: Gemeinde Sulzbach gegen Antoniterstift Höchst (1756–58) “ 3690: Johann Petermann von Sulzbach und Hans Christmann von Soden gegen Gerichte zu Sulzbach und Soden (1654–56) Abt. 4: Reichsdörfer Soden und Sulzbach, Akten, passim; especially nos: “ 186: [Veit Gottlieb Straub], Aktenmäßige Deduktion und rechtsgründliche Widerlegung auf das von beyden Gerichten und Gemeinden Sulzbach und Soden als von einem Untertan gegen sein höchste und hohe Landesherrschaft so respektvergessen als pflichtwidrig in das Publikum ausgestreute … Impressum (Manuscript, 1754) “ 188: Trauergeläut zu Sulzbach und Soden (1740–74) “ 189: Von Frankfurt verlangte Beihilfe der Gemeinden Sulzbach und Soden wegen Pferden zur Kaiserkrönung (1748) “ 190–91: Tod der Kaiser Joseph II/Leopold II (1790–92) “ 220: Differenzen von Sulzbach und Soden mit Frankfurt (1649) “ 230–1: Soden und Sulzbach gegen Reichshofrat von Hünefeld (1668/1671–1764) “ 255: Kriegssachen zu Soden und Sulzbach (1572–1746) “ 338: Reparation von Fronhof und Zehntscheuer zu Sulzbach (1594) “ 405: Eid der Schöffen in Sulzbach (1657) “ 436: Streit des Freiherrn von Malapert mit Sulzbach und Soden wegen Rückzahlung geliehenen Kapitals (1749–56) “ 461: Vorstellung des Abts von Limburg wegen der unberechtigten Forderung von Soden auf Trennung von der Mutterkirche Sulzbach wegen angeblicher Entlegenheit (1527) “ 465: Kirchenordnungen zu Sulzbach (1701–) “ 468: Von Pfarrer Rothe zu Sulzbach ausgeführte Friedensfeier (1763) “ 470: Pfarrbestellung zu Sulzbach (1330–1652) “ 486: Oberschultheiss gegen Pfarrer wegen Nicolaus Altargut (1716) “ 487: Reparatur der Kirche zu Sulzbach (1723–24) “ 488–9: Pfarradjunkt Wirrwatz zu Sulzbach (1726–33) “ 542: Oberschultheissen Instruktion und Gerichtsordnung zu Soden und Sulzbach (1752–53) “ 545: Klage von Major Malapert gegen Sulzbach und Soden wegen Schulden (1753–55)

242

Bibliography

“ 566: Gewohnheit der Gemeinden Soden und Sulzbach bei jedem neu erwählten Kaiser zu Wien durch Deputierte um die Bestätigung ihrer Reichsprivilegien nachzusuchen (1791) “ 571: Privilegien der Gemeinden Soden und Sulzbach (1803–05) “ 893: Gemeinderechnung von Sulzbach (1657) “ 1038: Kirchenrechung von Sulzbach (1699) “ 1094: Rebellion von Soden und Sulzbach gegen die gemeinschaftliche Oberhoheit von Kurmainz und Frankfurt (1659–61) “ 1102: Stellung eines Pferdes bei der Königswahl durch Soden und Sulzbach (1764–65) “ 1104: Erhebung der herrschaftlichen Schutzgelder in Soden und Sulzbach (1746–66) Abt. 4: Reichsdörfer Soden und Sulzbach, Urkunden und Notariatsinstrumente, esp. nos. “ U14: Vermächtnis an Nikolai Altar zu Sulzbach (1411) “ U30: Friedrich III. erklärt, dass Sulzbach und Soden Reichsdörfer seien (1444) “ U51: Errichtung der Kapelle von Soden (1482) “ U60: Inkorporation einer in Sulzbach zu haltenden Frühmesse an den Marienaltar in der Kapelle Soden (1500) “ U107: Vertrag von Erzbischof Johann Philipp von Mainz mit Frankfurt über Gerechtsame an Sulzbach und Soden (1656) Abt. 35/227: Vom Antoniterhaus Höchst auf seinem Hofe zu Sulzbach angelegtes Oratorium (1778) Abt. 1301, no. 1 b 52: Zivilbesitznahme und Huldigung … zu Sulzbach und Soden (1802) Abt. 3011, no. 980: Skizze der Gegend Soden-Neuenhain (1764) Abt. 3011, no. 1131: Zeichnung von Soden und der Saline (1615)



Würzburg, Bayerisches Staatsarchiv (StAW)

Archivalien-Sammlung des Historischen Vereins Unterfranken, Sennfeld, f. 416: Zehntverkauf (1639) “, o. 66: Frühmessstiftung Sennfeld (1393; Kopie) Hochstift Würzburg, Geistliche Sachen, no. 2308: Bitte der Gemeinde Sennfeld an den Bischof Julius betr. die Präsentation eines Kaplans (1609) “, Lehensachen, no. 4939: Akten zu Schutzjuden in Gochsheim (1575–81) Lib. div. form, 20: Dorfordnung Gochsheim (1500) Reichsstadt Schweinfurt, Akten, no. 11: Verzeichnis der jährlichen Einkünfte der Frühmesse zu Gochsheim (1558) “, 14/1: Beschwerden der Judenschaft zu Gochsheim (1551) “, 16: Streitigkeiten der Reichsstadt Schweinfurt mit Gochsheim und Sennfeld (1542–1604) Reichsstadt Schweinfurt, Urkunden, 1545 Mai 2: Reichssteuern in Sennfeld “, 1556 Januar 21: Bestallung von Untervogt Hartlaub zu Schweinfurt “, 1558 März 27: Jahrrechnung der Frühmessse Gochsheim

Bibliography

243

Zisterzienser Ebrach, Urkunden, 1456 Dezember 3: Exkommunikationsmandat gegen Schweinfurt und Gochsheim



Printed and Online Primary Sources

Allgemeine Geschichtsforschende Gesellschaft der Schweiz, ed. Quellenwerk zur Entstehung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, Part 1: Urkunden, 3 vols. Aarau: Sauerländer, 1933–75. Altmann, Wilhelm, ed. Regesta Imperii XI: Die Urkunden Kaiser Sigmunds (1410–1437), vol. 1: 1410–24; vol. 2: 1425–37. Innsbruck: Wagner, 1896–1900. Aulinger, Rosemarie, ed. Der Reichstag zu Worms 1545, Deutsche Reichstagsakten: Jüngere Reihe, vol. 16, 2 parts. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2003. Blickle, Peter; Holenstein, André, eds. Agrarverfassungsverträge: Eine Dokumentation zum Wandel in den Beziehungen zwischen Herrschaften und Bauern am Ende des Mittelalters. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 1996. Boie, Karl. Die mittelalterlichen Siegel Dithmarschens, Schleswig-Holsteinische Siegel des Mittelalters 3/1. Kiel: Gesellschaft für Schleswig-Holsteinische Geschichte, 1926. Breu, Jörg the Elder, “December” (c.  1531). Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin. http://dhm.de/datenbank/img.php?img=k1000533&format=1. Brookes, Richard. The General Gazetteer; or, compendious geographical dictionary. Containing a description of the empires, kingdoms, states, provinces, cities, … in the known world. 11th edn, London: at the office of Bye and Law, printed for J. Johnson et al., 1800. Bundschuh, Kaspar. Beschreibung der Reichsstadt Schweinfurt. Ulm: Stettische Buchhandlung, 1802 Büsching, D. Anton Friedrich. Neue Erdbeschreibung, 3. Teil, 3. Band: Niedersächsischer Kreis. 4th edn, Hamburg: Carl Bohn, 1765. Cruttwell, Clement [Rev.]. The new universal gazetteer; or, geographical dictionary: containing a description of all the empires, kingdoms, … in the known world; … Together with an atlas, containing twenty-six whole-sheet maps. Dublin: printed and sold by John Stockdale, 1800. Cysat, Johann Leopold. Beschreibung deß Beru(e)hmbten Lucerner= oder 4. Waldsta(e)tten Sees … sampt durchgehender entwerffung deren an dem See ligenden Schlo(e)ssern / alten Burgsta(e)llen / La(e)nder / Sta(e)tt / Flecken / Do(e)rfer … mit beyfu(e)gung viler / so wol Kurtzweyl als Trawriger Geschichten  … Luzern: David Hautten, 1661. Cysat, Renward; Wägmann, Hans Heinrich. “Luzernerkarte von 1597–1613.” https:// staatsarchiv.lu.ch/index/schaufenster/karten_stadtansichten/kantonskarte_cysat .htm.

244

Bibliography

Dacheröden, Ernst Ludwig Wilhelm von. Versuch eines Staatsrechts, Geschichte und Statistik der freyen Reichsdörfer in Teutschland. Leipzig: Crusius, 1785. Datenbank Höchstgerichtsbarkeit, compiled by Bernd Schildt et  al. http://www .jura.uni-wuerzburg.de/lehrstuehle/amend_traut/forschungsprojekt_datenbank_ hoechstgerichtsbarkeit/. Designatio Restituendorum in tribus Terminis, Vermög deß praeliminr: und HauptRecess, mit Lit. A. bezeichnet. Nürnberg, 1650. “Die Akten des kaiserlichen Reichshofrats (RHR).” http://www.rhrdigital.de/inhalt .html. Ebel, Johann Gottfried. Anleitung auf die nützlichste und genussvollste Art in der Schweitz zu reisen. Zurich: Orell, Gesner, Füssli, 1793. Eckhardt, Karl August, ed. Das Dithmarscher Landrecht von 1447, nach der Ausgabe von Andreas Ludwig Jacob Michelsen herausgegeben, Germanenrechte Bd. 16. Witzenhausen: Deutschrechtlicher Instituts-Verlag, 1960. Faber, Anton. Europäische Staats-Cantzley: darinnen zum Behuff der neuesten politischen-, Kirchen- und Reichshistorie was sowohl in Religions-Angelegenheiten merckwürdiges vorgefallen als in Staats- und Reichs-Geschäften vor kurtzem abgehandelt worden und zum Vorschein gekommen ist. 115 vols. Nürnberg: Weber, 1697–1760. Faber, Johann Heinrich. Topagraphische, politische und historische Beschreibung der Reichs= Wahl= und Handelsstadt Frankfurt am Mayn, 2 vols. Frankfurt: Jäger, 1788. Fäsi, Johann Conrad. Genaue und vollständige Staats= und Erd=Beschreibung der ganzen helvetischen Eidgenoßschaft, derselben Herrschaften und zugewandten Orten. Vol. 2. Zurich: Orell, Geßner & Co., 1766. Fechter, Daniel Albrecht, ed. Die eidgenössischen Abschiede aus dem Zeitraume von 1618–1648, vol. 5, section  2, part  a. Basel: Schultze, 1875. (online edn http://digital .ub.uni-duesseldorf.de/ihd/content/titleinfo/207967) Felten, Franz  J.; Müller,  H.; Schäfer,  R., eds. Die Ingelheimer Haderbücher. Mittel­ alterliches Prozessschriftgut und seine Auswertungsmöglichkeiten. Ingelheim: Historischer Verein, 2010. Franconia Online, “Historische Karten.” http://franconica.uni-wuerzburg.de/ub/topo graphia-franconiae/maps.html. Die fränkischen Zuschauer bey gegenwärtigen besseren Aussichten für die Wissenschaften und das Schulwesen im Vaterlande, 2. Stück. Erlangen: Sprenger, 1773. Friedens=Executions-Haupt=RECESS, Wie derselbe / Jm Namen Kayserlicher und zu Schweden königl. Majest…. durch dero darzu bevollmächtigte höchst=commendirende Generaliten und Plenipotentiarien / mit Zuthun und Beyseyn der sämptlichen Chur=Fürsten und Stände anwesenden Herren Gesandten … in … Nürnberg abgehandelt … und den 16.26. Junii, Anno 1650: alllerseits unterschrieben … worden. Stettin: Johann Valentin Rheten, 1650.

Bibliography

245

[Füssli, Johann Konrad?] “Anmerkungen [on Büschings Erdbeschreibung].” In: Freymüthige Nachrichten (1763): 340–2. Füssli, Johann Konrad. Staats- und Erdbeschreibung der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft. vol. 1, Schaffhausen: Benedikt Hurter, 1770. Gauthier, Madame de. Voyage d’une Française en Suisse et en Franche-Comté. Depuis la révolution. 2 vols. London: n.p., 1790. Geisler, Michael, ed. “Kirchenrechnung mit Übersetzung aus den Jahren 1715/1716 und 1718/1719.” In: 300 Jahre Evangelische Kirche Bad Soden, ed. Evangelische Kirchengemeinde. Flörsheim: Lauck, 2016, 191–215. Gladbach, Johann Bernhard. Neue Untersuchung des, vor 300 Jahren käyserl. herrlich-privilegirten, von vielen Jahren verdeckten, nun wieder auffgesuchten Soder-warmen Gesund-Brunnens |wie derselbe in vielen Kranckheiten heyl so befunden worden, und noch zu vielen andern Gebrechen trincken und baden mit Nutzen könne gebrauch werden untersuchet. Frankfurt: Walther, 1701. Gleichlautende Abschrifft aller Käyserlichen Privilegien und anderer Gerechtigkeitten damit beyde Gerichte und Gemeinden zu Sultzbach und Soden begnadiget sindt worden. Höchst, 1614. Goldast, Melchior. Reichshandlung Tractaten / Keyserliche / Königliche vnd Fürstliche Mandaten / So dem Gemeinen Nutz zu gutem / vnd Politischen Personen zu sonderm Gefallen / auß der Reichs Ständt Cantzleyen / vnd alten Monumenten … zusammen getragen worden / Durch Melchjorn von Haiminßfeld / genant Goldast. Hanau: Johann Halbeyen, 1609. Grosjean, Georges; Cavelti, Madlena, eds. 500 Jahre Schweizer Landkarten. Zurich: Orell Füssli, 1971. Haller, Albrecht von. “Die Alpen” (1729). http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/die-alpen -5457/1. Hauptschluß der außerordentlichen Reichsdeputation (25 February 1803). https:// de.wikisource.org/wiki/Hauptschlu%C3%9F_der_au%C3%9Ferordentlichen_ Reichsdeputation_vom_25._Februar_1803. [Heunisch, Johann Heinrich.] Vera et genuina facti species in Sachen Gochsheim und Sennfeld, Reichs-Dorfschaften in Francken, contra Johann Philipp, Bisch. zu Würtzburg … Worinnen … allein die wahre Beschaffenheit und der eigentliche Verfolg des von [Gochsheim & Sennfeld] in puncto ihrer an obigbeyden Orthen privativè besitzenden Geistlichen Jurium hactenus bey einem Höchstpreißlichen Kayserlichen und reichs Cammer=Gericht wider Höchstgedachte Seine hochfürstliche Gnaden und Consorten geführten importanten Processus mit gründlicher Deutlichkeit vorgestellet. Wetzlar: Georg Ernst Winckler, 1716. Hertius, Johann Nicolaus. De specialibus Imperii Romano-Germanici rebus publicis. PhD, Giessen, 1698.

246

Bibliography

Hir heff an dat Landrecht aver Ditmarschen/ welcker vpgenamen is mit Vulwort der Acht vnd vertig/ vnd des gantzen Landes. [Schleswig] : [Stephan Arndes], [1485]. Homann, Johann Baptist. “Abbildung der Keys. Freyen-Reichs-Wahl-und-Handelstatt Franckfurt am Mayn mit ihrem Gebiet.” Engraving, Nuremberg, 1700. Instrumentum Pacis Osnabrugensis [Osnabrück Peace Treaty between the Holy Roman Emperor and Sweden]. In: Der Westfälische Friede, ed. Friedrich Philippi. Münster: Regensberg, 1898, 33–71. http://www.lwl.org/westfaelische-geschichte/que/normal/ que2595.pdf. [Jaucourt, Louis de.] “Gersaw.” In: Encylopédie, ed. Denis Diderot et  al., 39 vols. Lausanne/Berne: Sociétés typographiques, 1779–82, vol. 16, col. 106–7. Jean Paul [Johann Paul Friedrich Richter]. “Siebenkäs [1796].” In: Werke, vol. 2, ed. Gustav Lohmann. Munich: Hanser, 1959, 7–565. Jenichen, Gottlieb August. Abhandlung von denen Reichs-Dörffern und Reichs-freyen Leuten. [No place]: n.p., 1768. Jubilaeum Theatri Europaei, Das ist, der … Ein und Zwantzigste Theil Desselbigen. Oder ausführlich fortgeführte Friedens=und Kriegs=Beschreibung. Und was mehr von denck= und merckwürdigsten Geschichten in Europa / vornehmlich aber / in Hoch= und Nieder=Teutschland  … bey Reichs= und Crayß=Versammlungen/ bey und mit hohen Reichs=Gerichten … vom 1716. biß zu Ausgang des 1718ten Jahres … sich begeben haben. Frankfurt a.M., 1738. Johann Adolfi’s, genannt Neocorus, Chronik des Landes Dithmarschen, aus der Urschrift herausgegeben von Prof. F[riedrich]. C[hristoph]. Dahlmann, 2 vols. Kiel: Schulbuchdruckerei, 1827 (reprint Leer: Schuster, 1978). Kaltwasser, Inge, ed. Inventar der Akten des Reichskammergerichts 1495–1806: Frankfurter Bestand. Frankfurt a.M.: Waldemar Kramer Verlag, 2000. Klosterarchiv Einsiedeln. “Abtbuch.” No. 47. http://www.klosterarchiv.ch/e-archiv_ personen_detail.php?id=1537. [Kopp, Johann Adam.] Standhafte Wiederlegung der Ingelheimischen Deduction, wegen des Fleckens Holtzhausen. Marburg: Philipp Casimir Müller, 1741. http://digital .slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/71146/1/0/. Krütli, Josef Karl, ed. Die eidgenössischen Abschiede aus dem Zeitraume von 1556–86, vol. 4, section 2, part a. Bern: Rätzer, 1861. (online edn http://digital.ub.uni-duessel dorf.de/ihd/content/titleinfo/207967) Lau, Friedrich, ed. Urkundenbuch der Reichsstadt Frankfurt, revised by Johann Friedrich Boehmer, 2 vols. Frankfurt a.M.: Joseph Baer & Co., 1901. Lersner, Achilles Augustus von. Chronica Der Weit-berühmten Freyen Reichs-Wahlund Handels-Stadt Franckfurt am Mayn, oder ordentliche Beschreibung der Stadt Franckfurt Herkunfft und Auffnehmen: wie auch allerley denckwürdiger Sachen u. Geschichten, so bey d. Röm. Königen u. Kayser Wahl u. Crönungen … vorgegangen, 2 parts. Frankfurt a.M.: Johann Adam Recksroth, 1704–34.

Bibliography

247

Leu, Johann Jacob. Allgemeines Helvetisches, Eydgenössisches, Oder Schweitzerisches Lexicon, 20 parts. Zurich: Hans Ulrich Denzler, 1747–65. Die Luzerner Chronik des Diebold Schilling 1513: Eine wissenschaftlich bearbeitete Faksimile-Ausgabe. Luzern: Kunstkreis AG und Faksimile-Verlag, 1977. Machiavelli, Niccolò. Discourses, ed. Leslie J. Walker. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950. Mélanges Helvétiques des années 1787, 1788, 1789, 1790. Basle: Charles Auguste Serini, 1791. Merian, Matthäus, ed. Topographia Helvetiae, Rhaetiae et Valesiae [1654]. (reprint Basel: R. Geering, 1926). Moser, Friedrich Carl von. Die Reichsfreyheit der Gerichte und Gemeinen Sultzbach und Soden gegen die neuerliche Chur-Mayntz- und Franckfurtische Vogtey und SchutzHerrliche Eingriffe erwiesen und vertheidigt. n.p., 1753. Moser, Johann Jacob. Grund=Riß der heutigen Staats=Verfassung des Teutschen Reichs. Zum Gebrauch Academischer Lectionen entworffen. 7th edn, Tübingen: Cotta, 1774. Müller, Johannes von. Der Geschichten schweizerischer Eidgenossenschaft Anderes Buch. Von dem Aufblu(e)hen der ewigen Bu(e)nde. Zweyter Theil. Leipzig: M. G. Weidmanns Erben und Reich, 1786. Nolting, Hildegard von, ed. Protokollbuch des freien Untergerichts zu Soden 1665–1726, Materialien zur Bad Sodener Geschichte Heft 19. Bad Soden: Arbeitskreis für Bad Sodener Geschichte, 1995. “. Aus der Sodener Gerichtslade, Materialien zur Bad Sodener Geschichte Heft 21. Bad Soden: Arbeitskreis für Bad Sodener Geschichte, 1996. Pagus Helvetiae Suitensis, cum adjacentibus terrarum tractibus. Augsburg: Matthäus Seutter, 1740; digital version of Zentralbibliothek Bern, MUE Kart 408 SZ 2. http:// biblio.unibe.ch/web-apps/maps/zoomify.php?col=zb&pic=ZB_Kart_408_SZ_2. Pérignon, Nicolas. “Vue du Bourg de Gersau” (c.  1780). http://purl.org/viatimages/it/ image/680. Preis, Caspar. Bauernleben im Zeitalter des Dreissigjährigen Krieges: Die Stausebacher Chronik des Caspar Preis 1636–67, eds. Wilhelm A. Eckhardt and Helmut Klingelhöfer. Marburg: Trauvetter & Fischer, 1998. Pupikofer, Johann Adam, ed. Die eidgenössischen Abschiede aus dem Zeitraume von 1647–80, vol. 6, section  1a. Frauenfeld: Huber, 1867. (online edn http://digital .ub.uni-duesseldorf.de/ihd/content/titleinfo/207967) Quellenbuch zur Schweizergeschichte. ed. Wilhelm Oechsli. 2nd edn, Zurich: Schultess, 1901. Regesta Imperii Online [=RI]. Compiled by the Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz. http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/lang_en/. Reichmuth, Josef; Wiget, Josef, eds. “Die Turmkugel-Dokumente der Pfarrkirche Gersau.” In: Mitteilungen des Historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz 77 (1985): 117–142.

248

Bibliography

Reichsmatrikel (1521). https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Reichsmatrikel_von_1521. [Rigert, Johann Caspar.] Memoriale des Freystaates Gersau. [no place]: B.  Blunschi, 1817. “. Nachtrag zur Geschichte des Freystaates Gersau. Zug: Blunschi, 1817. Robert, François. Voyage dans les XIII Cantons Suisses, les Grisons, le Vallais, et autres pays et etats alliés, ou sujets des Suisses. 2 vols. Paris: Hôtel d’Aubeterre, 1789. Rogers, Samuel. The Italian Journal, ed. J. R. Hale. London: Faber & Faber, 1956. Salzmann, Martin, ed. Die Rechtsquellen des Kantons Luzern, part 2: Rechte der Landschaft, vol. 1: Vogtei und Amt Weggis. Aarau: Sauerländer, 1996. Schiller, Friedrich von. Wilhelm Tell. Tübingen: Cotta, 1804. Schmidt, Christian Gottlieb. Von der Schweiz: Journal meiner Reise vom 5. Julius 1786 bis den 7. August 1787. Bern: Haupt, 1985. Schodoler, Werner. Die Eidgenössische Chronik [1510–35], facsimile edn. Lucerne: Faksimile Verlag, 1980–1981. Segesser, Philipp Anton von, ed. Die eidgenössischen Abschiede aus dem Zeitraume von 1421–1477, vol. 2. Lucerne: Meyer, 1863. (online edn http://digital.ub.uni-duesseldorf .de/ihd/content/titleinfo/207967) “. Die eidgenössischen Abschiede aus dem Zeitraume von 1500–1520, vol. 2. Lucerne: Meyer, 1869. (online edn http://digital.ub.uni-duesseldorf.de/ihd/content/titleinfo/ 207967) Segnitz, Simon Friedrich. “Beytrag zur Geschichte und statistischen Topographie der beyden Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld in einem kurzen Entwurf.” In: Journal von und für Franken 4 (1792): 529–628. “. Staatsrecht, Geschichte und Statistik der beyden Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld als ein Anhang zu des Herrn von Dacheröden Versuch eines Staatsrechts, Geschichte und Statistik der freyen Reichsdörfer in Teutschland. Schweinfurt: Heinrich Wilhelm Volkhart, 1802. Sellert, Wolfgang, gen. ed. Die Akten des kaiserlichen Reichshofrats, Series 1: Alte Prager Akten, vol. 5: S-Z, ed. Tobias Schenk. Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 2014. Simmler, Josias. Regiment gemeiner loblicher Eydgnoschafft / beschriben und in zwey Bücher gestellet. 2 vols. Zurich: Christoph Froschauer d.J., 1576. Stein, Friedrich, ed. Monumenta Suinfurtensia historica. Denkmäler der Schweinfurter Geschichte bis zum Ende des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts. Schweinfurt: E. Stoer, 1875. Steiner, Johann Kaspar. Germano-Helveto-Sparta: Oder Kurtzdeütliche GrundZeichnung Dess Alt-Teutschen Spartier-Lands, Das ist Schweitzer-Land. Entworffen, und mit vilen curiosen Sachen augmentirt und vermehrt; Wie auch jeder Löbl. Canton Regiments-Ordnung nach Möglichkeit. Zug: Muos, 1684. Stetter, Johann Jacob. “Nassovia Principatus.” Colored copperplate engraving, 1708. Strauss, Gerald, ed. Manifestations of Discontent in Germany on the Eve of the Reformation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971.

Bibliography

249

Sündermahler, Johann Jakob Joseph [school superior]; and Hammer, Andreas Alexander Franz [author]. Dissertatio Inauguralis De Advocatia Imperiali Episcopatus Wirceburgensis In Binos Pagos Immediatos Gochsheim Et Sennfeld: Cum Mantissa Documentorum Ad Illustrandum Hoc Caput Magis Necessariorum. [Würzburg]: Doctoral Dissertation, 1772. “Synode in Ingelheim.” In: Repertorium “Geschichtsquellen des deutschen Mittelalters”. http://www.geschichtsquellen.de/repOpus_01382.html. Tengler, Ulrich. Layen Spiegel, Von rechtmässigen ordnungen in Burgerlichen vnd peinlichen regimenten. Augsburg, 1509. “The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).” In: Internet History Sourcebook. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp. Tschudi, Aegidius. Chronicon Helveticum; oder Gründliche Beschreibung der so wohl in dem Heil. Römischen Reich als besonders in einer lobl. Eydgenoßschaft … vergeloffenen Merckwürdigsten Begegnussen. 2 parts, Basel: H. J. Bischoff, 1734–36. Universität Würzburg, Topographia Franconiae, “Historische Karten.” http://franconica .uni-wuerzburg.de/ub/topographia-franconiae/maps.html. Verzeichnuß / Deß Heyl: Römischen Reichs / Teutscher Nation / Hochlöblichster: Hoch: und Wol-löblicher Stände / nach den Zehen Reichs-Craissen. n.p., 1663. [Wegelin, Johann Reinhard] Gründlich-Historischer Bericht von der kayserlichen und Reichs Landvogtey in Schwaben wie auch dem Frey Kayserlichen Landtgericht auf Leutkircher Haid und in der Pirß, aus den bewährtesten Geschichts=Schreibern und CCLXXV meistentheils noch unedirten Archival-Urkunden zusamen getragen / samt einer Tabula Geographica vom Bezürck der Landvogtey / der Leutkircher Haid und der Pirß / wie auch den ältern und neuern Landtgerichtlichen Jnsigeln. 2 parts, Ulm: n.p., 1755. Das Weisse Buch von Sarnen, compiled by Hans Schriber (1470–71). http://www.e -codices.unifr.ch/en/list/one/staow/A02CHR0003. Wiget, Josef, ed. “Die Turmkugel-Dokumente der Pfarrkirche Gersau.” In: Mitteilungen des Historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz 76 (1984): 161–175. Williams, Helen Maria. A tour in Switzerland; or A view of the present state of the governments and manners of those cantons: With comparative sketches of the present state of Paris. 2 vols. Dublin: P. Wogan, 1798. Zedler, Johann Heinrich, ed. Grosses vollständiges Universal=Lexicon aller Wissenschaften und Künste, 68 vols. Leipzig: Zedler, 1732–54. (online version https://www.zedler -lexikon.de/) Zentralbibliothek Bern, “Kartensammlung Ryhiner.” http://www.digibern.ch/katalog/ kartensammlung-ryhiner-ryhiner-map-collection.

250

Bibliography

Secondary Literature in Print & Online

1200 Jahre Gochsheim: Festschrift der Gemeinde Gochsheim zur 1200 Jahrfeier 1996. Gochsheim: Gemeinde, 1996. Adelmann, Leofrid, ed. Bayerische Trachten: Unterfranken. Würzburg: Polytechnischer Verein, 1856. Adler, Benjamin. Die Entstehung der direkten Demokratie. Das Beispiel der Landsgemeinde Schwyz 1780–1866. Zurich: Chronos, 2006. Arnade, Peter. Beggars, Iconoclasts, and Civic Patriots: The Political Culture of the Dutch Revolt. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2008. Asch, Ronald; Freist, Dagmar, eds. Staatsbildung als kultureller Prozess: Strukturwandel und Legitimation von Herrschaft in der Frühen Neuzeit. Cologne: Böhlau, 2005. Aubin, Hermann. “Das Schiksal der schweizerischen und der friesischen Freiheit.” In: Grundlagen und Perspektiven geschichtlicher Kulturraumforschung und Kulturmorphologie, eds. Ludwig and Franz Petri. Bonn: Roehrscheid, 1965, 349–68. Auf der Maur, Franz. “Camenzind, Damian.” In: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz, ed. M. Jorio (14 July 2003). http://www.hls-dhs-dss.ch/textes/d/D5709.php. Badel, Doris. Sennfeld: Geschichte eines ehemals freien Reichsdorfes in Franken. Sennfeld: Gemeinde, 1997. Bader, Karl Siegfried. Dorfgenossenschaft und Dorfgemeinde, Studien zur Rechtsgeschichte des mittelalterlichen Dorfes, vol. 2. Cologne: Böhlau, 1962. Bähr, Matthias. “Widerstand vor dem Reichskammergericht: Als die ‘freien Hümmlinger’ nach Wetzlar zogen (1739–1768).” In: Emsländische Geschichte 15 (Haselünne: Studiengesellschaft, 2008): 468–577. “. Die Sprache der Zeugen: Argumentationsstrategien bäuerlicher Gemeinden vor dem Reichskammergericht (1693–1806). Constance: UVK, 2012. Becker, Josef. “Die Reichsdörfer der Landvogtei und Pflege Hagenau.” In: Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins, New Series 14 (1899): 207–47. Benziger, Carl. “Die Wappen der alten Republik Gersau und ihrer Bürgergeschlechter.” In: Schweizer Archiv für Heraldik 34 (1920): 97–106. Beutter, Wilfried. “Harmersbach.” In Lexikon der deutschen Geschichte. Personen – Ereignisse – Institutionen, ed. Gerhard Taddey, 2nd edn. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner, 1983, 505. Bierbrauer, Peter. Freiheit und Gemeinde im Berner Oberland 1300–1700. Bern: Historischer Verein, 1991. Black, Jeremy. Maps and History: Constructing Images of the Past. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997. Blanning, T. C. W. Joseph II and Enlightened Despotism. London: Longman, 1970. Blickle, Peter. Deutsche Untertanen – Ein Widerspruch. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1981.

Bibliography

251

“. “Kommunalismus, Parlamentarismus, Republikanismus.” In: Historische Zeitschrift 242 (1986): 529–56. “. “Friede und Verfassung: Voraussetzungen und Folgen der Eidgenossenschaft von 1291.” In: Innerschweiz und frühe Eidgenossenschaft, ed. Historischer Verein der V Orte, 2 vols. Olten: Walter, 1990, vol. 1, 13–202. “. The Communal Reformation: The Quest for Salvation in Sixteenth-Century Germany, trans. Thomas Dunlap. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1992. “. “Warum blieb die Innerschweiz katholisch?” In: Mitteilungen des historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz 86 (1994): 29–38. “. “Die freie Republik Eglofs.” In: Im Oberland: Kultur-Geschichte-Natur. Beiträge aus Oberschwaben und dem Allgäu 5 (2/1994): 7–15. “. From the Communal Reformation to the Revolution of the Common Man, trans. Beat Kümin. Leiden: Brill, 1998. “. Kommunalismus: Skizzen einer gesellschaftlichen Organisationsform, 2 vols. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2000. “. “‘Doppelpass’ im Mittelalter: Ausbürger in oberdeutschen und schweizerischen Städten und der Verfall der feudalen Herrschaft.” In: Die Stadt als Kommunikationsraum: Beiträge zur Stadtgeschichte vom Mittelalter bis ins 20. Jahrhundert, ed. Helmut Bräuer et al., Leipzig: Universitätsverlag, 2001, 37–48. “. Von der Leibeigenschaft zu den Menschenrechten: Eine Geschichte der Freiheit in Deutschland, 2nd edn. Munich: Beck, 2006. “. Der Bauernjörg: Feldherr im Bauernkrieg – Georg Truchsess von Waldburg 1488–1531. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2015. Blockmans, Wim; Genet, Jean-Philippe, eds. The Origins of the Modern State in Europe, 13th to 18th Centuries, 7 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995–2000. “; Holenstein, André; Mathieu, Jon, eds. Empowering Interactions: Political Cultures and the Emergence of the State in Europe. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009. Boyer, Jean-Paul. Hommes et communautés du haut pays niçois medieval: La Vésubie (XIIIe–XVe siècles). Nice: Centre d’études médiévales, 1990. Bradstock, Andrew, ed. Winstanley and the Diggers 1649–1999. London: Frank Cass, 2000. Brun, Katherine. The Abbot and his Peasants: Territorial Formation in Salem from the later Middle Ages to the Thirty Years War, Quellen und Forschungen zur Agrargeschichte 56. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 2013. Blythe, James  M. Ideal  Government and the Mixed Constitution in the Middle Ages. Princeton: Legacy, 2014. Bothe, Friedrich. Geschichte der Stadt Frankfurt am Main. Frankfurt a.M.: Moritz Diesterweg, 1913. Braddick, Michael. State Formation in Early Modern England, c. 1550–1700. Cambridge: University Press, 2000.

252

Bibliography

Brown, Christopher Boyd. Singing the Gospel: Lutheran Hymns and the Success of the Reformation. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2005. Brülisauer, Josef. “Oberhasli.” in: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz (10 November 2011). http://www.hls-dhs-dss.ch/textes/d/D8451.php. Bryner, Erich. “The Reformation in St. Gallen and Appenzell.” In: A Companion to the Swiss Reformation, eds. Amy Nelson Burnett and Emidio Campi. Leiden: Brill, 2016, 238–63. Buczynski, Alexander. “Freiheitsvorstellungen an der kroatischen Militärgrenze.” In: Kollektive Freiheitsvorstellungen im frühneuzeitlichen Europa (1400–1850), eds. G. Schmidt et al. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006, 251–66. Bünz, Enno. “Kredit bei den Heiligen: Die Dorfkirche als Geldinstitut in Spätmittelalter und Frühneuzeit,” in: Zins und Gült: Strukturen des ländlichen Kreditwesens in Spätmittelalter und Frühneuzeit, eds. K. Andermann and G. Fouquet. Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2016, 41–67. Burke, Peter. The Fabrication of Louix XIV. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Camenzind, Damian. Geschichte der Republik Gersau, nach urkundlichen Quellen. Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1863. Camenzind, Josef Maria Mathä. Die Geschichte von Gersau, ed. Hans Georg Wirz. 3 vols. Gersau: Robert Müller, 1953–59. Camenzind and Co., 250 Jahre Seiden-Industrie in Gersau. Gersau: Camenzind & Co., 1980. Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Shelley and his Circle: 1773–1822. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970. Campanini, Antonella. Il villaggio scomparso: Rivalta di Reggio nei secoli 9.-14. Biblioteca di storia agraria medievale 23. Bologna: Clueb, 2003. Camponovo, Oscar. “Terre con franchigie nel Sottoceneri.” In: Archivio Storico Ticinese 9 (1962), 443–450. Cohn, Samuel K. Lust for Liberty: The Politics of Social Revolt in Medieval Europe 1200– 1425 – Italy, France and Flanders. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. Collenberg, Adolf. “Cavajone.” In: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz, ed. M.  Jorio (1 September 2003), http://www.hls-dhs-dss.ch/textes/d/D8100.php. Conrad, Hermann. Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, Vol. 1: Frühzeit und Mittelalter; Vol. 2: Neuzeit bis 1806 – Ein Lehrbuch. Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller, 1962–66. Coolidge, William August Brevort. “The Republic of Gersau.” In: English Historical Review 4 (July/1889): 481–515. Coy, Jason Philip; Marschke, Benjamin; Sabean, David Warren, eds. The Holy Roman Empire, Reconsidered, Spektrum: Publications of the German Studies Association 1. New York: Berghahn, 2010. “Datenbank Höchstgerichtsbarkeit.” http://www.jura.uni-wuerzburg.de/lehrstuehle/ amend_traut/forschungsprojekt_datenbank_hoechstgerichtsbarkeit/.

Bibliography

253

Delumeau, Jean. Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire: A New View of the CounterReformation, trans. Jeremy Moiser. London: Burns & Oates, 1977. De Kegel Schorer, Catherine. “Bauern am Reichstag? Zum Verhältnis reichsunmittelbarer ländlicher Gemeinwesen zur Reichsstandschaft.” In: Gemeinde, Reformation und Widerstand, eds. H. R. Schmidt et al. Tübingen: bibliotheca academica, 1998, 433–41. “. Die Freien auf Leutkircher Heide: Ursprung, Ausformung und Erosion einer oberdeutschen Freibauerngenossenschaft. Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2007. Diestelkamp, Bernhard. Ein Kampf um Freiheit und Recht. Die prozessualen Auseinandersetzungen der Gemeinde Freienseen mit den Grafen zu Solms-Laubach. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2012. Ditchfield, Simon  R. “Catholic Reformation and Renewal.” In: The Oxford Illustrated History of the Reformation, ed. Peter Marshall. Oxford: University Press, 2015, 152–85. Dixon, C. Scott. The Reformation of Rural Society: The Parishes of Brandenburg-AnsbachKulmbach 1528–1603. Cambridge: University Press, 1996. “. The Church in the Early Modern Age. London: I.B. Tauris, 2016. Dorfner, Thomas. Mittler zwischen Haupt und Gliedern: die Reichshofratsagenten und ihre Rolle im Verfahren 1658–1740, Verhandeln, Verfahren, Entscheiden vol. 2. Münster: Aschendorff, 2015. Dornheim, Stefan. Der Pfarrer als Arbeiter am Gedächtnis, Schriften zur Sächsischen Geschichte und Volkskunde, vol. 40. Leipzig: Universitätsverlag, 2013. Dunbar, Robin I. M. “The Social Brain: Psychological Underpinnings and Implications for the Structure of Organizations.” In: Current Directions in Psychological Science 23 (2/2014): 109–114. Dvorák, Max. “Die Fälschungen des Reichskanzlers Kaspar Schlick.” In: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 22 (1901): 51–107. Eckhardt, Martin. “Sulzbach und seine Kirche: Ein geschichtlicher Überblick von 1035–1724.” In: Sulzbach und seine evangelische Kirche 1724–1974, ed. Evangelische Kirchengemeinde. Sulzbach: Kirchengemeinde, 1974, 13–17. Eckhardt, Wilhelm  A. “Das Reichsdorf Holzhausen.” In: Zeitschrift für hessische Geschichte und Landeskunde 92 (1987): 155–70. “Eglofs chronicle.” http://www-old.eglofs.de/. Ehrenpreis, Stefan; Lotz Heumann, Ute. Reformation und konfessionelles Zeitalter. 2nd edn, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. Eisenstein, Elizabeth; Johns, Adrian. “How revolutionary was the print revolution?” In: American Historical Review, 107 (2002): 84–128. Endres, Rudolf. “Stadt- und Landgemeinde in Franken.” In: Landgemeinde und Stadtgemeinde in Mitteleuropa. Ein struktureller Vergleich, ed. Peter Blickle, Historische Zeitschrift Beiheft new series 13. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1991, 101–18. Evangelische Kirchengemeinde Bad Soden am Taunus, ed. 300 Jahre evangelische Kirche Bad Soden, co-ordinated by Achim Reis and Christiane Schalles. Flörsheim: Lauck, 2016.

254

Bibliography

Evangelische Kirchengemeinde Sulzbach, ed. Sulzbach und seine evangelische Kirche 1724–1974: Festschrift der evangelischen Kirchengemeinde Sulzbach aus Anlaß des 250-jährigen Jubiläums des Wiederaufbaues der Sulzbacher Dorfkirche in 1724. Sulzbach: Evangelische Kirchengemeinde, 1974. Evans, Robert J. W.; Schaich, Michael; Wilson, Peter H., eds. The Holy Roman Empire 1495–1806. Oxford: University Press, 2011. “; Wilson, Peter  H., eds. The Holy Roman Empire 1495–1806: A European Perspective. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Eyer, E. “Die Grösse einiger Reichsdörfer im 14. Jahrhundert.” In: Elsaß-Land, Lothringer Heimat: Illustrierte Monatsschrift für Heimatkunde und Touristik 19 (1939): 150. Faßbind, Rudolf. Die Schappe-Industrie in der Innerschweiz. Ein Beitrag zur schweizerischen Wirtschaftsgeschichte des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts. Stans: Geschichtsfreund, 1955. Fay, Sigi. Sulzbach am Taunus. 3 vols. Sulzbach: Gemeindevorstand, 1983–89. Ferrari, Michele; Kümin, Beat, eds. Pfarreien in der Vormoderne: Identität und Kultur im Niederkirchenwesen Europas. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2017. Forster, Mark. Catholic Revival in the Age of the Baroque: Religious Identity in Southwest Germany 1550–1750. Cambridge: University Press, 2001. Franz, Günther. Geschichte des deutschen Bauernstandes vom frühen Mittelalter bis zum 19. Jahrhundert, Deutsche Agrargeschichte vol. 4. Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer, 1970. Freedman, Paul H. Images of the Medieval Peasant. Stanford: University Press, 1999. Frevert, Ute; Haupt, Heinz-Gerhard, eds. Neue Politikgeschichte: Perspektiven einer historischen Politikforschung. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus, 2005. Fuchs, Ralf-Peter. “Recht und Unrecht im Verfahren Lackum – Ein Kriminalfall mit Widerhall.” In: Justiz und Gerechtigkeit. Historische Beiträge (16.–19. Jahrhundert), ed. Andrea Griesebner, Martin Scheutz and Herwig Weigl. Innsbruck: Studienverlag, 2002, 149–68. “. “The supreme court of the Holy Roman Empire: The state of research and the outlook.” In: Sixteenth Century Journal 34 (2003): 9–27. Fuhrmann, Rosi. Kirche und Dorf: Religiöse Bedürfnisse und kirchliche Stiftung auf dem Lande vor der Reformation. Stuttgart: G. Fischer, 1995. Furrer, Norbert et al., eds. Gente ferocissima: Solddienst und Gesellschaft in der Schweiz 15.-19. Jahrhundert. Lausanne: Ed. d’en bas, 1997. Gabel, Helmut. “Deutsche Untertanen vor dem Reichskammergericht.” In: Frieden durch Recht: Das Reichskammergericht von 1495–1806, ed. Ingrid Scheurmann. Mainz: Zabern, 1994, 273–80. Gautier, Adolphe. La République de Gersau. Genève et Bâle: H. Georg, 1868. Ein Gedenkblatt zur Erinnerung an die Gründung der Republik Gersau 1390, der hiesigen Jugend gewidmet von der Sparkassagesellschaft Gersau 1890. Gersau: n.p., 1890.

Bibliography

255

Geisler, Michael. Leben und Tod der Anna Katharina Duß: Die Geschichte einer Dienstmagd aus Soden. Wiesbaden: Waldemar Kramer, 2015. Gelderen, Martin van; Skinner, Quentin, eds. Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, 2 vols. Cambridge: University Press, 2002. Gemeinde Gochsheim, ed. Spurensuche: Das Historische Rathaus von Gochsheim im Wandel der Zeit. Gochsheim [c. 2011]. Gemeinde Sulzbach, “Sulzbacher Geschichte.” http://www.sulzbach-taunus.de/ Gemeinde/Sulzbacher_Geschichte/Geschichte_Teil5. “Gersau 1814–2014: Geschichte Gestalten.” http://www.gersau-2014.ch/. Gietzelt, Martin; Pfeil, Ulrich. “Dithmarschen im ‘Dritten Reich’ 1933–45.” In: Geschichte Dithmarschens, ed. Verein für Dithmarscher Landeskunde e.V. Heide: Boyens & Co., 2000, 327–60. Goldie, Mark. “The unacknowledged republic: officeholding in early modern England.” In: The Politics of the Excluded, c. 1500–1850, ed. Tim Harris. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001, 153–94. Goscinny, René; Uderzo, Albert. Asterix and the Banquet, trans. Anthea Bell and Derek Hockridge. London: Oriel Books, 2004. Gotthard, Axel. In der Ferne: Die Wahrnehmung des Raums in der Vormoderne. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus, 1997. Greyerz, Kaspar von, ed. Selbstzeugnisse in der Frühen Neuzeit: Individualisierungsweisen in interdisziplinärer Persepektive. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2007. Hagen, William. Ordinary Prussians: Brandenburg Junkers and Villagers 1500–1840. Cambridge: University Press, 2002. Hägermann, Dieter. “Reichsgut,” in: Lexikon des Mittelalters, ed. Robert-Henri Bautier, vol. 7. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1995, col. 620–622. Haider, Siegfried. “Kirchturmurkunden vornehmlich aus Oberösterreich.” In: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 106 (1998): 1–30. Hamling, Tara; Richardson, Catherine, eds. Everyday Objects: Medieval and Early Modern Material Culture and its Meanings. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010. Hansel, Werner. Die wiedergefundenen Barockbilder in der evangelischen Kirche Bad Soden a.Ts. Bad Soden: Arbeitskreis für Bad Sodener Geschichte, 1997. Hardy, Duncan. “Associative Political Culture in the Holy Roman Empire: The Upper Rhine, c. 1350–1500.” DPhil thesis, Oxford, 2015. Hauptmeyer, Carl-Hans. Verfassung und Herrschaft in Isny. Untersuchungen zur reichsstädtischen Rechts-, Verfassungs- und Sozialgeschichte, vornehmlich in der Frühen Neuzeit. Göppingen: Alfred Kümmerle, 1976. Head, Randolph. Early Modern Democracy in the Grisons: Social Order and Political Language in a Swiss Mountain Canton, 1470–1620. Cambridge: University Press, 1995.

256

Bibliography

“. “‘Nit alß zwo Gmeinden, oder Partheyen, sonder ein Gmeind:’ Kommunalismus zwischen den Konfessionen in Graubünden, 1530–1620.” In: Landgemeinde und Kirche im Zeitalter der Konfessionen, ed. Beat Kümin. Zurich: Chronos, 2004, 21–57. Heal, Bridget. “‘Better Papist than Calvinist’: Art and Identity in Later Lutheran Germany.” In: German History 29 (4/2011): 584–609. Hein, Walfried. Reichsschultheiß und ein Ehrbares Gericht: Bürgerliches Leben im freien Reichsdorf Gochsheim. Gochsheim: Gemeinde, 1994. “. Der Chronist Johann Matthäus Kirchner: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Reichsdorfes Gochsheim. Gochsheim, 2003. Henshall, Nicholas. The Myth of Absolutism: Change and Continuity in Early Modern European Monarchy. London: Longman, 1992. Hersche, Peter. Musse und Verschwendung: Europäische Gesellschaft und Kultur im Barockzeitalter, 2 vols. Freiburg I.B.: Herder, 2006. Hesse, Hermann. Peter Camenzind. Berlin: Samuel Fischer, 1904. Heusser, Sibylle. “Riva San Vitale.” In: ISOS-Ortsbilder. Zurich: Bundesamt für Kultur, 2002. Hillenbrand, Eugen. “Das freie Reichstal Harmersbach: Über die schwierige Wahrnehmung von Geschichte.” In: Die Ortenau 83 (2003): 47–60. Historischer Verein Ingelheim. “Ingelheimer Geschichte”, compiled by Hartmut Geißler. http://www.ingelheimer-geschichte.de. Holenstein, André. “Gemeine Herrschaften.” In: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz, ed. Marco Iorio (19 August 2005). http://www.hls-dhs-dss.ch/textes/d/D9817.php. “; Maissen, Thomas; Prak, Maarten eds. The Republican Alternative: The Netherlands and Switzerland Compared. Amsterdam: University Press, 2008. “. “Die Erfindung der Republik Gersau im Zeitalter der Revolution.” In: Politische Freiheit und Republikanische Kultur im Alten Europa, ed. B. Kümin. Vitznau: Bucher, 2015, 37–43. (online edn http://www.gersau-2014.ch/Buch) Hönsch, Jörg  K., ed. Itinerar König und Kaiser Sigismund von Luxemburg 1368–1437, Studien zu den Luxemburgern und ihrer Zeit. Warendorf: Fahlbusch, 1995. Houston, Robert A. Literacy in Early Modern Europe: Culture and Education 1500–1800, 2nd edn. Harlow: Longman, 2002. Hugo,  L. “Verzeichnis der freien Reichsdörfer in Deutschland.” In: Zeitschrift für Archivkunde, Diplomatik und Geschichte 2 (1836): 446–76. Iversen, Tore; Myking, John Ragnar; Thoma, Gertrud, eds. Peasant Relations to Lords and Government: Scandinavia and the Alpine Region 1000 to 1750. Trondheim: TAPIR Akademisk Forlag, 2007. Jäger, Leo. “Bischof Julius Echter und das Reichsdorf Gochsheim.” https://www .schweinfurtfuehrer.de/stadtrandgemeinden/gochsheim/. Jaun, Rudolf; Streit, Pierre; Weck, Hervé de, eds. Schweizer Solddienst: Neue Arbeiten, Neue Aspekte. Birmensdorf: Schweizerische Vereinigung für Militärgeschichte, 2010.

Bibliography

257

Jung, Rudolf. Das Frankfurter Stadtarchiv: Seine Bestände und seine Geschichte. Frankfurt: Joseph Baer & Co., 1909. Kamen, Henry. Early Modern European Society. London: Routledge, 2000. Kaufmann, Ekkehard. Geschichte und Verfassung der Reichsdörfer Soden und Sulzbach 1035–1806, Ph.D., Frankfurt. Bad Soden: Gögelein, 1951 (reprint Flörsheim a.M.: Lauck, 1981). “. “Reichsdörfer.” In: Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, ed. Adalbert Erler et al., 5 vols. Berlin: Schmidt, 1971–98, vol. 4 (1990), col. 561–4. Kissling, Peter. Freie Bauern und bäuerliche Bürger. Eglofs im Spätmittelalter und in der Frühneuzeit. Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2006. Köbler, Gerhard, ed. Historisches Lexikon der deutschen Länder. 6th edn, Munich: Beck, 1999. “. “Das Reichsdorf in der deutschen Landesgeschichte.” In: Zeitschrift integrativer europäischer Rechtsgeschichte 5 (2015). http://www.koeblergerhard.de/ZIER -startseite.htm. Krause, Joachim. “Vor 200 Jahren: als Dithmarschen versuchte seine Unabhängigkeit wieder zu erhalten” (2011). http://www.dithmarschen-wiki.de/. Krauskopf, Gunther. “Die Bickenbacher Fehde 1450: Soden und Sulzbach in Frankfurter Knechtschaft 1450–1621.” In: Sulzbacher Geschichte(n), ed. Geschichtsverein Reichsdorf Sulzbach, part 1. Norderstedt, 2009, 18–51. Krey, Alexander. Die Praxis der spätmittelalterlichen Laiengerichtsbarkeit: Gerichtsund Rechtslandschaften des Rhein-Main-Gebietes im 15.  Jahrhundert im Vergleich. Cologne/Weimar: Böhlau, 2015. Krieb, Steffen. “Das Gedächtnis der Herrschaft. Schriftlichkeit, Tradition und Legitimitätsglauben im Stift Kempten im 15. Jahrhundet.” In: Tradition und Erinnerung in Adelsherrschaft und bäuerlicher Gesellschaft, ed. Werner Rösener. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003, 23–42. Kromer, Joachim. Bad Soden am Taunus. Stadtgeschichte. 2 vols. Frankfurt a.M.: Waldemar Kramer, 1990–91. Kruppa, Nathalie, ed. Pfarreien im Mittelalter: Deutschland, Tschechien, Polen und Ungarn im Vergleich. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Kulturkommission des Kantons Schwyz, ed. Das Rathaus der altfryen Republik Gersau, with contributions by Markus Bamert, Hermann Bischofberger, Albert Müller and Josef Wiget. Schwyz: Schwyzer Hefte, 1987. Kümin, Beat. “Rathaus, Wirtshaus, Gotteshaus. Von der Zwei- zur Dreidimensionalität in der frühneuzeitlichen Gemeindeforschung.” In: Geist, Gesellschaft, Kirche im 13.16. Jahrhundert, ed. František Šmahel. Prague: Colloquia Mediaevalia Pragensia, 1999, 249–62. “. The Communal Age in Western Europe c. 1100–1800: Towns, Villages and Parishes in PreModern Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2013.

258

Bibliography

“. “Kirchgenossen an der Macht: Vormoderne politische Kultur in den ‘Pfarreirepubliken’ von Gersau und Dithmarschen.” In: Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 41 (2/2014): 187–230. “. “Rural Autonomy and Popular Politics in Imperial Villages.” In: German History 33 (2/2015): 194–213. “. “Vom Reichsdorf zur Republic. Grundlagen und Entwicklung der politischen Freiheit in Gersau.” In: Politische Freiheit und republikanische Kultur im Alten Europa: Historische Essays zum Gedenkjahr “Gersau 2014”, ed. idem. Vitznau: Bucher, 2015, 93–98. (online edn http://www.gersau-2014.ch/Buch) “. ed. Political Space in Pre-industrial Europe. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009. Kurze, Dietrich. Pfarrerwahlen im Mittelalter: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Gemeinde und des Niederkirchenwesens. Cologne: Böhlau, 1966. Landwehr, Götz. Die Verpfändung der deutschen Reichsstädte im Mittelalter. Cologne: Böhlau, 1967. [Langenegger, Wendel.] Geschichte des Reichshofes Krießern 1229–1979. Krießern: Ortsgemeinde, 1979. Lengen, Hajo van, ed. Die Friesische Freiheit des Mittelalters: Leben und Legende. Aurich: Verlag Ostfriesische Landschaft, 2003. Levi, Giovanni. “On Microhistory.” In: New Perspectives on Historical Writing, ed. Peter Burke. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991, 93–113. Lindemann, Mary. The Merchant Republics: Amsterdam, Antwerp, and Hamburg, 1648– 1790. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Loose, Hans-Dieter. “Der hamburgische Senatssyndicus Vincent Garmers (1623–1687) und das Ende der Hanse.” In: Akteure und Gegner der Hanse. Zur Prosopographie der Hansezeit, ed. Detlef Kattinger. Weimar: Böhlau, 1998, 245–253. Löster, Karl. Maria zu den Ketten (Zell am Harmersbach: Kapuzinerkloster, 2012) (online edn: http://www.kapuziner.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Broschuere_Wall fahrtskirche_25.7.Final.pdf) Löw, Martina. Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 2001. Luebke, David Martin. His Majesty’s Rebels: Communities, Factions, and Rural Revolt in the Black Forest 1725–45. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997. “. “Of liberty and the Upstalboom: Urban-rural alliances and symbols of freedom in early modern East Frisia.” In: Politics and Reformations: Communities, Polities, Nations, and Empires, ed. Christopher Ocker et al. Leiden: Brill, 2007, 259–82. “. Hometown Religion: Regimes of Co-Existence in Early Modern Westphalia. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2016. Mahlberg, Gaby; Wiemann, Dirk, eds. European Contexts for English Republicanism. Farnham: Ashgate, 2013. Maissen, Thomas. Die Geburt der Republic: Staatsverständnis und Repräsentation in der frühneuzeitlichen Eidgenossenschaft. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006.

Bibliography

259

“. “Der Freiheitshut. Ikonographische Annäherungen an das republikanische Freiheitsverständnis in der frühneuzeitlichen Eidgenossenschaft.” In: Kollektive Freiheitsvorstellungen im frühneuzeitlichen Europa, eds. G.  Schmidt, M.  van  Gelderen and C. Snigula. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006, 133–44. Marchal, Guy P. Die frommen Schweden in Schwyz: Das “Herkommen der Schwyzer und Oberhasler” als Quelle zum Schwyzer Selbstverständnis im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1976. Marquardt, Bernd. Die alte Eidgenossenschaft und das Heilige Römische Reich (1350– 1798). Staatsbildung und Sonderstatus am alteuropäischen Alpenrand, Europäische Rechts- und Regionalgeschichte 3. Zurich: Dike / Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007. “. “Reichsdorf.” In: Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit Online, ed. Friedrich Jaeger, 16 vols. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 2005–12, vol. 10 (2009), col. 899–901 (https://referenceworks .brillonline.com/browse/enzyklopaedie-der-neuzeit). Mattern, Günter. “Siegel und Wappen der Reichsdörfer. Aufnahmearbeit für die Internationale Akademie für Heraldik.” In: Archivum Heraldicum 90 (1976), H. 1/2: 44–53; H. 3/4: 12–19. Maurer, Georg Ludwig von. Geschichte der Dorfverfassung in Deutschland. Erlangen: Enke, 1865–66 (reprint Aalen: Scientia, 1961). Mayes, David. Communal Christianity: The Life and Loss of a Peasant Vision in Early Modern Germany. Boston: Brill, 2004. McCloskey, Deirdre  N. Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World. Chicago: University Press, 2016. Meier, Thomas. “Handwerk, Handel und Gewerbe im 18. Jahrhundert.” In: Geschichte des Kantons Schwyz, ed. Andreas Meyerhans, 7 vols. Zurich: Chronos, 2012, vol. 5, 71–95. Meier, Ulrich. “Die Sicht- und Hörbarkeit der Macht. Der Florentiner Palazzo Vecchio im Spätmittelalter.” In: Zwischen Gotteshaus und Taverne: Öffentliche Räume in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed. Susanne Rau and Gerd Schwerhoff, Norm und Struktur 21. Cologne: Böhlau, 2004, 229–71. Mißfeldt, Jörg. “Die Republik Dithmarschen.” In: Geschichte Dithmarschens, ed. Verein für Dithmarscher Landeskunde e.V. Heide: Boyens & Co., 2000, 121–66. Moeller, Bernd. Imperial Cities and the Reformation: Three Essays, trans. H. C. Erik Midelfort and Mark U. Edwards, Jr. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972. Moeller, Hans-Georg. The Radical Luhmann. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012. Moosbrugger, Mathias. Der Hintere Bregenzerwald – eine Bauernrepublik? Neue Untersuchungen zu seiner Verfassungs- und Strukturgeschichte im Spätmittelalter. Constance: UVK, 2009. Moraw, Peter. “Franken als königsnahe Landschaft im späten Mittelalter.” In: Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte 112 (1976): 123–38.

260

Bibliography

Morkowska, Marysia. Vom Stiefkind zum Liebling: Die Entwicklung und Funktion des europäischen Schweizbildes bis zur Französischen Revolution. Zurich: Chronos, 1997. Müller, Albert. “Zur Geschichte der Sennenbruderschaft und Sennengesellschaft Gersau.” In: 400 Jahre Sennenbruderschaft/Sennengesellschaft Gersau: Festschrift zum Jubiläum der Sennengesellschaft Gersau, ed. Robert Nigg. Gersau: Sennenbruderschaft, 1993, 5–44. “. “Gersau.” In: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz, ed. Marco Jorio (8 December 2006). http://www.hls-dhs-dss.ch/textes/d/D711.php. “. Gersau – Unikum der Schweizer Geschichte. Baden: Hier + Jetzt, 2013. Müller, P. Iso. “Die Entstehung der Pfarreien an den Ufern des Vierwaldstättersees.” In: Der Geschichtsfreund 117 (1964): 5–59. Neuhaus, Helmut. Das Reich in der Frühen Neuzeit, 2nd edn. München: Oldenbourg, 2003. Nietzschmann, Erhard. Die Freien auf dem Lande: Ehemalige deutsche Reichsdörfer und ihre Wappen. Wolfenbüttel: Melchior Verlag, 2013. Nigg, Gustav. “Verzeichnis der Pfarrherren der Kirche St. Marzellus Gersau.” In: Mitteilungen des Historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz 87 (1995): 109–114. Nissen, Nis Rudolf. Kleine Geschichte Dithmarschens. 3rd edn, Heide: Westholsteinische Verlagsanstalt Boyens & Co., 1988. Nussbaum, Martha C. “Der aristotelische Sozialdemokratismus – Kein Bürger darf an Lebensunterhalt Mangel leiden.” In her Gerechtigkeit oder Das gute Leben. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1999, 24–85. “Obersteg artist family.” In: Lexikon zur Kunst in der Schweiz. (http://www.sikart.ch/ kuenstlerinnen.aspx?id=9640339). Ochs, Heidrun. “Kommunale Autonomie und Siegelführung: Das Beispiel des Rheingaus.” In: Dorf und Gemeinde. Grundstrukturen der ländlichen Gesellschaft in Spätmittelalter und Frühneuzeit, eds. Kurt Andermann and Oliver Auge. Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2012, 87–112. Ogilvie, Sheilagh  C. “Village community and village headman in early modern Bohemia.” In: Bohemia 46 (2/2005): 402–47. Oppitz, Ulrich-Dieter. “Reichsdörfer.” In: Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte. 2nd edn (forthcoming). Otto, Martin. “Rechtsmittel.” In: Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit, ed. Friedrich Jaeger, 16 vols. Stuttart: Metzler, 2005–12, vol.  10, col.  707–15 (https://referenceworks.brillonline .com/browse/enzyklopaedie-der-neuzeit). Petry, Ludwig, “Der Ingelheimer Grund vom Ausgang des 14. bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts.” In: Ingelheim am Rhein: Forschungen und Studien zur Geschichte Ingelheims, ed. Johanne Autenrieth. Ingelheim: Boehringer, 1964, 201–65.

Bibliography

261

Pfaff, Carl. “Pfarrei und Pfarreileben: Ein Beitrag zur spätmittelalterlichen Kirchengeschichte.” In: Innerschweiz und frühe Eidgenossenschaft, ed. Historischer Verein der V Orte. 2 vols. Olten: Walter, 1990, vol. 1, 203–81. Pocock, J. G. A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton: University Press, 1973. Rau, Susanne. Geschichte und Konfession: Städtische Geschichtsschreibung und Erinnerungskultur im Zeitalter von Reformation und Konfessionalisierung in Bremen, Breslau, Hamburg und Köln. Hamburg: Dölling und Galitz, 2002. Raven, Otto. Neuenhain im Taunus. Geschichte eines Dorfes. Neuenhain: Gemeinde, c. 1971. Reis, Achim. “Konfirmation im Wandel der Zeit.” In: 300 Jahre Evangelische Kirche Bad Soden, ed. Evangelische Kirchengemeinde. Flörsheim: Lauck, 2016, 155–79. Reitemeier, Arnd. Pfarrkirchen in der Stadt des späten Mittelalters: Politik, Wirtschaft und Verwaltung. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2005. Die Republik Gersau – Ein Volkschauspiel bearbeitet nach der Geschichte der Republik Gersau. Gersau: n.p., 1890. Roedder, Edwin. Das südwestdeutsche Reichsdorf in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, dargestellt auf Grund der Geschichte von Oberschefflenz im badischen Bauland. Landschaft – Geschichte – Volkstum. Lahr: Moritz Schauenburg, 1928. “Röm. kath. Kirche Lauerz ‘St. Nikolaus’: Ein Blick in unsere Kirche.” Lauerz: Pfarrei, 2008. Roßbach, Karl. Geschichte der freien Reichsdörfer Sulzbach und Soden. Bad Soden i.T., 1924 (reprint Flörsheim, 1981). Rublack, Ulinka. The First Book of Fashion: The Book of Clothes of Matthaeus and Veit Konrad Schwarz of Augsburg. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Rudolph, Harriet. Das Reich als Ereignis. Formen und Funktionen der Herrschaftsinszenierung bei Kaiserauftritten (1558–1618), Norm und Struktur 38. Cologne: Böhlau, 2011. Sabean, David. Power in the Blood: Popular Culture and Village Discourse in Early Modern Germany. Cambridge: University Press, 1984. Sablonier, Roger. Gründungszeit ohne Eidgenossen: Politik und Gesellschaft in der Innerschweiz um 1300. Baden: Hier + Jetzt, 2008. Sailer, Rita. Untertanenprozesse vor dem Reichskammergericht: Rechtsschutz gegen die Obrigkeit in der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts. Cologne: Böhlau, 1999. Saulle Hippenmeyer, Immacolata. Nachbarschaft, Gemeinde und Pfarrei in Graubünden 1400–1600, 2 vols. Chur: Kommissionsverlag Bündner Monatsblatt, 1997. Schalles, Christiane. “Apostel und Propheten: 22 Emporenbilder für die Sodener Kirche von Konrad Jäger.” In: 300  Jahre Evangelische Kirche Bad Soden, ed. Evangelische Kirchengemeinde. Flörsheim: Lauck, 2016, 97–113.

262

Bibliography

Schlögl, Rudolf. Anwesende und Abwesende. Grundriss für eine Gesellschaftsgeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit. Constance: Konstanz University Press, 2014. Schmidt, Georg; Gelderen, Martin van; Snigula, Christopher, eds. Kollektive Freiheits­ vorstellungen im frühneuzeitlichen Europa (1400–1850). Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006. Schmitt, Johannes. Die Republicaner an der Prims: Untersuchungen zur Reichsherrschaft Hüttersdorf-Buprich im 18. Jahrhundert. Saarbrücken: universaar, 2012. Schnurrer, Ludwig. “‘Verhinderte’ Reichsstädte in Franken.” In: Reichsstädte in Franken, ed. Rainer A. Müller, vol. 1: Verfassung und Verwaltung. Munich: Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte, 1987, 357–67. Schnyder, Carolyne. Reformation und Demokratie im Wallis (1524–1613). Mainz: P. von Zabern, 2002. Schöntag, Wilfried. Kommunale Siegel und Wappen in Südwestdeutschland. Ihre Bildersprache vom 12. bis zum 20.  Jahrhundert, Schriften zur südwestdeutschen Landeskunde 68. Osfildern: Jan Thorbecke, 2010. Schubert, Ernst. “Die Quaternionen: Entstehung, Sinngehalt und Folgen einer spätmittelalterlichen Deutung der Reichsverfassung.” In: Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 20 (1993): 1–63. Schuler-Alder, Heidi. Reichsprivilegien und Reichsdienste der eidgenössischen Orte unter König Sigmund, 1410–1437. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1985. Schulze, Winfried. “Die veränderte Bedeutung sozialer Konflikte im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert.” In: Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg, ed. Hans-Ulrich Wehler. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975, 277–302. Schwarz, Hans-Sieghart. Eheliches Güterrecht und Erbrecht in Dithmarschen bis 1559. Ph.D. Kiel, Augsburg, 1972. Scott, Tom. Society and Economy in Germany, 1300–1600. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003. “. “Liberty and community in medieval Switzerland.” In his Town, Country and Regions in Reformation Germany. Leiden: Brill, 2005, ch. 14. “. “South-west German serfdom in comparative perspective.” In: ibid., ch. 15. “. “The agrarian West.” In: The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern European History 1350–1750, ed. Hamish Scott, 2 vols. Oxford: University Press, 2015, vol. 1: Peoples and Place, ch. 15. “. ed. The Peasantries of Europe: From the Fourteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries. London: Longman, 1998. Scribner, R. W. “Why was there no Reformation in Cologne.” In: Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 49 (1974): 217–41. “. “Communalism: universal category or ideological construct? A debate in the historiography of Germany and Switzerland.” In: Historical Journal 37 (1994): 199–207. “. “Perceptions of the sacred in Germany at the end of the Middle Ages.” In: idem, Religion and Culture in Germany (1400–1800), ed. Lyndal Roper. Leiden: Brill, 2001, 85–103.

Bibliography

263

Sigrist, Hans. “Reichsdörfer am Blauen.” In: Jahrbuch für Solothurnische Geschichte 26 (1953): 182–6. Simon, Eckehard. Die Anfänge des weltlichen deutschen Schauspiels 1370–1530. Untersuchung und Dokumentation. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 2003. Simon, Matthias, ed. Pfarrerbuch der Reichsstädte Dinkelsbühl, Schweinfurt, Weißenburg i.Bay. und Windsheim sowie der Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld, Einzelarbeiten aus der Kirchengeschichte Bayerns 39. Nürnberg: Verein für bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1962. Skinner, Quentin. Visions of Politics, vol. 2: Renaissance Virtues. Cambridge: University Press, 2002. “. Liberty before Liberalism. e-edn, Cambridge: University Press, 2014 (doi:10.1017/ CBO9781139197175). Spicer, Andrew, ed. Parish Churches in the Early Modern World. London: Routledge, 2015. Steinegger, Hans. Schwyzer Sagen aus den Bezirken Gersau und Küssnacht und den Gemeinden Arth, Lauerz, Steinerberg, Sattel, Rothenthurm und Alpthal, Schwyzer Sagen. Schwyz: Riedter, 1983. Stjernquist, Nils, ed. The Swedish Riksdag in an International Perspective. Stockholm: Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation, 1989. Stock, Paul, ed. The Uses of Space in Early Modern History. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2015. Stollberg-Rilinger, Barbara. “Die Symbolik der Reichstage. Überlegungen zu einer Perspektivenumkehr,” In: Der Reichstag 1486–1613: Kommunikation – Wahrnehmung – Öffentlichkeiten, ed. Maximilian Lanzinner and Arno Strohmeyer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006, 77–93. “. Cultures of Decision-Making. Annual Lecture 2015. London: German Historical Institute, 2016. Styger, Carl. “Glasmaler und Glasgemälde im Lande Schwyz (1465–1680).” In: Mitteilungen des historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz 4 (1885): 1–62. Suter, Andreas. “Vormoderne und moderne Demokratie in der Schweiz.” In: Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 31 (2004): 231–54. Te Brake, Wayne. Shaping History: Ordinary People in European Politics 100–1700. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Thalmann, Urs. “Luzern – Schwyz.” In: Mitteilungen des historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz 83 (1991): 41–62. Theile, Heinz. “Emporengemälde und Altarbild der Evangelischen Kirche in Sulzbach (Taunus).” http://evangelisch-in-sulzbach.ekhn.de/startseite/ueber-uns/kirche/ bildergalerie.html. Tittler, Robert. Architecture and Power: The Town Hall and the English Urban Community c. 1500–1640. Oxford: University Press, 1991.

264

Bibliography

Tlusty, B. Ann. Bacchus and Civic Order: The Culture of Drink in Early Modern Germany. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2001. Tomaschett, Michael. “Kunsthandwerker und Künstler des 18. Jahrhunderts.” In: Geschichte des Kantons Schwyz, ed. Historischer Verein, vol. 6. Zurich: Chronos, 2012, 91–114. “. Die Pfarrkirche St. Marcellus in Gersau, Schweizerische Kunstführer. Bern: Gesellschaft für Schweizerische Kunstgeschichte, 2013. Troßbach, Werner; Zimmermann, Clemens. Die Geschichte des Dorfes: Von den Anfängen im Frankenreich zur bundesdeutschen Gegenwart. Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer, 2006. Urban, William  L. Dithmarschen: A Medieval Peasant Republic, Mediaeval Studies 7. Lewiston: E. Mellen Press, 1991. Verein für Dithmarscher Landeskunde e.V., ed. Geschichte Dithmarschens. Heide: Boyens & Co., 2000 (revised and extended edn, 2015). Volkmar, Wilhelm. Geschichte des Landes Dithmarschen bis zum Untergang des Freistaates. Braunschweig: Friedr. Vieweg und Sohn, 1850. Weber, Friedrich. Geschichte der fränkischen Reichsdörfer Gochsheim und Sennfeld. Schweinfurt: Ernst Stoer, 1913. Weiß, Johannes. “Gruppen fränkischer Reichsdörfer.” In: Jahrbuch des historischen Vereins für Mittelfranken 77 (1957): 56–62. Welti, Ludwig. Geschichte der Reichsgrafschaft Hohenems und des Reichshofes Lustenau. Innsbruck: Wagner, 1930. Whaley, Joachim. Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, vol. 1. From Maximilian I to the peace of Westphalia 1493–1648; vol. 2. From the peace of Westphalia to the dissolution of the Reich 1648–1806. Oxford: University Press, 2012. Willoweit, Dietmar. Rechtsgrundlagen der Territorialgewalt: Landesobrigkeit, Herrschaftsrechte und Territorium in der Rechtswissenschaft der Neuzeit, Forschungen zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte 11. Cologne: Böhlau, 1975. Wilson, Peter H. Absolutism in Central Europe. London: Routledge, 2000. “. The Holy Roman Empire 1495–1806, 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2011. Wülfing, Inge-Maren. “Dithmarschen.” In: Lexikon des Mittelalters, 10 vols. München: Artemis, 1980–99, vol. 3, col. 1130–2. Wunder, Heide. Die bäuerliche Gemeinde in Deutschland. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Würgler, Andreas. “Which Switzerland? Contrasting Conceptions of the Early Modern Swiss Confederation in European Minds and Maps.” In: Political Space in Preindustrial Europe, ed. Beat Kümin. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009, 197–213. “. Die Tagsatzung der Eidgenossen: Politik, Kommunikation und Symbolik einer repräsentativen Institution im europäischen Kontext 1470–1798. Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2013.

Bibliography

265

Zeilein, Fritz. “Das freie Reichsdorf Gochsheim – Einführung.” In: Reichsstädte in Franken, ed. R. A. Müller, vol. 1: Verfassung und Verwaltung. Munich: Süddeutscher Verlag, 1987, 379–87. Zimmermann, Fritz. “Das ‘freie’ Dorf Oberehrenbach, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Gemeinderechts.” In: Bamberger Blätter für fränkische Kunst und Geschichte 12 (5/1935): 18–19. Zipp, Erich. “Sulzbacher Bürger beschliessen eine Sitzordnung in der Kirche.” In: Sulzbach und seine evangelische Kirche 1724–1974, ed. Evangelische Kirchengemeinde. Sulzbach: Kirchengemeinde, 1974, 28–9.

Index This list features the most prominent names, places and subjects mentioned in the main text. Further imperial villages and office-holders appear in Appendices 1–2. abbots 17, 58, 95, 104, 132, 140, 146, 173–4, 233; and see Einsiedeln, Limburg absolutism 3, 130, 184, 199, 207 accountability 81, 205 Achalm/ Acholm 18, 30 administration 29, 49, 53, 56, 75, 113, 119, 132–3, 136–7, 141, 143, 158, 160, 182, 188, 192, 196–7, 204 agriculture 8, 12, 29, 33, 37, 75, 83, 96, 161, 164, 173 Allgäu 21, 87 alliances see external relations Alps 4, 8, 18, 20–1, 31, 39, 41, 87, 139, 144, 160, 173, 184, 200, 206 Alsace 5, 19, 21, 201 Althausen 25, 103–4, 149, 168 Amtskeller (Mainz official) 66, 115, 123, 137 Ancien Régime 6, 12, 21, 31, 41–2, 57, 59, 64, 74, 90, 119, 130, 153, 162, 174, 181, 187, 190, 197, 203–4, 207 Andorra 3, 201 Antiquity 11,190, 205 Appenzell 5, 21, 29, 175 arbitration see mediation architecture 73, 120, 124, 126, 169, 171, 173, 175 archives 6, 34, 36, 63–5, 68–9, 74, 83, 88, 94, 102–4, 107, 112–14, 116–17, 136, 160, 164, 189, 195–7, 205; and see sources / bibliography aristocracy 51–3, 55, 78, 81, 197, 203 Aristotle 14, 51 art 41, 71, 99, 121–2, 126–7, 132, 142, 173–5, 181, 190, 202; and see architecture, material culture assemblies 17–18, 33, 37, 53–6, 59, 62–3, 65, 67, 70, 74, 77–81, 83, 102, 111–13, 117, 130–1, 133, 136, 141, 144–7, 151, 157, 164, 175–6, 184, 187, 196, 202–3; and see Landsgemeinde Augsburg 172–3, 175; Confession 151; Peace of 128, 138 Austria 20, 29, 87, 92, 95, 107, 161, 185, 188

autonomy see rural autonomy, self-government avoyers see imperial avoyers Bad Soden see Soden (Baden-)Württemberg 12, 17, 20, 30 Bader, Karl-Siegfried 8 bailiffs see imperial bailiffs Baldus de Ubaldis 105, 166 Baroque 41, 73, 122, 126, 172 Basel 21–2, 92–4 Bassy, Ernst Casimir (Sulzbach senior avoyer)  122, 235 bath(ing houses) 38–9, 76, 104, 116, 128, 195 Bauerbach nr Bretten 104, 168, 172 Bavaria 6, 31, 33, 83, 106, 175, 192, 206 Beckenried 99, 181–2 bells see church bells Benedictines 132 Bengel 21 Berkach 10, 106, 175, 178 Bern(ese) 29, 58, 91, 94–5, 98, 122, 160, 185, 189, 194 Bernhardt, Martin (Gochsheim avoyer) 33, 177, 229 (arch-)bishop(ric)s 17–18, 30, 32, 58, 61, 95, 104, 111, 130, 139, 144, 146–7, 149–53, 159, 180, 199; and see Constance, dioceses, Mainz, Würzburg Blickle, Peter v, ix, 11 borders see boundaries Borromeo, Charles 153; Federico 129 boundaries 3, 7, 11, 13–14, 19, 26, 28–9, 33, 38, 41, 67, 72, 81, 83, 93–4, 100, 106, 120, 133–4, 161, 169, 175–6, 180–2, 193, 196–7, 199–200, 204 Bregenzerwald 29 Brunnen 42, 99, 144, 181 Bubenheim 20 Buchenröder, Georg Caspar (Sennfeld clergyman) 151, 229, 231 Bundschuh, Johann Kaspar 7, 179–80

Index

267

183, 202, 205; and see chroniclers Kirchner, Löschhorn, Ludwig and memory Church (institution) 3, 119, 124, 132, 134–5, 138, 145–6, 154, 179, 204, 207 church bells 53, 80, 84, 122–3, 129, 147, 175, 187 church seating 33, 43, 69–70, 122, 126–7, 139, 146 churches see chapels, religion and Chapter 5, passim Camenzind, family 41, 194, 206 and see churchwardens 52, 56, 60, 77–8, 120, 126, Gersau / Appendix 2, passim; Andreas 132–3, 139 (land mayor) 78, 162, 224; (Johann) Cirksena dynasty 18 Balthasar (clergyman) 63, 132, 144, clergy(men) 39, 63, 68–9, 72, 112, 116–17, 121, 225; Damian (historian / statesman)  124, 128–9, 131–2, 135–7, 139–54, 161–4, 101, 194; Heini 22; Johann Caspar 167, 174–6, 184, 187, 189, 194, 205; (clergyman) 142, 224; Johann Caspar Appendix 2 (Grosslandammann) 72, 174, 226; cloaks / coats (of office) 25, 117, 175, 187 Josef Maria (Anton, coats of arms see crests Kleinlandammann) 72–3, 122, 145, collective freedom see freedom, political 162–3, 173–4, 226; Josef Maria Mathä colonization 22 (clergyman-historian) 194; Maria common good/weal 12, 26, 86, 192 Anna (née Bosshard) 174, 226; Maria common man 11 Rosa (née Küttel) 174 common meal 53, 77, 164, 173, 176 Capuchins 131–2 commons / Genossame 37, 41, 54, 59, 70, 74, cartography see maps 80, 112; and see resources Catholic(ism) 31, 40–1, 58, 97–8, 104, 112, Communal Christianity 15, 153, 207 116, 125, 127–8, 130, 132, 134, 138–40, 143, communalism 11, 27 145–6, 148–9, 151–3, 161–2, 175, 180, communication 12–15, 59, 63, 65, 82, 94, 117, 204–5 126, 146, 157–8, 188, 197, 205; face-toCavajone 199 face exchange 11, 13, 63, 103, 157, central(ization) see territorialization 187–8, 197, 205; oral 13, 82, 117, 157–8, ceremonies 35, 43, 89, 91, 112–14, 122, 149, 197, 205; ritual 10, 13–14, 82, 113, 115, 153, 157, 176–7, 179, 189, 197, 202 117, 149, 157, 176, 197, 205; symbolic 10, chapels 6, 10, 59–60, 68, 70, 75, 97, 99–100, 14, 31, 51, 64, 99, 113, 117, 157–8, 169–70, 120–1, 123–4, 128, 133–5, 137, 144, 146, 173, 175–6, 180–2, 188–91, 196–7, 205–6; 148, 154, 159, 164, 171, 181–2, 200 visual 14–15, 101, 117, 126–7, 133, 157–8, Charles the Bold 97, 183 167, 169, 178–9, 180, 188, 190–1, 203 and charters 6, 23–4, 31–2, 35–6, 40, 53, 63–4, see List of Figures; see also music, 66, 69–70, 77–9, 83, 87, 90–4, 103–4, performance, print, writing 107, 111, 121, 124, 137, 159, 162, 168–70, confessions 6, 14; confessionalization 14, 178, 187, 197; and see constitution 205, 207 Christmann, Hans / Johann (Soden conflicts 3, 13, 15, 17–18, 30, 36, 49, 56, neighbor) 68, 80, 104, 113 63, 70, 74–82, 85, 89–91, 93–4, chronicles (city, family, tower ball, village etc)  100–1, 104–6, 110–18, 150, 154, 164, 189, 6, 34, 37, 57–8, 62, 64, 75–6, 107, 109, 203, 205 116–17, 128, 131, 141, 148, 153, 160–5, 176, bureaucracy 3, 13, 64, 87, 192, 205 burghers 19, 38, 41–2, 44, 49, 54–5, 58, 62–3, 66–7, 70–1, 73–4, 76, 78–9, 81, 87, 89, 91–2, 94, 96, 102, 119, 141–2, 167, 172, 174, 176, 179, 192, 194, 196; and see neighbors Burgholzhausen see Holzhausen Büsching, D. Anton Friedrich 22, 184 Büttner, Else (Sennfeld witchtrial victim)  43–4

268 consistories 121, 138–40, 152, 163 Constance 7, 19, 58, 94–5, 130, 138, 141, 144–5, 159, 179 constitution(s) 5, 12, 14, 17–18, 26, 30, 40, 49, 51–7, 59, 64, 66, 69, 80–1, 88, 90, 92–3, 99, 101, 104, 109–10, 115, 117–18, 135, 147, 150–1, 159–60, 163–4, 168–9, 178–80, 183–6, 189, 192–3, 198–9, 202–3, 205, 207 conviviality / sociability 14, 176; and see public houses copying (of documents / titles) 63–4, 69, 79, 89, 99, 102–3, 113, 122, 124, 176 correspondence 34, 75, 94–5, 97, 130, 141, 190, 197 council(lors) 6, 17, 27, 32, 54–6, 58–61, 63–4, 71, 74, 78, 80, 94–7, 110–12, 123, 128–31, 133, 139–40, 142–3, 145, 151, 159, 162, 173–5, 181, 183, 187, 192–4, 202–4 Councils (of the Church) 93, 119, 179 courts see Imperial Aulic Council, Imperial Cameral Court and jurisdiction crafts 8, 10, 33, 41, 43, 115–17, 133, 137; and see art crests 3, 10, 32, 71, 100, 103, 121–2, 167–70, 176, 181, 190–1, 194, 202 crimes 49, 58, 74–5, 115, 133, 148, 161–2; and see executions cultural turn 14, 157 culture 9–10, 14, 43, 157–60, 165, 175, 178, 180, 194, 198, 202–3; political 6, 13, 110, 117; religious 12, 15, Chapter 5 passim; and see material culture, memory custom / tradition 11, 17, 27, 29–30, 34, 36, 56, 62, 76–7, 91, 99–100, 102, 107, 109, 116–17, 129, 136–7, 143, 147, 154, 177, 189, 197, 202–3 customs 67, 115 Cysat, Johann Leopold 44, 134, 181, 184; Renward 181 Dacheröden, Ernst Ludwig Wilhelm von (scholar) 26, 178 Dachstetten (Ober-/Mittel-/Nieder) / Dachstadt 21 Daxweiler 20 decentral(ization) 3, 13, 195

Index decision-making 11, 13, 15, 49, 54, 59, 62–3, 70, 77–8, 125, 130, 139, 141, 146, 154, 166, 188, 192, 194, 197, 203, 205–6 Decke, Maximilian (Soden / Sulzbach clergymn) 141, 148, 235 demarcation see boundaries democracy 51–2, 54–5,74, 78, 81, 146, 185, 197, 207 Denmark 18, 183, 192 Dentzer, Hans (Gochsheim avoyer) 52, 171, 227 diets see imperial diet, Swiss diet dioceses 7, 32, 120, 130, 141, 144–5, 147, 150–4, 180; and see bishops diplomacy see external relations Dithmarschen 4, 18, 39, 63–4, 84, 86, 118, 122, 135, 138–9, 160, 165, 174, 183, 192, 195–6, 198, 200 Dogberry, constable 184 domestic policy see politics Dornhennebach / (Dürren)Hembach 19 Dunbar, Robin 15 Duß, Anna Katharina (Soden convict)  115–17 Dutch Republic 12, 95, 185, 189, 202 early modernity 16, 207; and see Ancien Régime ecclesiastical see Church Echter, Julius (prince-bishop) 32, 149–50 economy 3, 7–9, 12, 15, 29–30, 33–4, 37–8, 41–3, 54, 59, 70, 74, 81, 88, 96, 98, 129, 137, 162, 167, 193, 196, 199, 202–5 Egersheim / Ergersheim 30, 103 Eglofs, free burghers / peasants of 19, 21–3, 30, 62, 84, 102, 160, 168, 192 Einsiedeln 58, 75, 94, 95, 132, 173 elections 17–18, 26, 28, 52–5, 62–3, 75, 77, 83, 95, 109, 140–2, 144, 146, 151, 162, 187, 200, 202, 227 Elsheim 20 emancipation 17–18, 22, 29, 39, 105, 136, 200, 203 emperors 5, 14, 17, 19, 22–4, 26, 32, 34, 37, 39–40, 49, 69, 81, 83–5, 92, 101–2, 105, 111–13, 130, 159, 162–4, 188, 200, 206; Charles IV 35; Charles V 34, 66, 102–3, 143; Charles VI 32, 102–3, 107;

Index Charles VII 102, 187; Ferdinand III  32, 36, 61, 100, 107, 113; Frederick II  22, 102; Frederick III 23, 102; Mathias 102, 107; Maximilian I 23; Maximilian II 32, 102; Rudolf II 99; Sigismund 23, 36, 39–40, 55, 69, 92, 102, 162, 178; Wenceslas 66; and see monarchy encyclopaedias 7, 24, 58, 182, 186, 190, 197 England 13, 97, 158, 166, 185, 189, 200 Enlightenment 58, 109, 130, 146, 167, 182, 184, 188, 203 environment 6, 14, 67, 95, 99, 122, 132, 172, 184, 199, 205 Eppstein, counts of 101–2 Erden / Erlen / Erdwe 21 Ergersheim 30, 103 Erstenberger, Simplicius Benedictus (Sulzbach senior avoyer) 82, 124, 235–6 estates see imperial estates ethics 14; and see morality Europe 3–4, 6, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 42–3, 96, 129, 182, 184, 186, 189–90, 193–4, 200–1, 203, 207 excise see taxation exclusion 15, 77, 81, 197, 203 executions 10, 45, 55, 59–60, 75, 88, 116–17, 175, 181 external relations 5, 7, 11, 14–5, 17, 23, 25, 27, 37, 42, 55–6, 58, 62, 67, 72, 74, 78–9, 81–2, Chapter 4 passim, 120, 123, 131, 133, 136, 138, 146, 153–4, 158, 163, 166, 176, 178, 180, 185, 187, 190, 192, 197, 199–204, 206 fabric (funds) 54, 59, 120–1, 137–8, 154 face-to-face exchange see communication Fäsi, Joann Conrad 184–5 feasts 35, 43, 58, 75, 128–30, 133, 154, 176, 183, 187, 195 federations see Dutch Republic, leagues, Swiss Confederation fences / hedges / walls 34–5, 38, 100, 121, 169, 176, 230; and see boundaries feudal(ism) / manors / Vogtei 5, 8, 11, 21, 29–31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 52, 56, 59–60, 64–6, 70, 76–7, 79, 107, 115, 174, 177, 199, 200–3

269 financial affairs 14, 23, 26, 36, 38, 52–3, 56, 59, 65, 67, 72, 79, 82, 96, 99, 101, 111, 113, 122, 128, 136–7, 143, 147, 153, 173, 188, 203–4; and see resources, taxation fiscal see taxation Flecken (‘spot’ / settlement) 30–1, 39–40, 58, 90, 105, 159, 167, 171, 176, 181–2, 184, 193, 202 flooding see environment Flurschütz, Valentin (Gochsheim clergyman)  149–51, 227 foreign policy see external relations Forest Cantons (of Uri, Schwyz, Ob-/Nid-/ Unterwalden) 11, 18, 21–2, 39–40, 42, 44, 55–6, 58, 74, 78, 85, 88, 90–5, 100, 118, 122, 125, 138, 141, 161, 165, 181–2, 185, 203 Forst 21 France 13, 19, 28, 31, 40, 42, 54, 58, 74, 95–7, 132, 142, 163, 165, 167, 173, 182, 185–6, 189–90, 192, 200, 206 Franconia 17, 19, 21–2, 24, 30, 33, 88 Frankfurt am Main, imperial free city 6, 20, 23, 35–8, 49, 53, 55, 57–8, 61, 64–6, 76, 79–83, 86–7, 100, 102–4, 107–8, 110–18, 123, 125–27, 140, 147–8, 154, 159–60, 166, 168, 170, 180, 183, 187, 189, 192 Franz, Günther 8 fraternities 59, 133–5; Sennenbruderschaft (Gersau herdsmen) 133–5 freedom, collective / political 5–6, 8, 10, 15, 17, 19–20, 23, 26–8, 74, 80–1, 85, 87, 92, 101–2, 109, 113, 117–18, 158, 162, 164–7, 173–4, 179, 183–6, 189–90, 193, 195–7, 202–3, 205–7; individual 5, 8, 109, 199, 202; and see liberty Frei-Weinheim 20 Freienseen 81, 103, 105, 118, 166, 168, 178–80, 201 Frisia 4, 17, 199 Gabler, Johann Paul (Sulzbach senior avoyer)  57, 82, 115 Gams / Gambs / Gamß 27, 183 gates see village gates Geltersheim / Geldersheim 21 gender 42, 45, 52, 115, 136; and see women Gersau 6, 21–2, 28, 30, 39–42, 44, 49, 51, 54–100, 119–22, 125, 128–38, 141–6,

270 Gersau (cont.) 153–4, 159–62, 164–70, 172–6, 180–97, 203–7; burgher families 70 Ginsheim 20 Glarus 122 glass panels 100, 179 Gochsheim 6–7, 21, 25, 28, 31–35, 49–50, 52–3, 55–6, 60–1, 65, 67, 77, 84, 86, 88, 99, 101, 103–4, 106, 120–1, 124–6, 136–40, 149–54, 159–60, 163–4, 168–71, 173, 175–80, 183, 187–9, 192, 195, 197–8, 201 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von 186 government see politics, self-government Grettstadt 21 Grisons 18, 29, 118, 154 Groß-Winternheim 20 guilds 12, 41, 133; and see fraternities Gyger, Hans Conrad 31, 181 Habsburg dynasty / lands 18, 22–3, 25, 27, 29, 39, 83, 161, 183, 186, 200 Hagenau, city / bailiwick 5, 21, 23, 179 Hanseatic League 86–7 Harmersbach (Ober-/Unter-), imperial valley 17, 21, 27–8, 52, 105, 125, 168 Hartlaub, Hermann (Gochsheim junior bailiff) 52, 137, 171 Hartwig, Karl (Soden avoyer) 76–7, 82, 116 Hauck, Anna (Sennfeld witchtrial victim) 43–4 Heide 18, 196 Heidingsfeld 19 Heim(e)rich, Veit (Gochsheim avoyer) 176, 229 Henneberg, counts of (Gochsheim / Soden bailiffs) 32, 52, 77, 88, 101, 121, 125, 173 heresy 135, 153 Hernsheim / Hemmersheim 21 Hesse 6, 18, 20, 22, 29, 31–2, 35, 54, 103, 105, 114–15, 128, 153, 171–2, 196 Heunisch, Johann Heinrich (Gochsheim advocate) 150, 152–3 Heymbrich, Peter (Gochsheim avoyer) 77, 227 Hilgersdorf / Hilpersdorf 21 historiography 7–15, 49, 153, 161, 163, 198, 205 Hoffmann, Margaretha (Sennfeld witchtrial victim) 43–4

Index Holstein 18, 84 Holzhausen / Burgholzhausen 20, 28, 30, 115, 120, 126, 171–2 Holy Roman Empire 4–5, 7, 12–13, 16–17, 20–3, 28, 45, 49, 51, 58, 61, 69, 80, 83, 92, 101–2, 114, 118, 154, 157, 163, 167, 169, 176, 188, 197, 199–201, 205; and see emperor hospitality 98–9 human rights 5, 52, 165, 197, 202 Humanist 13 Hümmlingen 199 identity 15, 29, 121, 125, 139, 154, 158–60, 167, 175, 197, 202, 206 Iffigheim / Uffencheim / Uffenkeim 21 images see communication, visual immediate status [reichsfrei, reichsunmittelbar] 5, 10, 14, 18, 21–3, 26–32, 36, 42, 45, 49, 51, 54–9, 65, 81–6, 93, 101–5, 107–10, 114, 118–21, 124, 138, 150, 163–4, 170–1, 176, 178–80, 183–4, 186, 188, 197, 199, 201–3, 205; Appendix 1 imperial abbeys 5; and see Einsiedeln Imperial Aulic Council 14, 25, 30, 57–8, 60, 79, 100, 106–9, 115, 166, 168, 178, 205 imperial avoyers (junior / senior) 25, 33, 38, 44, 49, 52–4, 56–7, 60–1, 66, 69, 76–8, 81, 87, 91, 95, 112–13, 115–17, 122, 124, 126, 137–40, 142, 149, 151–2, 159, 163–4, 167, 169, 171, 175–7, 187, 189, 195, 202, 206; see also Appendix 2 imperial bailiffs 5, 7, 15, 25–7, 30, 32, 34, 38, 43, 49, 51–7, 61, 65–6, 70, 76–7, 81–4, 86–8, 99, 101, 104, 107–8, 110–16, 118, 121–2, 125, 137–40, 148–9, 152, 154, 164, 168–9, 171, 173, 175, 180, 188–9, 197, 203–5; and see Frankfurt, Mainz, protectors, Schweinfurt, Würzburg Imperial Cameral Court 13–14, 32, 66, 80, 85, 101, 104–6, 110, 149–50, 152–3, 160, 166, 175, 178 imperial (free) cities 5, 9, 17, 19, 21, 26, 31, 102, 123–4, 153, 158, 171, 180, 187, 189, 192, 205; and see Augsburg, Frankfurt, Hagenau, Nuremberg, Schweinfurt imperial diet [Reichstag] 5, 14, 17, 19, 55, 64, 66, 82, 84, 103, 106, 109, 153, 157, 164, 178, 183, 201, 203

Index imperial eagle 103, 123, 167–70, 177, 179, 191 imperial estates 14, 17, 20, 23, 25–6, 32, 55, 61, 69, 106, 109, 170, 179, 191, 203–4 imperial knights 5, 9, 17, 23, 25, 179, 183 imperial villages (collectively) 4–6, 10–11, 15, 18–21, 23, 25, 27–8, 42, 49, 50–1, 56–8, 65, 74, 82–4, 86–7, 99, 101, 104, 106, 109–10, 117–19, 125, 135–6, 138–9, 148, 153–4, 158–9, 165, 167, 175, 178–80, 182, 187, 190, 195, 197, 199, 201–5, 207; see also Appendix 1 and sub individual village names incorporations / impropriations 120, 125, 136, 140, 146, 204 individual(ism) 5, 8, 14–15, 28, 72–3, 76–7, 83, 99, 102, 109, 123, 136, 159, 166–7, 202 indulgences 131, 133, 144 industrialization, industry 3, 8, 38, 41, 72–3, 130–1, 172, 182, 186, 205 Ingelheim(er Grund) 20, 27–8, 84, 121, 136, 160, 169 inns see public houses inscriptions 33, 71, 121, 126, 171, 173, 177, 180, 182, 228, 230 intercession 131, 162 intermediate status [reichsmittelbar] 6, 21–2, 25, 101, 182, 199 internal affairs see politics and Chapter 3 passim introspection 87, 118, 158, 184, 187, 190, 198, 203 Isny 19 Italy 12, 86, 158, 200, 206 Jäger, Konrad (painter) 127 Jenichen, Gottlieb August (scholar) 5, 24, 178 Jews 34, 37–8, 43, 67, 112 jurisdiction 5, 8, 10–11, 13–14, 17, 24, 26–7, 29, 33, 35, 39, 51, 53, 55–7, 75–6, 81–2, 84–5, 91–2, 101, 104, 106, 110, 120, 138, 144, 150–2, 162, 166, 172, 178, 183, 197, 200, 202, 204–5; and see executions jurors 25, 27–9, 52–3, 54, 56, 59–61, 68–9, 76, 87, 106, 111–13, 116–17, 149, 151, 159, 168, 171, 175, 177, 187, 189, 203 Kaiserrecht, das kleine (law book of c. 1350)  24

271 Kern, Lorenz (Soden avoyer) 60, 235 Kinderbeuren / Kinheimerburen 21 kings see monarchy Kingsthorpe 200 Kinheim / Kindel 21 Kirchner, Johann Matthäus (Gochsheim chronicler) 53, 163–4, 176–7 Klein, Hieronymus (Sulzbach clergyman) 112, 140, 234 Kochendorf 85, 105, 118, 169, 178 Kröv(er Reich) 20–1, 23, 109 Külsheim 21 Küttel family 41, see also Appendix 2; Beat (abbot) 132, 173; Küttelhandel conflict 70, 78–9, 85, 93, 98, 162 labor (services) 8, 29, 34, 62, 88, 122, 137, 172, 185, 192 land mayor [Landammann] 55–6, 58–60, 71–2, 76, 78, 88, 95–7, 129–32, 141, 143, 145, 159, 174, 184, 192, 206; see also Appendix 2 landscapes 3–4, 8, 10, 17, 21–2, 30–1, 109, 118, 132, 173, 182, 184, 201, 205, 207 Landsgemeinde 54, 146, 176, 192, 194, 203; and see assemblies leagues / federations 14, 18, 63, 83, 86–8, 118, 122, 135, 195, 198, 201 legislation 3, 11, 14, 18, 22, 26, 29, 37, 42, 54–6, 82, 91, 99, 120–1, 139, 145–6, 159–60, 164, 202, 204 Leutkircher Heide, free people on 21–3, 25, 28, 87 liberties, liberty 8, 17, 27, 32, 90, 109, 162, 165–6, 190–1, 202; liberty cap 190–1; and see freedom Limburg, Abbey 36–7, 65, 120, 125, 140, 146 Lindelbach / Lyndelbach 21 literacy 13, 37, 167, 180, 197 literary works, literature 183–4, 186, 194, 196–7 litigation see jurisdiction local(ity), local community / government  3–6, 10, 12–13, 15, 17, 26–7, 29–30, 32–4, 36–9, 41, 43–5, Chapter 3 passim, 85, 89, 98, 106, 110, 112, 115, 117–23, 125, 128–30, 132, 135–9, 141–4, 148–9, 152–4, 157, 160–4, 167–70, 173, 176, 178, 180, 188, 193–202, 204–7

272 Löschhorn, Johann Adam (Sulzbach chronicler) 37, 39, 53, 57–8, 60, 62, 76–7, 83, 104, 107–8, 115–17, 128, 141, 148, 164–5, 188 Lucerne, city / canton 6, 18, 21, 39, 41–2, 58–9, 72, 74–5, 78, 84–5, 88–99, 129–30, 132, 142–3, 160, 174, 181–2, 186, 189, 193 Ludwig, Johann (Gochsheim chronicler)  34, 136, 139–40, 152–3, 163–4, 180, 187, 189, 192 Luhmann, Niklas 157 Luther(anism) 32, 34, 36, 84, 104, 116, 124–6, 128, 138–40, 146, 148–53, 171–2, 183, 204–5 Lützelfeld / Lutzelenvelt 21 Machiavelli, Niccolò 11–12, 158 magic 37, 134–5, 153; and see Büttner, Hauck, Hoffmann, Schilling Mainz, elector(ate) 20, 22, 26–7, 29, 36, 38, 51, 53, 55, 57–8, 61, 68, 76–7, 79–81, 86, 100, 103, 107–8, 110–18, 123, 137–8, 140–1, 146–8, 154, 168, 180, 183, 188–9,192 Maissen, Thomas 40, 190 manors see feudal maps 7, 20, 31–3, 37, 40, 117, 179–82, 197, 203 markets 8, 31, 33, 35, 41, 57, 115, 149, 184 material culture 6, 15, 56, 169, 175–7, 194, 196 mayors [Bauern- / Burgermeister] 52–3, 56, 60–2, 65, 68–9, 76–7, 111–12, 116, 137, 142, 147, 159–60, 169, 171, 188; and see imperial avoyer, land mayor Meder, Hans (Gochsheim clergyman)  227–8 media 13, 65, 128, 157–8, 167, 197, 202, 205; and see communication mediation 14, 38, 55–6, 74, 78, 86, 89–91, 94, 105, 145, 187, 190 Mediatisierung 28, 31 Meldorf 18, 122 memory 58–9, 65, 84, 92–3, 97, 99, 112, 121, 129, 150, 161, 164–5, 171, 173, 176, 185, 187, 191, 193, 195–7, 206, 228, 230; and see chronicles mercenary service 96–7, 175 micro-politics / -polities 3, 6, 14, 27, 45, 59, 67, 94, 96, 110, 132, 138, 141, 146, 166, 182, 184, 190, 203, 205, 207

Index micro state churches 138, 153, 204–6 microhistory 4, 12–13, 194 Middle Ages 4–6, 8, 11–12, 15, 17, 19–23, 28, 31–2, 38, 45, 55, 63, 86, 96, 100, 121, 123–4, 129, 137–8, 149, 159–60, 162, 166, 190, 195, 197, 199–201 military affairs 3, 11, 14, 17–18, 22, 26, 28, 32, 34–5, 39–40, 54–6, 59, 65, 76, 85–91, 96–8, 100–1, 103–4, 110, 122–3, 125, 131, 140, 148, 150, 152, 161–2, 164, 170, 173, 176, 183–5, 188–9, 200, 203–4, 206; and see Thirty Years‘ War Mittelschefflenz 21 modernity 6, 13, 15, 193, 206 monarchy 3, 11–13, 18, 22–3, 51, 55, 58, 60, 66, 83, 92–3, 96, 101–3, 106, 109, 118, 157, 162, 167, 173–4, 176, 178, 183, 188, 190, 192, 197, 200–1, 203, 206; and see emperors, princes morality 11, 68, 74, 96, 115, 130–1, 139, 144, 147, 163, 172–3, 192 mortgaging [verpfänden] 19, 23, 27, 34–7, 51, 53, 64, 79, 82, 103, 111, 125, 166, 201 Moser, Friedrich Carl von (jurist) 36, 57, 86, 107–11, 115, 148, 150, 166, 198; Johann Jacob (jurist) 25, 178 Müller, Balthasar (Gersau slanderer) 146; Johann Melchior (Gersau clergyman)  141; Johannes von (historian) 185; Josef Anton (Gersau parson) 145–6; Marzell (carver) 122; Veronica (Gersau murder convict) 44–5 music(ians) 67, 117, 126–7, 142, 147, 176–8, 187 Napoleon(ic) 18, 41, 192 Nassau, prince / principality of 37, 180, 191–2 Nedham, Marchamont 166 neighbors 11, 15, 33, 37, 49, 50–3, 57, 60–1, 65–6, 67–8, 75–7, 79–82, 85, 90, 95, 102–5, 111–17, 119, 128, 130, 135, 137, 147, 152, 154, 158–9, 163, 166, 173, 176, 187–8, 190, 192–3, 197, 202–3; and see burghers Nesselbach (Ober-/Unter) in the Rangau 21 networks 13, 84, 87, 118–19, 158, 197–8, 203 Neuenhain 37, 66, 68, 112, 115, 123, 137 Nidwalden 22, 78, 85, 93, 98–9, 173, 181

Index Nieder-Ingelheim see Ingelheimer Grund Nigg, Anna Maria (benefactress) 129; (Marzell) Alois / Aloÿs (Gersau clergyman) 63, 119, 132, 142–4, 174, 225 noble(s) 3, 17, 22, 27, 30, 35–7, 39, 58, 71, 121, 139, 146, 149, 163, 183, 206, 232; and see imperial bailiffs, princes Nordrach 105, 118, 178 Nuremberg 17, 19, 23, 109 Nussbaum, Martha C. 14 oaths (of office / allegiance) 43, 59, 61, 67, 70, 75, 83, 89, 91, 105, 111–13, 153, 167, 176, 189, 197, 202 Ober-Ingelheim see Ingelheimer Grund Oberehrenbach 30 Oberrheinfeld / Oberrenfeld 21 Oberschefflenz 21 Obersteg, Martin (painter) 173–4 Obwalden 98, 161 Ockstadt in the Wetterau 28, 105 office(-holders) 14, 29, 37, 52, 54, 56, 59–62, 67, 71, 73, 77–8, 101, 113, 128, 132–3, 136–7, 142–3, 146, 161, 174–5, 187–8, 195, 205–6; and see Amtskeller, churchwardens, council(lors), jurors, land mayors, mayors, scribes, standard-bearers, treasurers and cf. Appendix 2 oligarchies 18, 205 oral(ity) see communication Palatinate 21, 79, 140 parish(ioners) 4, 6, 12, 15, 17–18, 29, 34–5, 39–40, 53–4, 58–9, 63–4, 67–8, 72–3, 75, 81, 91, 93, 99, 102, Chapter 5 passim, 157, 159–68, 170–1, 174, 176, 178, 181–2, 187, 192, 194–5, 197, 200–1, 203–5 parsonages 34, 69, 99, 112, 119, 145, 151–2 pastors see clergy patron(age), patron saints 4, 119, 130, 135, 138–41, 153–4, 168, 170, 204 peace 14, 54, 77, 79, 86, 89, 94, 104, 106, 113, 143, 150–1, 153–4, 162, 192–3, 205; and see sub Augsburg, Westphalia peasants 3–4, 7–9, 11, 13, 17–21, 27–30, 34, 37, 45, 57, 63, 67, 69, 74, 84, 86–9, 97, 102,

273 104–7, 109, 116–18, 122, 128, 148, 153, 163–5, 168, 173, 179, 183, 195–201, 204, 207 perceptions 15, 18, 58, 110, Chapter 6 passim performance 10, 64, 143, 196 periphery 3, 13, 17, 20, 45, 86, 205 Petermann, Agnes (widow exiled from Sulzbach) 43–4, 135; Georg (Sulzbach mayor) 188; Johann (Sulzbach neighbor) 79–80, 104, 111 piety 43, 95, 119, 123, 129, 131, 135, 153 Plantanz 164, 176, 178, 195 Policey 26 political freedom see freedom political thought 12, 158, 197, 202, 207; and see communalism, republicanism politics 3–20, 22–3, 25–31, 33, 39–43, 49, 53, 59, 62, 64–5, 67–70, 74, 77–8, 81–3, 86, 92, 96, 99, 105, 109–10, 115–20, 136, 138, 141, 144, 149, 154, 157–8, 161–2, 164, 166–71,171–5, 178–84, 188–90, 192–207; and see culture, popular politics, state formation popular politics 6, 10, 82, 204 population 9, 42, 49, 54, 72, 130, 162, 201–2, 205 poverty 23, 37, 59, 61, 74, 77, 129, 137 prayers 131, 133, 145, 161–2 preaching 114, 121, 125, 128, 131, 139, 141–3, 148, 165, 187 prelates see abbots, bishops priests see clergy princes 3–5, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23, 27, 30–1, 36, 45, 51, 55, 58, 61, 66, 82–4, 86–7, 95, 99, 101, 104, 107, 112, 128, 130, 132, 136, 139, 149–50, 152–4, 157, 159, 173–5, 179, 183, 189, 191, 202, 205; and see monarchy, territorial(ization) print 7, 13, 63–5, 85, 99, 117, 157–8, 160, 183, 193, 198, 205; and see communication, writing Pritius, Georg (Frankfurt clergyman) 147 privileges 5, 8–9, 22–3, 27, 29–31, 33, 39–40, 51, 55–6, 59, 62–3, 65, 69, 79–85, 92–3, 95, 100, 102–3, 106–7, 109, 111, 117–18, 125, 139–40, 145, 147, 154, 164–5, 167, 173, 176, 178, 182, 188, 191–2, 198, 200–1, 236

274 protectors 5, 32, 34–5, 55–6, 66, 79–81, Chapter 4 passim, 123, 140, 154, 183, 189, 192, 203–4; and see imperial bailiffs psychology 15 public houses 33, 35, 37, 66, 75–6, 99, 106, 114, 119, 157, 171–2, 177–8, 186, 193 public sphere 13, 157 Pussenhaim / Püssensheim 21 Rangau 21, 103 Rathaus see town / village hall rebels see resistance, revolutions Rebenstöcker, Peter (Sulzbach mayor) 66, 68, 114 Reformation 26, 31–2, 119, 121, 124–5, 127–9, 134, 137–40, 143, 149, 153–4, 163, 204 regulation see legislation Reichsbürger 206 Reichsdeputationshauptschluss (1803) 28, 33, 172, 178, 202 Reichsdörfer see imperial villages Reichsgut (royal demesnes) 22–3, 34, 200 Reichshöfe see imperial villages Reichshofrat see Imperial Aulic Council Reichskammergericht see Imperial Cameral Court reichsmittelbar see intermediate status Reichspublizistik 9, 202 Reichsquaternionen 179, 203 Reichsschultheiß see imperial avoyers Reichsstandschaft 5 Reichstäler see imperial villages reichsunmittelbar see immediate status Reichsvogt see imperial bailiffs Reichsweiler see imperial villages Reiff, Johann Heinrich (Soden carpenter and writer) 65, 68–9, 76, 83, 103, 107, 128, 135, 164 Reitzel / Reihel / Reil 21 religion 6–7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 25, 32, 34, 36, 43, 61, 81, 84, 104, Chapter 5 passim, 167, 171, 176, 183, 199–202, 204; and see Churches, parishes representations 10, 15, 34, 105, Chapter 6 passim, 202, 205 representative institutions / representatives  3, 13, 17, 18–19, 23, 29, 39, 42–3, 53, 55–6, 58, 62, 65, 78, 82, 84, 86, 95, 105, 107, 111,

Index 113–14, 116, 118, 137, 141–2, 144, 149, 178, 201, 204–5 republics 11–13, 20, 29, 31, 40, 49, 51, 54, 56, 58–9, 72, 85, 94–6, 130, 132, 139, 142, 162–3, 165, 173, 175, 178, 182, 184, 186, 190–1, 193–5, 203–4, 206–7 and see Dutch republic, Swiss Confederation, Venice; republican(ism) 11, 17–18, 59, 86, 94, 118, 141, 158, 166, 190–1, 197, 202, 206 residents [Beisassen, Häusler] 34, 38, 44, 52, 67, 70, 96, 112, 176, 192, 203 resistance 11, 30–1, 41, 81, 87–9, 110–11, 114, 148, 151–2, 164, 193, 197, 201 resources 3, 10, 14,18, 22–3, 26–8, 37, 41–2, 49, 65, 67, 74–5, 80–1, 87, 96, 101, 105, 118, 121, 123, 136, 153–4, 172, 202–4 restoration of buildings 123, 173; of rights / status 32, 40, 58, 73, 77, 80, 103, 176, 180, 188, 192–4, 207 revolutions 11–3, 18, 28, 40, 54, 56, 74, 132, 163, 165, 167, 173, 182, 190, 192, 206 Rheingau 21, 28 Rhine-Main region 19, 28, 126, 189, 201 Rigert, Johann Caspar (Gersau clergyman) 193; Johann Christian (Gersau convict) 74–5, 162; Walther (land mayor) 78, 129, 224 Ringingen 28, 30 rituals see communication Riva San Vitale, republic of 206 Rivalta di Reggio 200 Roman / Rome 3, 105, 120–1, 131, 158, 166, 190, 202, 206 Romanticism 184, 186, 193 Römermonate 65–6, 203; and see taxation Rottershausen / Ratershausen 21 rural autonomy 6, 15, 17, 20–1, 39, 45, 118, 199, 201 rural society see peasants sacraments 119, 132, 134, 136, 143–4, 151, 176 saints 40, 83, 99–100, 104, 120–2, 124, 126, 127, 129–31, 133–5, 143, 148–9, 160, 163, 168, 170–1, 200 Saanen 29 salt (monopoly, works/industry) 38, 67, 110, 112, 123, 180, 195

Index Sartorius, Johann (Sulzbach senior avoyer)  44, 137, 235 Sauer-Schwabenheim 20 Savoy 95, 97, 200 scale 4, 12, 14, 32, 75, 179–81, 184, 186 Schauenburg, French general 96 Schiller, Friedrich von 186 Schilling, Margaretha (Sennfeld witchtrial victim) 43–4 Schlierbach 22 Schlögl, Rudolf 13 Schöchli, Gersau burgher family 70; Johann Marzell (Gersau clergyman) 131–2, 135, 143, 162, 225; Josef Franz (land mayor) 97, 225; Marzell (land mayor) 60 Schott, Johannes (Sulzbach clergyman) 123–4, 128, 137, 146–8, 235 Schreck, Sebald (Gochsheim avoyer) 227–8 Schrickel (Gochsheim clergymen), Athanasius (1644) 139–40, 229; Johann Athanasius t.E. 126, 150, 229; Johann Athanasius t.Y. 150, 229 Schultheiß see imperial avoyer Schwebheim 34, 177 Schweinfurt, imperial city / bailiwick 6–7, 21, 31–3, 61, 63, 66, 77, 84, 86, 88, 99, 101, 106, 118, 125, 137, 139, 151, 169, 176–7, 179–80 Schwyz, Forest Canton 21, 31, 39–42, 54, 59, 75, 78, 85, 90–9, 118, 122, 131, 133, 142, 144–5, 162, 181–2, 184, 186, 190, 193–4, 204 Scott, Tom 8 scribes, secretaries 52, 59–60, 63, 65, 68, 72, 76, 89, 92, 102–3, 111, 117, 141, 152, 161–3, 165, 171, 181 script see writing seals 24, 29, 32, 40, 80–1, 85, 103, 112–13, 147, 167–70, 187, 200, 202, 205 secretaries see scribes Segnitz, Simon Friedrich (scholar) 9, 99, 101, 178 Seinsheim / Sawensheim 21 self-fashioning 15, 58, 168 self-government 3–4, 6, 11–12, 14, 16–17, 20, 29, 40, 45, 49, 82–3, 86, 121, 162, 165, 171, 193, 196–7, 200, 202, 206–7

275 Sennfeld, Sentfeld 6–7, 21, 25, 28, 31–4, 43, 49–50, 53, 55–6, 65–7, 81, 84, 86, 88, 99, 101, 103–4, 106, 120, 122, 124–5, 135, 138, 140, 150–4, 159, 168, 171, 176–80, 183, 195, 201 separations 120, 146–7, 206 serfdom 8, 29, 79–80, 104, 109, 199, 202 Siebenbürger, Johann Veit (Sennfeld avoyer)  230–1 social brain hypothesis 15 society 13, 34, 37, 39, 43, 63, 69, 82, 119, 205 Soden / Bad Soden am Taunus 6, 20, 28, 30, 35–9, 43, 49–51, 53, 55–60, 64–70, 75–83, 86, 100, 102–3, 107–17, 120–1, 123–8, 135–41, 146–50, 154, 159–60, 164, 166, 169, 171, 178, 180, 183, 187–92, 195–8, 201, 204 Solothurn 96, 122 Sommerhausen / (Bartholomäi-)Ahusen 21 sources (primary) 5–8, 12, 14, 28, 30–2, 37, 39, 42–5, 49, 53, 62–5, 72–3, 75–6, 83, 85, 88, 91, 97, 103, 107, 110, 114–5, 117, 121, 128–9, 131, 133, 135–7, 141, 144, 148, 157, 159, 160–1, 163–4, 175–6, 180, 186, 196–7, 200 sovereign(ty) 11, 40, 54, 56, 58–9, 82, 173, 182, 189–90, 197, 203 spa see bathing houses space, spatial 12, 14, 17, 19, 49, 69, 117, 157, 167–8, 188, 200, 202 Spangenberg, Johann (Gochsheim clergyman) 125, 227 spiritual see religion Spitznagel, Pankraz (Gochsheim clergyman)  149, 227 standard-bearers 59–60, 97–8 state formation 3, 8, 65, 205 states 3, 6–7, 11, 13, 26, 29, 58–9, 66, 72, 78, 82, 85, 91, 119, 138, 141, 153, 158, 166, 184–5, 189, 192–3, 195, 197, 202, 204–6; and see princes, territorialization Straub, Veit Gottfried (Mainz official) 37, 115–17, 141 Sulzbach am Taunus 6, 20, 28, 30, 35–9, 43–4, 49–50, 53, 55–57, 59–62, 64–70, 76, 79, 81–4, 86–7, 100,102–4, 107–28, 135–41, 144, 147–8, 150, 154, 159–60, 164–72, 175–6, 180, 183, 187–9, 191–2, 194–8, 201, 204

276 Swabia 18, 24–5, 27, 30, 40, 88, 179; and see Upper Swabia Sweden 32, 35, 103, 162, 201 Swin, Markus (Dithmarschen regent) 174 Swiss Confederation 4–5, 6, 12, 18, 31, 39–40, 55, 58–9, 78–9, 83, 87–8, 90–2, 94–8, 118, 125–6, 150, 158, 161–2, 180–6, 189–90, 200, 203; see also Beckenried, Bern, Brunnen, Einsiedeln, Forest Cantons, Glarus, Lucerne, Nidwalden, Obwalden, Schwyz, Solothurn, Unterwalden, Uri, Vitznau, Weggis, Zug, Zurich Swiss diet (Tagsatzung) 41, 73, 78, 85–6, 90–1, 98–9, 141, 178, 190, 193, 203 symbols see communication Tagsatzung see Swiss diet Tanner, Jost Rudolf (Gersau clergyman) 58, 75, 131, 141, 162, 225 taverns see public houses taxation 3, 7, 17, 23, 26, 29, 32, 42, 55–6, 64–7, 70, 72, 76, 82, 87, 90, 101, 104, 106–7, 112, 183, 192, 200–1, 203–4 Tell, William 100, 161–2, 186 terre separate (Ticino) 200 territorial(ization) / centralization 3–4, 5–7, 13–15, 17–20, 22–3, 26–8, 31–4, 36, 49, 56, 59, 61, 64–5, 79, 82–3, 86, 90, 99, 105, 107, 112, 115, 120, 150, 158, 167, 169, 175, 180–2, 189–90, 197, 199–204 Thaut, Johann Elias (Gochsheim clergyman) 151–3, 189, 229 Thirty Years’ War 32, 35, 103, 110, 123, 138, 140, 150, 164, 176 Tottenheim / Dottenheim / Totemheim 21 tower ball (chronicles / deposits) 75, 131, 161–2, 165 towns 4, 11, 18, 19, 28, 31, 66, 87, 94, 121, 139, 142, 163, 187, 200; town halls 3, 114, 157, 169; and see imperial cities trade 12, 33, 96, 98 tradition see custom treasurers 42, 59–60, 67, 71, 78, 128, 146 Triebert, Johann Adolf (Sulzbach senior avoyer) 115–17, 235 Turck, Hans (Gochsheim clergyman) 121, 227 tyranny 6, 161, 184, 198

Index Unterschefflenz 21 Untertanenprozesse 30, 105 Unterwalden, Forest Canton 21, 39, 42, 90–1, 93–4, 142, 184 Upper Germany 11, 19, 21, 86, 179, 201 Upper Swabia 9, 19, 21, 27 Upstalsboom 17 Urfersheim / Urversheim / Uffenheim 21 Uri, Forest Canton 21 39, 42, 78, 85, 88, 90–1, 93–4, 98, 100, 182, 184 Valais 18 values 10, 14, 96, 158, 205–6 Venice, republic of 51, 158 village gates 34–5, 38, 66, 103, 151, 176–7, 187 village halls 6, 34–5, 41, 52–3, 67, 73, 116, 132, 135, 142, 147, 169, 171–4, 177, 181, 187, 194 villages see imperial villages, locality, peasants violence 18, 74, 81, 105, 110, 115, 152, 154, 204 virtue, civic 11–12, 14, 59, 190, 206 visitations 121, 138, 144 visual see communication Vitznau 42, 72, 79, 90–2 Vogtei see feudal Von Erthal, family (Freiherren, Gochsheim tithe lords) 33–4, 136, 149, 151, 164, 189 Wackernheim 20 walls see fences wardens see churchwardens, officeholders wars see military affairs, Thirty Years’ War wealth 43, 72–4, 97, 105, 131, 167 Wegelin, Johann Reinhard 25, 27 Weggis 42, 72, 75, 84–5, 87, 91–4, 178, 182 Weidenheim / Wigenheim / Weigenheim 21 Weiß, Jörg (Sennfeld rebel) 88 Westheim 21 Westphalia, Peace / Treaty of 26, 32, 40, 58, 104, 138, 151, 177, 189, 204 Williams, Maria 74, 131, 186 Winterhausen / (Nikolai-)Ahusen 21 Wir(r)watz, Peter (Soden clergyman) 147–8, 235 witchcraft 43–4, 135 Wolferborn 18 women 34, 38, 42–4, 54, 69–70, 73–4, 113, 116, 131, 135, 144, 148, 174, 178; and see

Index sub Camenzind, Duß, Petermann, Müller writing 13, 44, 54, 64–5, 71, 94, 103, 121, 126, 141, 158–60, 164–5, 167–8, 171, 173, 177, 180, 182–3, 186, 188, 194, 197, 205–6 Wunder, Heide 8 Württemberg see Baden-Württemberg Würzburg, Prince-Bishopric 19, 21, 32–4, 43, 84, 86, 99, 101, 103–7, 118, 138–40, 149–54, 164, 175, 180, 183, 189

277 Zedler, Johann Heinrich 24, 182 Zimmerer, Balthasar (Gochsheim clergyman) 149–50, 227 Zimmermann, Johann Galli (Gersau convict) 58, 75, 132 Zug, city / canton 42, 44, 75, 94–5, 97–8, 122, 129, 141–3, 187 Zurich 58, 85, 94–7, 122, 189 Zwingli(ans) 96–7, 146